Getting the milk for free
Sex comes cheap these days. Literally.
I don’t know about you, but I feel sad when I read things like this. And it’s not a women vs. men thing for me; I think both sexes are losing a lot in terms of love, joy, and commitment in these transactions:
Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists.
More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men.
…Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all — no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex.
Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same — one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it). With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.
Sex without the social preliminaries, calculations, anticipation? From romance, to game, to shooting dead fish in a barrel — you’ve come a long way baby.
Um the whole article sounds hysterical:
A. Quite a few sex positive feminists and people in general are trying to get rid of the “market” model for both good and bad reasons. I don’t think they will totally succeed , but since we’ve delinked sex with reproduction for the most part, I rather can’t bring myself to cry over it.
B. Cheap and easy divorce makes marriage risky. Reform divorce laws to make it harder to destroy someone financially, and more people, esp men, might take a shot.
C. Women want sex. While as a group I’m willing to believe they want it less than men, there are plenty of exceptions and more to the point , men’s horniness is played up (to the extent that some women literally don’t believe men would ever want to or even should be allowed to say “no” to sex) and women’s libido is downplayed in various ways. Women can’t really demand a “higher price” for sex from the men they don’t want (somewhere around half of all young men get little if any , sex at any given time) and the men they do want usually have multiple women competing for their affections, hence the Friends With Benefits and other “soft harem” situations that seem to crop up a lot these days.
If society wants more “commitment” it could start by incentivizing it. Thirty years of demonizing male sexuality and shaming individual men to try to get them to “man up” (i.e. stick your head into the noose) isn’t working.
Boohoo.
By the way:
Regerus seems like a self-hating man. Quite a few shy “sweet” (aka ‘boring’) men when they are younger want relationships in part because they pedestalize women. I should know, I was one. Of course this turns most women off, so these “nice guys” (not the feminist style “Nice Guys” with the TM symbol) are often lonely. Later in life when they have wised up, perhaps grown a bit bitter, know more of what they want (and hence seem more confident) they are much more picky about relationships. Of course if they’ve experienced any misbehavior by females or learned about the divorce laws many of them are going to be very wary of our joke of “committed relationship”, which, legally, still often means that she gets rights, he gets responsibilities.
I looked in before running off, so this is off the top of my head:
The linked article strikes me as so seriously incomplete that it does not ring true.
Even if, choosing to ignore that the heart has reasons which the reason does not know, one examines sexual encounters as binary transactions, it’s essential to understand both participants. IMHO the male perspective is underrepresented by the NYP.
The NYP’s primary emphasis is on costs to the women. What is inadequate, IMHO, is analysis of the tradeoffs for both genders of the new sexuality.
Later.
gs:
That’s because it’s taken for granted by much of society to this day that:
A. Male sexuality is “dirty”. hence a woman is degraded in some way if she has sex with man simply because they both want it. Indeed, some (thankfully FEW these days) confuse being a lady with being a “good girl” and not wanting sex.
B. All men or the vast majority of men are benefitting sexually from this
C. Since this is a “patriarchy” there couldn’t possibly be any downsides for men. It may be true that for the most desireable men they are not “committing” because they don’t have to, but the rest of the men just don’t want to hear this stuff anymore. We’d rather our opinions be taken into account. Pretty much every “feminist” law reform has taken place with a women only point of view, often aided and abetted by “chivalrous” idiots.
Failure to “buy the cow” (marry) has serious implications for wealth formation and community stability. Single parenting is highly correlated with poverty and bad outcomes for children. Women civilize men. Unattached males in large numbers are a threat to society. If your neighborhood is all married couples, it is a safe neighborhood. Married people give more to the community in terms of volunteering and supporting important values. The major decline of marriage among blacks in recent decades gives a look into the future for all Americans.
The bitter fruit of feminism has come to the harvest. Women and men are different. For most of human history they were raised differently. Now, thanks to feminism, women have discovered what it is to be treated as men.
To make a generalization, as a group, men are more pragmatic than women. It took them three decades, but the feminists have convinced men that they should not value women. Pragmatically men now seek what they want with out regard from whom they get it. This is the result.
Welcome ladies to the present. Perhaps you might wonder how you will rectify your mess before you lose your daughters, grand daughters, and great granddaughters. Aww but to do that you’d have to acknowledge the value of what you threw away…
Never mind…
Damn, Brad.
You make me sound like Gloria Steinem 😉
I think this was intentional on the part of the Left. Since they are misogynist and really don’t like women in power, this was another way to keep them in check. And it has worked, so far, with Democrat women as well. Rather than finding a happy marriage, they have to rely upon Democrat structures and unions for power and stability.
Like with blacks, sometime in the future, once blacks or women have been kept enslaved for awhile, people will realize that all the Leftist policies really were all about enslaving people, black and women. It was not about liberating them. They’ll find this out… like, in a thousand years perhaps.
A thing is worth what somebody will pay you for it. No matter what you think your thing is worth, if everybody else is giving away identical things, your thing isn’t worth much, except possibly to you.
So I figure women are going to have to switch to promoting the value of their positive view of a guy. IOW, does she like you? Does she love you? Anybody will bed you, but this one…likes you, loves you, is bored to tears by you, actively despises you. What, sir, would you do to earn her positive regard?
Well, um, something, I guess. But right now, I have to go buy more condoms. Think about it later, maybe.
“Women are jumping into the sack faster…according to social psychologists.”
Who are these women? All women? Everywhere? Or just some slice of America? Did these folks sample the Islamic community of Detroit? The Mormans of Provo? Or just college-educated hotties in the Northeast/west?
I hate to generalize from a small sample, but these eminent scientists sound like goofs.
I said this many times to my daughters, when they complained about the lack of any kind of commitment from the men they knew.
“Women wanted to be more like men. Well, now you are. Happy?”
It does screw over guys who are looking for a mate, instead of a highly responsive blow-up doll. Women, men and culture are weakened– couldn’t have set it up better if someone tried. *sigh*
Sad thing is, a lot of women that jump in the sack really quick are incredibly lonely– especially if they’re away from home for the first time.
I hate to be the broken record here, but it seems to me that the blurring of traditional male-female roles, easy birth control and on demand abortions, the intensification of the war between the sexes, vastly eased sexual morality, and the breakdown of the traditional family, family life, child rearing, and the values they exemplified and used to teach–with all of the dissatisfaction, conflict, chaos, distortions, and social pathologies these disruptive developments have lead to–were one of the major subversive and disruptive results that Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s “long march through the culture/institutions” was intended to achieve.
Such destruction of the family, this subversion, disruption, and virtual annihilation of this central institution and support of traditional bourgeois societies was intended to make citizens in our bourgeois societies much less rooted, much less happy, and much more angry and dissatisfied; vulnerable, confused, adrift, angrier individuals in our societies now much more willing to listen to and adopt the message of the Left.
An attack on this fundamental social, cultural, and economic building block which, along with the coordinated and parallel attacks against all the other major building blocks of bourgeois societies–the school, the church, education, government, civic organizations, business, and law–all of which were aimed at making our bourgeois societies much more susceptible to subversion, and vulnerable to eventual takeover by the Left.
Obviously, the Gramscian Blitzkrieg on this front against the family has succeeded marvelously well.
Was a fraternity grad adviser back in the day.
The guys who were close to clinically depressed, almost suicidal, were guys whose girlfriends had said they–the woman–no longer really, really liked/loved the guy.
If a guy couldn’t get a particular girl into the sack, well, this was a state u with 15000 other prospects.
Big, big difference.
Too bad women didn’t pay attention.
Wolla Dalbo-
don’t forget the whole shriek-at-any-guy-who-acts-like-a-gentleman thing. Make it so that guys are attacked for holding open a door, they’re going to eventually get the idea that time they don’t treat women as men with boobs they’ll be in trouble.
I think it’s sad. It also has a lot to do with drinking: most girls aren’t all that comfortable jumping into the kip with a guy they hardly know. You have to get half-drunk or high to do it. (Whores are almost all hardcore drug addicts for the same reason.)
I think of this when I see young couples on the subway platform making out: almost always the girl looks self-conscious, while the guy is avidly into it. We like privacy. Boys? all that seems to take a distant back seat to the “imperious urge.”
Girls have been abandoned, too: colleges no longer enforce any modesty or chastity rules; there are no chaperones; it’s easy to get free BC pills at Planned Parenthood; the social pressures are all to put out; boys get pissy and dump them if they don’t within a pretty short time; the popular “culture” lionizes bastardy and the “slut’s” lifestyle (male and female).
I said as much to my dad (84 years old) and said how bad it was for the girls. “It’s bad for the boys, too,” he said. “Bad for their hearts; bad for their character.”
Which is true. Both sexes lose out. I think both sexes feel it, too: most of us want more than just rutting.
Beverly Says:
I think of this when I see young couples on the subway platform making out: almost always the girl looks self-conscious, while the guy is avidly into it. We like privacy. Boys? all that seems to take a distant back seat to the “imperious urge.”
Or the guy is deliberately showing off, which IMO is worse than indulging his sex drive.
We have replaced long term commitment with quick sex. We have replaced happiness with pleasure.
That is the big loss for women and men.
When these young people get to be my age (pushing 60), start feeling old and mortal, and start getting serious medical problems, they will start committing suicide because they will have nothing and no one to comfort them as they stare into the abyss of suffering and old age.
To approach death with the comfort of an intelligent, beautiful, and good person who believes in you so much that they are willing to spend their one life loving you and sharing your triumphs and tragedies
(just as you have done for them) is incredibly hard. But it is also incredibly rewarding. To know that someone you respect and admire thinks enough of you to give their life to you and for you is the most self affirming knowledge possible.
This is on top of what the people in the article are losing now, every day of their lives. They give up the joy and satisfaction of a loving relationship for the pleasure of one night stands.
Just as we have lost the concept in our society that saving and being fiscally responsible will make your life more pleasant and secure (not just in the future, but today), we have lost the concept that building a loving relationship with someone you can cherish and trust will make you happier, now and tomorrow.
Right now they can mask the emptiness of their lives with the adrenalin rush of the “new love.” This is the crack cocaine of relationships. It feels great for the first few “injections” but the highs get harder to reach (as we learn how meaningless it is) and harder to get (as you get older and lose our looks).
The future for these people is pitiable. They chose dissipation over building. They choose thrills over happiness. Their shallow, empty lives are worse today and will be tragic tomorrow.
The terrible tragedy of our time is not (as you hear everyone bemoan) that people can’t get what they want. They get what they want over and over, more than mankind has ever been able to. It is that they want the wrong thing. If God exists, I don’t know if he laughs or cries over the folly of mankind.
What, sir, would you do to earn her positive regard?
Earn? not a damn thing. I’m going to be me. If that happens to create a positive feeling, great. If not, that’s fine, too.
I wasn’t put on this green earth to be a given woman’s man-servant.
Yes, it’s sad. Extremely sad.
As a mom of two teenage daughters, I’m sad that this is the cultural sea they have to swim in. I also worry that the pool of potential mates who share their values is small and getting smaller.
What really infuriates me is the message that it’s somehow “empowering” to women to embrace casual sex. It’s anything but, and that’s always been the reality. Yet we continue to get movies like “No Strings Attached” and sex week on college campuses, etc. etc.
Beverly and her dad are right, both sexes lose out.
Women made their beds so now they have to sleep in it. I am supposed to care, Why?
Darth.
Easy for you to say, I suppose. But you can be you or you can be you dealing with a woman. Different issue.
CV:
This isn’t the Middle Ages and women are supposed to be able to stand on their own two feet and not need a man for anything, so please spare us all the melodramatics about how your two daughters will be ruined if they don’t get a rock before they give out their sexual favors.
And while nice, commitment minded men might be losing out, I fail to see how the 20 percent of the most desireable male population is losing out, or what incentives they would have to settle down.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/08/02/relationshipstrategies/the-sexual-revolution-and-you/
CV-
Agreed. The “you’re meat and should be happy about it” thing strikes me as very useful for the worst sort of men, and the attacks on anyone who dares want more than a night in the sack just make it worse. Small wonder depression is so common, even before you get to the STDs and other health risks.
Funny how empowerment today looks exactly like degradement of yesteryear, but the users don’t have to pay as much.
One of the things I’ve noticed from observing Japanese culture is that they are still, By Western LibProg senses, extremely chauvinistic and chivalry based.
There is still the societal expectation that a man, to be a man, must escort a woman back to her home if the streets are deserted or if night is approaching. This is not billed as service to a matriarchy or to women with higher status, which is what most people seem to think chivalry really is in the end: rather it is billed as a core essential thing to do, amongst a lifetime road map of things to do, for the boy to became a man, a weakling coward to obtain the courage and power to protect others who are weaker.
What most people miss out is a simple fact: their own self-interest. The Left plays with people by dictating that “self-interest” really comes out to be “what benefits the Left” rather than “what benefits the individual”. They convince, or con, people into thinking pleasure is in their self-interests because human instincts have this little issue called following the path of least resistance. Pleasure is less hard than pain and difficulty. But that’s not necessarily in the best interests of people to pursue pleasure over hardship, easy uncomplicated life vs a life of challenge. (The Left says abortion when convenient, Sarah Palin says life is a challenge to be undertaken)
Part of what makes Japan culturally and socially rigid is also what allows them to keep traditional values. Japan, unlike the Arabic world, liked foreign ideas, but found a way to assimilate foreign ideas without endangering their own cultural creed. Arabia and Islam, found that they had to use the whips of slavery to keep people in line. Both cultures are still male dominated with a patriarchy of command and authority, but Japan took it one way while Arabia took it the other way. In Japan, social consequences are both stronger in the negative as well as in the positive. The positive, people saw in the tsunami (that Obama said he would cause), the negatives can be seen in how much Japanese society mimics the “crabs in a bucket” syndrome. Whenever one crab tries to climb out, the others just drag it back in. Yet at the same time, great pressure is put on Japanese citizens to make their nation, even the world, proud of their individual achievements: Intelligence, test scores, technological advances. That’s they keep people in line, both by offering the promise of societal reward as well as by promising societal punishment for those that step out of line. Arabs achieve their goals by promising pain, death, and torment to the infidel, and heaven to the martyr, or cowardly mass murderer. Same principles of social control, different methods.
In America, this has become an interesting social experiment. We now see what can happen when a small group of power mad evil fauks spend centuries attempting to re-engineer a nation’s morality, culture, and society. It didn’t just happen. It was made to happen. That’s because even in the most authoritarian and messed up culture, you won’t see what you see in American society. The Senate and the Emperor’s court at least kept their orgies to themselves at the corrupt capital. Not so in the US that has been re-engineered and Transformed before your eyes. Societies do not “fail” the way the US is going. When a person driving sees a threat up ahead, they slam on the breaks. IN America, the brakes are removed and instead people step on the pedal of pleasure and self-destruction. Eventually, that’s going to produce an interesting consequence. All other nations and societies, use control and braking to mitigate and avoid dangers. Even if they use evil methods to do it, like Islam. They try to suppress sexuality and choice. They try to harness and focus people’s desires into a useful tool or weapon. In America, it’s like someone tried to do that and only got it half way right: the brakes are gone, and maybe the accelerator pad is gone as well. A new original pedal is installed: self-destruction. Vote Democrat, or else. At least Hamas offered healthcare and pride afterwards.
Another thing I noticed about Japan is that they have this distributed network of single occupant police boxes spread all over the place. Every few blocks. Every few miles on a country road, when near a town. For something as rigid and hierarchical as the Japanese, even they discovered the benefits of distributed system power and local initiative benefits. Their authoritarianism was based upon a solid foundation of something called “it was working when we got here so let’s keep it that way”. Whereas Leftist authoritarianism is more like “if it is working, we got to make sure that when we leave… it isn’t”. CENTRALIZED authority can be done two ways: well, and not well. Maybe the Left is trying to invent a new way: the way of madness and fun.
The police boxes wouldn’t work so well in America, for many individuals are armed better than the police. In Japan, the police have the power of the gun and uses this to keep order in a strictly top and bottom hierarchy of order. This was why Bush was right about how democracy doesn’t work the same way, because that’s not the point. The Japanese call us the nation of the gun. Of course they seem to think this is because gangs infest our cities and carry guns and make wars all the time, not because of a citizen’s army. But anyone seeing Hollywood would obviously come to a similar conclusion in the end. There’s no way American can adopt Japan’s system, even though people are clamoring for elevating police to the power of an aristocracy, because America is not Japan. Even American karate is different than Okinawan karate.
Due to the total disarmament of the Japanese population during the Meiji and MacArthur periods, an interesting thing happened. Women had to rely on the power of men for protection. While this was socially the case centuries ago as well, it was even more the case now because women were not allowed the samurai training of the naginata or the use of firearms. So what tended to happen was that since women needed protection, men started to attempt to acquire the power to provide that, in order for equal exchange to take place. This got interesting when feminism hit Japan. In Japan, the media and the culture still talk about why it is dangerous for women to undertake high risk activities, such as walking alone at night. (Getting drunk and passing out in a party of horny and out of control stranger males, isn’t even mentioned. Because it’s not something the mainstream even considers, since teenagers home alone will not throw a party at their own home.) All this stuff would be considered by Demoncrats to be sexist, for I guess it is. There is no attempt to self-deceive or cover up the fact, in Japan, that males are far stronger than females. The Japanese cultural slogan of doing one’s best and accomplishing the impossible through superhuman effort and determination, is not reliant on sex/gender to begin with. There is no analogous thing to “A woman can do whatever she wants to do” because nobody would find that thought sane. A woman can cut her head off, have it filled with explosives, and have a henchman blow it up in a elementary school? Well, yeah, but… why would anyone do that, is the natural (japanese) reaction. Why would a woman choose to do a man’s role when a woman is more suited to specializing in feminine roles? That’s like in America saying that you’re good with a Desert Eagle .50 caliber, so you’re going to do what you want to do, and use it as a frisbee. Well, certainly someone can try that, but nobody is quite sure why that would be necessary. There are some things which not even the utmost of effort can achieve; there are barriers that cannot be surpassed without the required talent. Knowing one’s limitations is important, especially in a rigid society such as Japan. The Left, hijacking America’s impossible dreams, have killed something far more valuable than the ability to achieve the impossible: the future of uncountable dreamers who could have achieved what they might have dreamed of, if the Left had not stolen it all for power mad greed. Dreams without limitation: the American slogan. From slave to intellectual and advocate of human rights, in an age where a slave was automatically deemed an inferior species like Neanderthal man. From a woman slave (considered only to be a breeder) to a fighter, armed with gun and God’s fire, to deliver into freedom those still in slavery. Such barriers, when broken for the sake of good and human progress, is inspiring. But the Left has corrupted even that. What people could not imagine 60 years ago, is not just being done, but it is considered normal in the current.
It would certainly be an interesting case study for a Ph.D thesis in culture and anthropology, if the universities hadn’t been dominated by demonic Leftists of the Demoncraft clique, that is.
Humans do not value what they have not earned. humans do not value what was easy to acquire. Humans do not value what they did not have to suffer and work for. Humans love the path of least resistance, much like elementary particles.
To forge a human into a better person, fit to lead other humans and act like someone with a brain that can achieve self-awareness, requires hardship, challenges, joy and despair. To protect your own life is relatively easy and requires little power: just run really fast on those legs of yours. To protect the lives of others, however, is a far more arduous challenge. A boy cannot become a man without a sufficient level of challenge and difficulty. Pampered children of the rich… drugs are an easy way for them to keep their minds in self-deception. Not exactly what we might expect from the self-anointed elite leaders of the world “born to rule”.
It’s not impossible to reverse poisoning and heal the damage. All it requires is the ability and the will. What makes destruction easy is that once things start falling apart, humans tend to gather around and watch the implosion. They each look to the other, and wait for someone to do something. If that’s how Americans continue to be, destruction will the least that can be expected as justice.
I often hear, spoken by females, in Japanese entertainment, admonishment to young males that they should not complain about hardship nor run away from danger. Young males also expect a certain level of strength from themselves, and would feel embarrassed if a female carried more and heavier things than he did. Was it so obvious Americans just sorta skipped out on that lesson? Muscles don’t get stronger the less you use them. The brain, is also conveniently a muscle. So which one has America been using more lately?
(Forgot my quote factory) I remember a quote on life and death.
To be honest I do not think whether they live or die is the matter at hand. Life is not always better than death. It is not that simple. Living and being made to live are very different things. What matters is what the person chooses of their own free will. Whether or not it can be achieved or how difficult it is.
I want you to think about this… imagine if what matters most to you was taken away against your will. If that is indeed worth less than your life
-Mitsurugi, Meiya in ML Alternative
“‘He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desert is small,
Who fears to put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.’ – Montrose’s Toast
Quality of life for Terry Schiavo was the determinating factor for the Left. Life expectancy is what they use to judge a nation’s greatness.
One gets the sense that some people have become deluded on the matter of what is truly important in life. I suppose a society that prides itself on suppressing the free will of its individuals in favor of statist and totalitarian government planning, may not fully appreciate the self-determination of individual humans. Nor its overarching value.
Is death so terrifying for some that they cannot use their brains to distinguish different levels of worth? And is it not pathetic for a nation built upon freedom to lose to the hierarchical Japanese in terms of self-determination and worth…
Ymarsakur:
And for all that, Japan’s birth rate is well below America’s and far, far, below replacement level.
Clearly there is something wrong between the sexes there, too.
Changing women’s traditional roles whilst keeping men’s intact is at least part of it, I bet. That, and the fact that modern international capitalism is ultimately incompatible with families and a stable society because its too capricious to build a life around.
Brad;
You sound like a real catch. Thanks for so vividly illustrating my point for me.
I’ll see your “hooking up smart” link, which is part of the problem and not the solution, and raise you a link on Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body:
http://thetheologyofthebody.com/
That’s right, the “repressive, patriarchal” Catholic church has actually been right about sex and marriage (and what it actually means) all along.
Who knew?
Good luck out there, Brad.
You are going to need it.
Hehe, CV:
I hang out at the Traditional Christianity blog, as well as the blog No, Seriously, What about teh Menz?
I’m aware of the arguments from sex positive feminists, as well as the argument from traditionalists such as Lawrence Auster. I know of radical feminists, say, at the blog “Feminade” who argue that all penis -in vaginal sex is rape -bet you wonder what the argument for that is. I hang out at the blog “Dalrock” which is all about defending traditional marriage. I’m fully aware of the Roman Catholic position on this even though I am a former Christian because I have Christian friends and the Traditional Christianity blog I talked about is ran by a woman with the handle of Alte who is a traditionalist Catholic and supports marriage, though she knows the laws these days and thus won’t shame men into sticking their heads in the noose. But then again, she supports a Catholic society, distributism as a economic system and the return of the patriarchal family such that married women, at least, if not all women, would lose the right to vote.
I’m probably far more aware of this stuff than you could ever dream of being. I appreciate that you are defending your daughters. However, my basic point is this : until society offers men some incentive to “commit” rather than decides to arbitrarily punish them for it, it will never happen.
I have to call BS on this article. In my experience, women are MORE difficult than ever, and not just with sex. Just getting one to go to lunch is almost like pulling teeth if you don’t meet some very strict criteria. I have dozens of close female friends, and to a one, they all say they will not even consider a man, not even for a simple dinner date, if he’s the wrong height. They may be “friends” with him, but a romantic/sexual relationship is out of the question. Sounds pessimistic, but it’s absolutely true.
Women today have been taught that their time is very valuable, and thus a man has to “earn” it. They approach dates not with a “Let’s see if we like each other” attitude so much as a “Let’s see if he can impress me” attitude. It’s like a job interview – a man’s resume has to be impressive before he’s even let in the door, but then he still has to prove that he’s the one for the job.
I’m 35 and I honestly have NEVER met a female who was
When women were the cheapest historically? I believe it was in some London East End neighborhoods in the first half of 19 century. What happened next? The Great Awakening and puritanism of Victorian Age. At some point, this can began to unfold again. But only when society will reach these still untested levels of moral depravity to trigger the backlash.
Okay…accidentally hit “submit.” Here’s where I was going:
I’m 35 and I honestly have NEVER met a female who was quick to “jump in the sack.” It ALWAYS takes work. Some guys just have to work harder than others. But I’ve had many experiences where I had a great conversation with a girl, made her laugh, found out that she was single, asked if I could call her or take her to lunch, and been rejected, all because I “wasn’t her type.” Women may not want to believe it, but it happens all the time. As a guy it’s frustrating, but you move on. No biggie. But it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that females are more selective than ever when it comes to men. This study is either an aberration or a fabrication.
Sergey:
If such a thing was to REALLY happen, women would have to lose some rights. Sad to say, but the Victorian age was very “gender” constrictive and had expectations of women that simply don’t exist today, and arguably, the vast majority of women would resist having imposed on them again. And Sergey? There isn’t going to be a “backlash” short of an authoritarian regime. Too many women are implicated (not something I believe, but something a traditionalist would believe) in terms of the easy sex lifestyle.
No, the issue nowadays is that women have rights without responsibilities and think they can get by on “moral purity” and other half-sexist concepts like that. It’s called “having your cake, and eating it too” and its going to end sooner or later, probably when the economy collapses and we get the said “authoritarian” regime. Then sexual gender roles will be violently reimposed on both sexes and , for the most part, I’m sad about that, because these roles can be very dehumanizing, particularly to those who don’t quite fit into them or don’t want to fit into them.
Hedonism in all forms is just a symptom of a sick society in a decline. But it is reversible. In Anglo-Saxon culture at least 4 grand awakenings occured. It begins with a rise in church attendency, proliferation of voluntary charity groups and mass movements for restoration of some moral values.
Jim:
It partly depends on who you are trying to date ( I don’t know if you only go for “church girls”, “middle class college girls” or whatever) and where you live as to how much the culture might push casual sex and hooking up. Those behaviors are mostly:
A. The twenty-something/early 30 something crowd
B. Much more common in big cities and on the coasts
C. Take place most often in colleges
Middle America has a lot of sexual hypocritical men and women (who “get it on” more than they let on) but even so the mostly smaller towns and cities of the midwest as well as certain religous communities aren’t as amenable to the anonymity that allows easy sexual behavior.
If you want “easy” sex, move to a large or better yet large coastal city, avoid people who take their religion seriously , and stop thinking you have to beg for sex. Me , personally? So far, I’ve never had to use this rule, but if I’m in a dating relationship, and more than 2 months have gone by and I’m not getting any, I’m ditching.
Cue the cries of what a “playah” I am for setting a time limit at all, even though I know guys who get sex on the first date almost all the time, and to put it bluntly, that is NOT what I am after.
Ymarsakur–The Japanese people and their culture are indeed fascinating, (that’s why I spent many decades studying them from high school through graduate school, and thereafter). While the Japanese do have some very unattractive tendencies to over the top fanaticism, violence, callousness, and cruelty–see WWII, but they also have what I think are a lot of things to admire about them.
Unfortunately, though, their ethos and social structure are based on such a different history and are so very different from ours, that I find it hard to see how we might easily adopt even the most admirable aspects of their social structure, values, and personal qualities.
I am very sad about what now appears to be their approaching, almost certain demographic collapse, but see no way–short of, say, Japan hunkering down and turning back in on itself (re-instituting the policy of Sakoku, of “Isolation”), turning its back on the West’s modernity (and perhaps a good portion of modern technology as well), adopting an entirely different economic model, and trying to return to all the old values and virtues of the past–the old Imperial system, Bushido, the entire cultural and religious-philosophical system of Buddhism-Shinto-Taoism and, with it, all the cultural traits it taught and reinforced, a lot of which were so effective (and had no real opposition) because Japan was relatively isolated until Perry arrived.
I still don’t see any sure fire way to motivate people to have more children in the short term, when they have apparently looked into the future and seen an apparently terrifying abyss that fills them with despair and destroys their will to even reproduce. This last sentence may well also be said of Europe.
Jim: I’m not sure what makes you think women are more selective than ever in dating. You might be correct, of course, but the experience you relate is no guide to whether you are or not. A woman saying that you’re not her type, even after she’s had a nice talk with you and laughed a bit, is nothing new whatsoever (nor is it unusual for a man to do this, by the way). Romantic relationships are different from platonic ones between the sexes. One can have a great time and still not be sexually attracted, and that’s nothing new.
“There isn’t going to be a “backlash” short of an authoritarian regime.” I beg to dissent on this. There were no autoritarian regime in Victorian England. Moral in general can not be imposed by coercion, it is imposed by persvasion and peer pressure. And these tools are far more effective than any authoritarism. I see it now Moscow, a very big city. Today young people are far more conservative in their everyday behavior than people of their age 20 years ago. And they chosen this voluntary, they try to emulate Russian nobility of 19 century. It is simply a fad to behave like ladies and gentelmen now.
My late mother used to say that there is room for one and a half people in a marriage — .9 male and .6 female. That was the secret of getting married and staying married. It worked at the time, but very few women understandably want or would accept that now.
Go Feminism!!!
This is what liberation really was all the time…
genocide and conversion of families into breeding stock and state cattle…
falsely believing they were chattel, by their own hand they became cattle, and culled the heard of the smartest, and so denuded the human race of its intellegence.
women are the genetic repository for intelligence.
When they are selective/choosy, the populations intelligence rises as the smarter more able have children and the less able dont.
but when you redsitribute, the process that moved us forward to the enlightenment is regressed and the less able and less smart are who the smart ladies end up with, rather than the disenfranchised smart guy who is boring, and has it harder than the poor guy who wins and gets free money for the kids.
ie, natural order leads to forward progress in mankind as we self select for better
unnatural order has women exterminating their family lines (genocide one family at a time), screwing and getting diseases which cause them to be infertile later, putting off till its too late and they are infertile, or having accidents with males selected for short term preference over long term. add to this that every productive male with promise is targeted and has his capital accumulations played with before he can build what he showed promise for. and what is left is also mixing diluting the diversity away…
this has all translated to a white population on the verge of unrecoverable demographic genocide.
a birth rate below 1.2
they “hide the decline” through breaking immigration laws
however, europe, canada and the US populations of one group who the ideology dominates, are about to fall below 1.2
please note that for every woman who does NOT have any kids, another woman has to have 5 kids so that we have a STABLE unchanging population
this is why the birth rate of whites in the US is going to be surpased this year…
Social definition
to SEE the issue, you have to see the data WITH its break down by AGE…
in 1960 whits made up 88.6% of the population
the HIGHEST percentage… 1930-1940 – 89.8%
from then, to 2010.. they have declined to the lowest in american history
so in 1960 they were 88.6% and the demographic breakdown was there were more young than there were old… ergo the ability of soviets to communize the boomers.
SINCE that time, the boomers have NOT been having kids…
as of the current Census… they are at 72.4% the lowest… but that doesnt tell it all..
as MOST of them are older than fertility age…
this is why the progressives sided as racists with whites who they thought were as racist as everyone else.
when that turned out not to be true, redistribution and war showed them the demographic future. that the minorities who out breed the liberated… will be a majority later.
SO
if you pretend to fight for them in 1960, in 2050, when they are no longer minorities, your party will have them…
now, if this is the case… the politicians, said… why wait till then when they may not be serving. so lets accelerate it.
whic is why this year, 30 years early, the births are about to switch.
that is there are so few being born to one that spanish births will exceed them next year.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/elderpop.html
The elderly population increased elevenfold between 1900 and 1994; the nonelderly increased only threefold.
About 1 in 8 Americans were elderly in 1994, but about 1 in 5 would be elderly by the year 2030.
cause the other 3 died…
so… it may be 75% white, but thats over 50% elderly
Of the Nation’s elderly in 1994, about 29.8 million were White; 2.7 million were Black; 137,000 were American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; 615,000 were Asian and Pacific Islander; and 1.5 million were of Hispanic origin.
the number of elderly whites is almost 15 times that of spanish…
nice graph here..
http://www.census.gov/population/www/img/pop-profile/page52.gif
http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html
U.S. fertility first dropped to less than replacement level fertility in 1972 and by 2002 had dropped to a record low Replacement level fertility is 2.1 children per woman because of infant mortality – see terms). During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population
combine the numbers. population is going up, but us fertility is below replacement… and one group is dominated by elderly
[by the way, obama care rationing will also accelerate the demographic change… then when there is no way to get votes, the majority minorities will punish them very much more – pogrom]
so all one has to do is look at the numbers and not expect a big sign that says TO SEE GENOCIDE TABLES LOOK HERE…
U.S. fertility is dramatically higher than almost all other developed countries. Europe’s aggregate fertility varies between approximately 1.3 and 1.5, depending upon region, and Japan is at 1.3
1.3 is the demographic genocide
from that point on there are not enough fertil people, women having babies, non mixed, non infertile, etc… to replace the population and have it grow.
since feminisms demographic is overwhelmingly white… GUESS who this demographic genocide affects more?
so, when they asked the quesiton, who and how will western judeo christian society, and peoples… (as hitler tried)…
the frankfurt school answered with CULTURAL MARXISM (feminism, etc)…
the fertility of Mexico is 2.8
China’s fertility is 1.7 and is projected to increase to 1.85 / Bangladesh is at 3.6, India at 3.1, Pakistan at 4.8, and Zambia at 5.9
The US as a whole has one of the highest…
but the spanish, chinese, african, and islamics are having upwards of 5 kids… and the state is taking the money from whites to fund that, while the whites are actually below 1.3…
technically, they are already exterminated but dont know it
Who gave them the right to cull the human race for social engineered population stabilization?
http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html
When activists formed the modern environmental movement in the 1960’s, they were well aware of the effects of population growth on the environment.
In 1972, two population commissions – the President’s Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, headed by John D. Rockefeller III, and the Select Commission on Population, headed by Father Theodore Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame – concurred that U.S. population must be stabilized
so the rockefellers who also created the CFR and trilateral commission, involved with bilderburg…
ALSO set out population goals…
so the idea was to exterminate families to achieve population goals…. but deny it all the way…
Just like the two kinds of documents from the soviet union ON THE SAME SUBJECT!!!!
so the facts above are just the point that the women targeted by ideological ends to end western society, and all that… is well underway…
when the boomers die out and the remains are easy to see… it will be too late… its probably too late now..
when the shoa couldnt do it in one shot fast, as engels said… they went to take apart every advantage… manufacturing, finance, religion, genetics, social…
its SO normalized now (Stalins term), that there is no way to convince the girls to fix the problem
Wilson Quarterly
The World’s New Numbers
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?aid=1408
In a society in which an average woman bears 2.1 children in her lifetime–what’s called “replacement-level” fertility–the population remains stable.
Despite their many uncertainties, demographic projections have become an essential tool. Governments, international agencies, and private corporations depend on them in planning strategy and making long-term investments. They seek to estimate such things as the number of pensioners, the cost of health care, and the size of the labor force many years into the future. But the detailed statistical work of demographers tends to seep out to the general public in crude form, and sensationalist headlines soon become common wisdom.
[so the leaders know the unvarnished numbers without the explanations we get]
the downward population trends for southern and eastern Europe show little sign of reversal. Ukraine, for example, now has a population of 46 million; if maintained, its low fertility rate will whittle its population down by nearly 50 percent by mid-century. The Czech Republic, Italy, and Poland face declines almost as drastic.
In Russia, the effects of declining fertility are amplified by a phenomenon so extreme that it has given rise to an ominous new term–hypermortality. As a result of the rampant spread of maladies such as HIV/AIDS and alcoholism and the deterioration of the Russian health care system, says a 2008 report by the UN Development Program, “mortality in Russia is 3—5 times higher for men and twice as high for women” than in other countries at a comparable stage of development. The report–which echoes earlier findings by demographers such as the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Murray Feshbach–predicts that within little more than a decade the working-age population will be shrinking by up to one million people annually. Russia is suffering a demographic decline on a scale that is normally associated with the effects of a major war.
WE COPIED THEIR POLICIES THAT LED THEM TO THE ABOVE!!!
The Changing Demographic Profile of the
United States
The objective of this report is to highlight some of the demographic changes that have already occurred since 1950 and to illustrate how these and future trends will reshape the nation in the decades to come (through 2050).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32701.pdf
LOTS of graphs to look at 🙂
Sergey, the excesses of the Restoration were followed by the tremendous advance of “methodism”.
Happened to read Durant on the subject. Restoration comedies were kind of guttery.
Wesley is reputed to have said, “Get all you can, save all you can, give all you can.’
Point is, work hard and make money. It’s not a bad thing. Don’t spend wildly. Give to charities. So this makes the good Methodist a hard worker who doesn’t spend on women, gambling, general show, and ends up with a lot of money, relatively speaking.
By giving, presumably, the good Methodist never reaches the economic status of the independently wealthy whose lifestyle can be sordid and self-indulgent without jeopardizing his resources.
Today, the guy whose idea of a good time is a Wednesday evening potluck to see the missionary’s slides is going to be sharper at work the next day, and earlier, and not be as worried about various things as the guy who got home from the casino at three in the morning.
Every first world nation’s birth rates are low. It’s due to centralized taxation and planning. Nothing is new there. Frontier civilizations always have higher birth rates. And the US would have a negative population growth if it wasn’t for immigration. None of these are determined by nation or race. That’s not what determines population growth factors.
The only two things that need to be promoted if one wishes for higher population growth is to eliminate federal taxes and to allow limited immigration through a couple of institutions. Those factors aren’t determined by ideological or cultural constraints. IN fact, centralized authority like Stalin, could more easily wipe out entire sectors of government with purges than ever could democracy have done so.
Ymasarker:
That is, sorry to say, a ridiculous contention.
There are white sub groups such as the Mormons who are breeding at above replacement level. And even removing the immigrant factor (I knew you’d bring that up) Americans are having more offspring as a percentage than the Japanese are, and indeed, more than in most of Europe.
No, short of deep recessions and depressions the main factors driving population growth are cultural. Something is deeply wrong with most of modern culture. Of course if you are one of the “we’ve been overpopulated on this earth since 1970 ” people, you don’t care.
It’s not uncommon for those mired in older clay forms of thought to think something new is ridiculous. That’s been a human problem for awhile now, you know.
Japanese culture is not modern. You need to read up on the status quo first. In terms of American analogues, Japanese marriage and bastardy/single parent homes, are still in the 1950s/60s era of America. Before you go off and make too many assumptions about foreign cultures you are unfamiliar with, you might want to acquire a more complete assessment first.
Ymarsakar:
I happen to be a bit of an otaku, and I’ve long been into martial arts. Japanese culture is a mixture of old and new influences, it’s possible the newer influences are not good in terms of family formation, as the Japanese birth rate had crashed long before the “lost decade” economic crash started in the late 1980’s.
More to the point, I told you that American religious subgroups tended to have higher (very significantly in some cases) birth rates than average, thus proving there is a cultural role to all of this.
I should clarify that I’m mostly responding to your ridiculous contention that birthrates are mostly driven by tax policy and how authoritarian a government is.
“Just getting one to go to lunch is almost like pulling teeth if you don’t meet some very strict criteria.”
Maybe because they know that by the third date they’re expected (by society, and maybe by you) to give it up, so they have to decide not if they want lunch but if they want to be your bed-mate. Right there, before taking the first step.
Bring back actual courtship, say I. Premarital sex has ruined everything.
“There are white sub groups such as the Mormons who are breeding at above replacement level. ”
Our birthrates may be above the national average but they’re dropping, too. When you have both parents working outside the home, for whatever reason, enthusiasm for 12-kid families tends to wane.
dicentra
Implicit in your last sentence is the assertion that twelve-kid families were possible and even desirable–I presume you exaggerated for effect–with only one parent working outside the home.
Why that has changed is worth thinking about.
Heard it said that lib couples have about 1.2 kids, conservative couples 2.3, and conservative Christians just north of 3.
Head druidess of the US piskies said they are being good stewards of the earth by not reproducing fast enough to replace themselves. Not figuring that, as Mark Steyn says, the future belongs to those who show up. Could be Catholics, Mormons, Muslims….
Looking at Sarah Palin as one example of large families, the kids when they get to 12, start taking on responsibilities. The modern Elf syndrome of rich American families holding to the belief that you only need to take responsibility when you graduate college, and are 24 or something, has significant negative consequences. So if you could not depend on your children to help take the load, then 12 or even 4 children are too much. A single parent can handle 2-3 children. The rest, will have to be taken care of by the other children. If the parents have to shoulder all the load, as well as deal with Child Protective Services in Cali, then it’s not worth it to have 2, let alone 3. The age of maturity for young males in the frontier was about 13-16. They became junior adults and apprentices to hunters and warriors around 13, when they hit puberty, and after a few years of on the job training, they graduate to manhood with some test or other. The higher rate of maturity allows a concurrently higher number of children being concurrently born/raised. The 16 year olds would police and administer all of those children under 13 years of age, male or female. The parents, thus, once they have a “cadre” of 16 year olds, don’t need to do much then. They have plentiful “manpower” then.
This is why barbarian polities will always have greater birth/death rates than civilized polities. Hard life forces maturity early on. In the current modern day, the barbarian zones are getting the food and medical technology of the civilized Western zones, so there has been a global unbalancing population wise. Technically, civilizations with farm and livestock, will have greater food and thus greater population, in total, than barbarian and uncivilized hordes. But those barbarian and uncivilized hordes have a lot of warriors and their warriors are younger. Once a civilization’s security falls apart, the farmers and merchants on the inside, will not be able to defeat the barbarian hordes in number or quality of fighting prowess.
Our situation wouldn’t be so dire if the government wasn’t trying to take care of old people. The government tries to promise benefits, but those benefits only come from the new workers and the new adults. Since the government is inefficient, there’s no way they can keep up even a 1 to 1 ratio, let alone a 2 old to 1 young or 3 old to 1 young ratio. Human civilization wasn’t designed with the idea that one would run out of children to do the menial work. That’s called something else: like Leftism. As with cancer, this has been metastasizing for awhile now. And just as with cancer, past a certain time limit, any treatment you try will have as much chance of killing the host as getting rid of the cancer. That’s why I recommended proactive action against the Left as of 2006. I had started to see what ineffective compromises had done for Israel and America.
Brad,
None of what you said disproves my point. Since watching anime is not understanding Japanese culture, it isn’t a sufficient justification for belief. Otaku culture is only a sub-genre of Japanese culture: much like Jewish or Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness or Amish culture. For someone to understand America, they have to do more than just pay a visit to a sub-culture. There’s no way for a foreigner to understand the American mentality by living in Marin or Berkley, just as it would be impossible if the foreigner lived in gun hot Georgia’s wooded frontier. Either would only be a slice of the whole. What is “true” America, is always in debate.
This gets back to the original point that your view that society determines birth rates and how that is the wrong way to look at it. There are many reasons or justifications for that. The idea that something is wrong with society and that this is the cause of falling birthrates, is automatically discounted when looking at the evidence. Plenty of cultures and societies, like Islam and barbarian Africa, have problems, but falling birthrates isn’t one of em.
More to the point, I told you that American religious subgroups tended to have higher (very significantly in some cases) birth rates than average, thus proving there is a cultural role to all of this.
That doesn’t change anything, for I already knew about it before you ever said anything. I already knew that any increase in American birthrates were due to religious Christians, fundamentalists, and so on. I’ve been visited by 3 Jehovah’s Witnesses and 1 group of 3 Mormons on missionary duty. I’m more aware than the average American of who these people actually are. Probably since I spend more time talking to them about their beliefs than any 10 Americans put together.
Because I had already inferred that American rates of births are artificially bolstered by these sub-cultural groups, I have taken that into consideration before forming my conclusions. And it’s not enough to justify the statement or belief that cultural imperatives control birth rates. There’s a lot of cultural imperatives and societal doctrines that control reproduction and sexual drive, but none of them would ever create the result seen in today’s first world nations.
The nation of America is not led by Jews, Mormons, or other big happy family groups. If someone wants to dispute that, take a look at who’s got his feet on the Oval Office desk before you speak a word of protest. America is not defined by our cultural sub-groups, nor is Japan for that matter. It would be a lot easier if America could purge all the rest and just remain Jacksonian and purely Constitutional in belief and obedience, but wishes are not fishes. For better or ill, America is a lot more complicated, any nation is a lot more complicated, than the vagaries and mutual contradictions inherent in a sub-faction.
Religions will often have moral imperatives concerning life or children. That has been true since forever, including Baal’s abortion practices. Many people converted to Mithraic-Christianity as a way to avoid pagan abortion practices or living sacrifices of humans. The practice of killing children as a population control has been relatively popular in human history, before the advent of Jesus Christ. Sparta was one of such places who placed great priority on “eugenics”. INterestingly enough, the Left does the same when comparing “smart” people to “disabled” people. All the vices of the Spartans, yet with none of the virtues of courage or loyalty. The Left are also fond of their Helot slave system even.
Both Islam and other religious groups favor live births, independent of whether their society is right or wrong. For someone to then turn around and use this to say that societal practices determines birthrate, is not looking at the complete picture. Religious considerations are totally independent of the culture they are actually in. Islam in the West or in the East, same high rates. Same for Christians like Mormons as well. Linking an independent variable to a dependent variable, and calling them a matched set, not going to work. It’s not birthrates are increased by culture and society. It’s religions increasing birthrates, independent of culture and society. Religion is something that steps across national and cultural and language barriers. As the Jesuit priests of Portugal saw first hand in Japan centuries ago.
To get to the end, society and cultural values have historically been designed to prevent overpopulation, due to limited resources, as well as underpopulation due to war and natural disasters. The modern world does not have limited resources in food, yet starving Africa is booming in births while rich and well fed America and Europe are falling behind. It’s something beyond the designed limitations of traditional society and culture. It’s not so much they failed or something wrong happened. It’s more like, something else happened to replace them. And that would be civilization’s tendency to centralize. Even China tried it out with the 1 child policy. As civilizations increase in plenty, their population increases, so they try to cut down on live births and children when they lack resources. It’s not necessary that their culture has become unworkable. It’s more a result of having too much of a good thing. Having cut those children off, they will realize in a few decades that they have also cut off their resource income. They then proceed to finding more useless people to kill. It’s a problem unique to civilizations, where the more people you have, the more resources you have. But it’s because of a civilization’s taxation and zero immigration policies, that they begin losing workers. Tax policies affect more than just economic growth. Religions cross cultural and political boundaries, but not even they are immune to economic considerations from taxation.
Any people that kill their children are killing their future. Any people that kill their children and their elders, are destroying their past and their future. Lacking a rooted history and lacking hope for a better future, such a people self-destructs.
brad… Ymarsker is right… read my post too
the larger point is that we adopted the soviets policies, and even in my post and population dynamics whats happening to them now predicates war and worse…
basically they put in the policies we did later
but did it first. everything collapsed
they tried and tried to get the women to have babies
but to little avail…
at about that time, they decided to get us to copy them and we did.
what part of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is crazy don’t you and others get?
ie… others did it, it failed, we are doing it, and expecting what, making us what?
now we have women doing mob crimes in masse and violent…
way to go! maybe promoting regressive policies to move us back to aristocracy… is what its about.
Art:
You are undoubtedly referring to the Soviet Union’s family law policies such as “no fault ” divorce.
Since I totally agree that these are some of the main causes, maybe even the main causes of this population crash, I really don’t know what you are arguing with me about.
I was trying to dispel the notion that dictatorships mean population crash and that taxes are more determinative than legal and cultural norms in terms of population growth.
Ymar:
With your walls of text and apparent willingness to change your argument on the fly I’m not sure what your “point” is anymore. It seemed earlier to be that the government in Washington was decentralized and tax policy of some sort was changed, people would start popping out babies again.
Now it seems to be something about how Japanese culture is traditional and hence it couldn’t possibly be Japanese culture except that you admit there are a million and one subcultures in Japan (which you can’t rigourously define of course, anymore than you’ve defined your “main” Japanese culture) and you totally have failed to connect your argument about the alleged conservatism of Japanese culture to the relations between the Japanese sexes, probably because you know there’s been huge changes since the end of World War 2 both legally and socially.
My contention is that in Japanese culture the impacts of feminism and the legal changes thereby, mass electronic entertainment, and globalization (which means, among other things, that more women HAVE to work) have totally screwed over the old dating and courtship rituals that defined Japanese society in the past. Just as here and in Europe fewer men and women are getting married, they are marrying later, and they are having less children. I think my explanation makes sense and is certainly more coherent than yours…whatever your IS when we are talking about Japanese society.
So I’ll ask you directly: Why are the Japanese having so few infants?
Implicit in your last sentence is the assertion that twelve-kid families were possible and even desirable—I presume you exaggerated for effect—with only one parent working outside the home.
No exaggeration at all: I grew up in northern Utah, and in high school there were at least 4 “super families” with 10-12 kids. There would be one kid in almost every grade; my siblings and I all had a “Smith” kid and a “Jones” kid and a “Davis” kid, etc. in our classes.
The fathers of these families were usually doctors (but not always), and the kids were all extremely well-adjusted and high-achieving.
dicentra.
Had a tensome in our school system. My kids played ball with one of them. They did Sound of Music and one of the older guys played Capt. von Trapp. Easy enough to guess where the little von Trapps came from.
Don’t know about the father’s profession. Knew an insurance agent with ten kids. I believe the kids taking care of kids was going on.
I understand that at the Neolithic site of Skara Brae, hardly anybody in the graves is older than twenty-five. Clearly, the whole thing was run by teenagers. They have the capacity and the need. If the need is frustrated, that’s bad.
The American “nuclear family” sold by whatever was doing the sell back in the day, basically has created people so ill-educated in how to populate the frontier that they don’t understand how anyone could raise more than 4 or 5 or 6 kids. They just don’t get it. Like they don’t get plumping. Like how they don’t get the economy or why taxes reduce GDP and revenues. Like they don’t know how science actually works. Things of that sort.
Rather than combating ignorance and enlightening humans, America has gone down the road of insects where people only know what they need to know to function in their little insect roles. Coincidentally, this setup favors the Left’s political and philosophical ambitions: zero free will and totalitarian authority.