The New Scientist has a new article up titled: When should you get pregnant? Computer knows age to start trying.
Happy with just one? The model recommends you get started by age 32 to have a 90 per cent chance of realising your dream without IVF. A brood of three would mean starting by age 23 to have the same chance of success. Wait until 35 and the odds are 50:50 (see “When to get started”).
The age a woman needs to start trying goes down significantly based on the woman’s unwillingness to accept the possibility of failure. Here is the data they present in table form:
Note how little IVF helps in this analysis. A woman willing to accept a 50% risk of failing to have at least one child only gains one extra year she can delay starting to try to get pregnant (42 vs 41). The same is true for a woman willing to take a 50% risk of failing to achieve a desired family size of 2 or three children (39 vs 38 and 36 vs 35). IVF helps more for women who are more risk averse, but even here it only buys a few years. A woman who is only willing to accept a 10% risk of failing to have at least one child has to start by age 32 without IVF, vs age 35 with IVF. IVF helps the most for women who are most risk averse and want to have at least three children, raising the maximum age they should start trying from 23 to 27.
See the full article for more detail, but note that this model is regarding fertility and doesn’t take into account the risks of birth defects which are associated with older mothers. The following chart presents data (archive) on this from Ask.com:
Also note that the ages in the table aren’t the age a woman should start looking for a husband; these are the age she should start trying to conceive. When considering when to start looking for a husband, these ages should be reduced based on the woman’s estimates of:
- How long it will take her to find Mr. right once she starts seriously looking for husband material.
- How long she plans on dating before becoming engaged.
- How long she plans on being engaged before getting married.
- How long she wants to be married before starting to try to get pregnant.
For example, assume a woman is confident that she can find Mr. Right just one year after she starts looking, plans on dating for one year before getting engaged, plans on being engaged for a year before getting married, and wants to wait a year after marriage before starting to try to get pregnant. She should then subtract four years from the ages in the table to find the very oldest age she should start looking for a husband. Using this example, if a woman wants to be highly confident (90%) that she will be able to have two children she should be looking for a husband by the time she turns 23. With IVF she would have a few extra years, but should still be looking for a husband by the time she is 27.
There is however a confounding factor, because the longer a woman waits to start looking for a husband, the harder the husband search tends to be. IVF can help a bit with delayed fertility but it can’t help an older woman find a husband. A woman who is looking for a husband at 23 has a much larger pool of available men, and will find it much easier to fall in love than a 27 year old. Since other women will have already picked first, the pool of available men will also be of lower quality (overall) for a 27 year old woman as well.
See Also:
Approx 20k per try….
http://ivfcostcalculator.com
This is indeed the realm of the (very) successful career woman or a woman capable of landing a successful husband.
Pingback: How much does IVF allow a woman to delay having children? | Neoreactive
Pingback: How much does IVF allow a woman to delay having children? | Manosphere.com
BAM!
I have a friend whose NG husband volunteered time in the desert of Iraq to earn hazard loot to pay for one of two rounds of IVF. Neither took. They’ve since adopted.
That chart is a little shocking. I wonder how the industry gives that info out to patients, if at all.
hey dalrockasz!!!
da gbfm foundz some old fil clips from early on in your blog when we crash landed on a planet and matt king kept talking to a robot lzzoozozozo
lzolzolzzllzozo da gbfm was with peny any time she wasn’t shown on screen lzozzlzoloz
THF, serious question… from a man’s point of view, what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league? Please list physical/relational/educational/vocational I think some of the women here (in denial) need to see it spelled out from a man.
Dragonfly-
I know a few guys who are in their mid thirties, in great shape, not drug abusers, careers taking off, masculine. Good, solid men. Most of them have pretty much kissed women off. (Or they are players).
If a 22 year old girl who was an objective 6/10 approached one of them and was taking care of herself, sweet, deferent, maybe had a bachelors degree (although not necessary), and was in a job that she could do part time or quit to have children, she would scoop one of them up. Probably be married inside of 8 months. She would be taken care of until death, provided everything she needs. Never abandoned, never hit, led through an adventure by a loving man.
But those guys can be picky now, as the market is waking up. I think that’s what TFH is talking about.
@Dragonfly
I like to quote myself, it adds spice to the conversation…
“So as you can see, I have extremely high gates to get through – not being a fat, bitchy, debt-laden, drug-addled, immoral, tattooed, enhanced whore. This of course rules out the vast majority of women out there, which makes looking for serious prospects for wives almost quixotic.”
Can anyone find what the gap between children was for this study? I looked through the paper and can’t find it anywhere. It seems that a willingness to have children back to back (1-1.5 years between births) could increase the odds of having 3+ kids as much or maybe even more than a willingness to try IVF.
At the gym where I work out I have noticed a certain triangle that is interesting..
One young man who works out there is well over six feet, good-looking, quiet and finishing up medical school. Currently there are two young women pursuing his interest at the gym. One is a registered nurse, a solid eight, about 5’9″ with excellent bone structure and a naturally slender/willowy frame. Contestant two is a middle school teacher, pretty but not spectacular, pleasant, a 6.5-7 ONLY because she constantly works out… Her frame is such that you can see as soon as she stops doing so she’ll plump up in no time.
Both of these you women are 26-28.
The young M.D. is shamelessly spinning them right there in front of each other…. and both continue to shamelessly throw themselves at him.
All of them probably have excellent genes. At this rate at least one of them will not pass hers on, possibly two of them.
The school teacher would have numerous other possibilities if she gave them a chance… But as long as the doctor strings her along she will never give up.
My guess is in about three to four years he marries the nurse. The school teacher will be a 31 year old alpha widow dumped hard. She’s cute and sweet, and could have a family. She almost certainly will not have a family, and my prediction is cats and a growing bitterness…
The lesson? Unconstrained hypergamy can lead to infertility in women.
So according to this chart:
If a woman only wants to have 3 children, she will have to start no later than 23 years old if she is to have a 90% chance of having them without using IVF.
Considering how many women have historically (and still do today IF they don’t use birth control and don’t deny their husbands sex) had far more than 3 children, even if starting at that age, I’d say the chart is making one huge mistake: it’s basing its numbers on how many children women choose to have today, rather than considering how many children women can have. It’s not taking into consideration the prevalent use of birth control, abortion, irregular/inadequate amounts of sex with husbands, etc.; all of which drastically lower the amount of children a woman will have from the amount she could have if she tried. Therefore, this chart is bunk.
Note: I’m only pointing out the inaccuracy of the first chart, not the second one. The second one is perfectly logical.
@Dragon: “from a man’s point of view, what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league? Please list physical/relational/educational/vocational”
Physical: Just about any fit, reasonably attractive 22 y/o could marry a well established and reasonably wealthy businessman, doctor or lawyer without any problem at all. It would be like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Relational: Just about any personality will work except entitled feminist bitch. Any quiet, sweet, or natural female of reasonable intelligence could snag a top shelf man easily. The big selling point is her fertility so she would have to be a demonstrated motherly type who loves kids- babysits other kids, etc and wants a large family. Huge bonus points if she can rebut SJW lingo. Virginity is highly prized but in todays climate if a slut reforms at 22 (with 40 prior partners) she is still in excellent shape with enough mileage as Dalrocks charts show us.
Educational/Vocational: LOLOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZ
Pingback: How much does IVF allow a woman to delay having children? | Reaction Times
Wow, this is a very interesting analysis! This information really needs to be made more public, as I really do think many young women count on being able to delay having children. It’s not even a blip on their radar when they are leaving school.
When I was 18, about to head off to uni, our family doctor asked me what my plans were. I told him I’d like to be married and having babies by 25, at the latest. He just smiled and said, “First you have to find a man who wants that too.” I told him the Lord would provide, and he did!
I often tell my husband that I’m thankful I met him when I did, as there’s no way he’d still be on the market by now.
@Scott
(Very OT, but I can’t think of another way to contact you, as your website is still down – sorry!)
I was wondering if you could point me and my husband to any resources regarding the over-diagnosis of mental-health conditions these days? We were having a chat about it the other day, and he was telling me that there is a “condition” for just about everything these days. But it’s not exactly something one can discuss in polite conversation with real life friends, and we’d like to do some further reading.
You can email me at seriouslyserving@hotmail.com if you like. It forwards to an email I share with my husband.
Thanks in advance!
(smiles, closes and rubs eyes, starts shaking head)
Really Dalrock, really? Really guys? I am not going to even dignify women who choose to get pregnant out of wedlock. Their minds are corrupted by Satan. But for those who do want marriage, I wouldn’t think for one second that women today are the least bit confident that they can find Mr Right just one year after they start looking. I would say in most cases, if she is really looking (and pretty much every single woman I know…. is) the amount of time it will take her to find Mr. Right is basically… limitless. What’s more, she knows it. Every single book and magazine that she reads (and these women do read them) tell them it will take years, in some cases, many years. I know women who’ve been looking for more than a decade and are no closer to finding Mr Right than when they started. Of course, much of that is their own fault.
First off, never discount hypergamy. Hypergamy stipulates that there is some annual dollar figure of earning power where she will not even consider him husband material. Hypergamy says sure… she’ll go out with you Mr charming burger-flipper if you buy her dinner and take her to a movie (after all, a girl’s got to eat and you need to PAY to entertain her) but she’s also dating every and any other guy that is out there focusing most of her energy on the one she perceives earns the most money. That is just basic fundamental nature of women. So if she thinks you don’t make enough money… well, she’s rarely (or not) going to return your phone calls, she’ll be monumentally busy, and if you are really lucky, you might get a date with her if she has nothing (or no one) better to do. She might even have s-x with you if try hard enough and if she is horny enough. But her marital focus is going to be whoever the highest earning person is, who is currently expressing romantic interest in her. If that is you…. (and it might be you) then you’ll know if she is approachable for engagement. You’ll just know because she’ll light up whenever she sees you. She’ll be an easy read.
But here’s the thing, the guys who make the most money are fighting them off with a stick. They know that they are hot-sh-t and they know that women will do pretty much anything to have them. These are the good looking, educated, players, the guys with enough confidence and the right career to be able to pull it all off… and women want to marry these guys. They are patiently waiting for these Bill Maher’s to settle down and pick one of them.
But they don’t. The highest earning guys who are getting all the p-ssy they want keep playing the field. And because women know that they are out there, they are not going to settle for just any guy no matter how sincere he is. Instead, they will just complain that there are NO GUYS out there who will have them. That’s only half true. The real truth is, there are NO GUYS out there whom they WANT that will have them. And that is the truth. One year to find a husband? Ha.
@Gemini,
I’m not sure what you mean – would you mind clarifying?
I’m of the opinion that every good gift is from the Lord, and my husband is a very good gift!
@Gemini
I totally agree with you.
Perhaps it was presumptuous of me as a young lady to say that God would provide. I think I have always felt a strong calling to the roles of wife and mother, that I felt confident God would provide me with a husband. But he was certainly under no obligation to do so.
Annulment Question
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971515
A Guide to the Restoration of Marriage (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971458
Charts like this, which have options of 1, 2, or 3 children, crack me up. I’ve got 8, a good friend has 12, and another friend has 10 (with another on the way).
God designed women’s bodies to have babies. When women (or men) choose to ignore God’s design, we can expect bad things to happen. Look up risk factors on breast cancer, and you’ll see that these things are correlated with increased risk: higher age at first birth, lower number of births, less time breast feeding, use of birth control pills — and of course, extra weight. You’ll see similar lists of risk factors in other female cancers, such as ovarian cancer.
[As a side note, women who have lots of babies have significantly less periods over their lifespan, due to pregnancy and breastfeeding, than women who have fewer (or zero) babies. Since God designed women’s bodies to have lots of babies, it necessarily follows that he did not design women’s bodies to have lots of periods; thus, having lots of periods puts stresses on a woman’s body it was not designed for.]
A good article, Dalrock. I would add that there is one unmentioned factor in freezing eggs:
-Not only do career women not do it, they also do not allocate funds for paying for their IVF.
A career women rarely if ever has her finances sorted out and in top shape. She will have a well-stamped passport, an excellent shoe, handbag and clothing wardrobe, and will know all of the best restaurants in big cities. She may also have a very exotic car as well.
All of this means that if a man wants children with her, he will have to fork out at least part of the money for expensive IVF. This will be on top of him taking on whatever proportion of her debts. Property will also be a requirement: as prices of both rent and mortgage are increasing, he will have to foot the bulk of that bill as well. He won’t actually be able to choose where he lives – she usually decides that.
Is any of the above fair in a pragmatic sense? Does it not make sense for a marriage minded man to therefore marry a younger woman that isn’t so encumbered? Not according to feminism. It will say at this point that the man wants “a [stupid] woman with less intelligence who earns less than him”.
Its not all bad news for older women:
“The researchers found that older mothers — aged 35 and older — were 40 percent less likely than younger mothers to have a child with one or more of the birth defects known as major congenital malformations.”
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20140203/babies-born-to-moms-over-35-may-have-lower-risk-for-certain-birth-defects
Is IVF perchance yet another placebo-like drug that largely does not work? I now know of two women in their forties who have without success been using IVF, one of them however had previously aborted at least two (though it may have been four) foetuses – most recently at forty-two. Such monsters do not deserve medical assistance. As for the other one she was only prepared to have a comparatively rich husband (and this though I think her fairly ugly) and so I have no sympathy there either.
Women have no trouble finding husbands in their thirties. Thanks to Facebook a woman I have been aware of and who must be thirty-six has just married a bald-headed guy perhaps a few years older than her. That Busby Berkeley-like wedding dress is going to look ridiculous in years to come when the wedding photos are once again viewed. The woman herself – even on a good day – is no better looking than a four but the Fb comments and ninety-seven likes are gushing. That is what one gets in corporate cubicles these days: I expect there will be a happy-event in a year or two.
The second graph charts the risk of all trisomies combined. Well, trisomies are not the only possible type of chromosomal aberrations. There are other types of them, not necessarily lethal, that nevertheless add to the risk of genetic disorders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities
One such example of a minor translocation with potentially grave consequences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISC1#Discovery
@wobs from July 30, 2015 at 3:55 am:
And why is so? Not because that she is more likely to miscarry any initiated pregnancy, preferably those “with one or more of major congenital malformations”? Not much of an advantage, if it’s true….
They probably aren’t too concerned about genetic defects. While a man wants to be proud of his offspring, a woman might even prefer a child with “special needs” that needs lifelong nurturing and extra support from the community.
@Splashman:
The model is probably derived from empirical data, and in today’s cultural clime, 3 kids is probably more than most people are having… Therefore, you get models that spit out 1-3 child options, not what is biologically realistic.
@Dragonfly
Realistically speaking, a 22 year old woman has likely placed several men in the friend zone already (unless she’s hideous). These men tend to be pleasant enough to hangout with (in groups) but don’t have good enough game to give her the tingle. Yet, they always seem to make time for her, are concerned about her needs and aren’t pushing for sex to soon. Sounds like good husband material to me.
So she needs to pick one and give it about three months to see if she really is willing to spend the rest of her life with him. If she doesn’t see a future, she should break it off gently. No stringing him along. She won’t want the reputation of being a cold-hearted and manipulating bitch when on the husband search.
You ask about snagging a man “out of her league”. At 22, a lot of her male peers won’t have much to show for themselves unless she dates significantly older men. So she’ll have to look in her crystal ball to see what any particular man may amount to in the future. A man looking to study medicine or a STEM field will probably go far, but she’ll probably have to look past the geekiness. A man that’s into the arts probably won’t have much financial security in the future no matter how “deep” she thinks he is. I know that money isn’t everything, but if marriage with children are the goal, and she intends to raise them, you need solvency.
Thank you for the replies – it is exactly how i thought 🙂 , this information really does need to be more public – I think that’s what the Red Pill Women are accomplishing there on their reddit site. Most young women/girls have NO IDEA that it is that definable (and easy) to catch a great man and live a very very happy life – you see it when they find the Red Pill and become elated that they have that much control over something they didn’t understand before.
It teaches them how to understand men and what you men truly desire. Very sweet.
Its exactly what my mom taught me, and it really does work.
TFH, your list was so great – especially the physical attributes that women here try to dismiss… like ideally being more than a 6, having the best skin possible that she can achieve… basically, maximizing her own beauty is worth a fortune to her – extremely informative, loved Scott’s input and retrophoebia, as well… it could definitely be it’s own post for how a 22 year old could catch a man out of her league in ages past.
Gemini, your list was great, too, especially the extravagant, showy part! A good thing to tell that is how she feels about an engagement ring. If she wants an elaborate, expensive one, that’s huge Red Flag.
“6) Be proactive : Women are not naturally pro-active, but she needs to be, as the upside is so high. Any man considered desirable gets casual sex from the other 22 year old carousel riders easily. She has to proactively mention that she is serious about marriage, and has remained a virgin. The man won’t even believe her at first (I can tell you that a lot of wealthy, good-looking, over-6-foot men have completely sworn off marriage in this climate). She needs to be proactive about inviting him over to meet her family, etc. rather than focusing on whether he pays for fancy dinners, etc. Search costs are a major obstacle in this day and age, and she needs to recognize that it behooves her to keep her future husband’s search costs lower, or else he may not find her at all.”
This^^ might be my favorite point of yours TFH, because it reveals how this is a game plan for women – that’s how you should ideally raise your daughters, with this all in mind so that she can have a good future… a good life.
I guess that’s what the RPW reddit is all about, I never comment there, but they’ve used my articles before for discussion and linked to me… I frequently see young (even high school) girls in shock over the information – they are happily in shock because now… they have a plan. A real game plan that is fairly easy to execute. They’re educated instead of misguided. Their eyes are open.
THIS!
I was going to say this should be taught to women at an early age, so they can make an informed decision, but we know it won’t be, because womyn won’t allow it.
But, that doesn’t mean every young man in the world shouldn’t be aware of this chart, so he can make an informed decision about having children.
Dalrock, I would suggest one change to the chart: color code it.
50% horizontal lines = red.
75% horizontal lines = yellow.
90% horizontal lines = green.
This would emphasize the relative level of risk associated with marrying a women in these age brackets.
“My frame of reference brought to recollection that there are many who parrot the idea that if you do your Christian life faithfully, then God will reward you with a “significant other”, which the Scriptures actually make no such guarantee.
Many men (including myself) were eventually forced to realize that this is not the case.”
Yes. I spent years believing if I was just holy enough I would have a husband. And I was mad at God for a while when that did not happen. Meanwhile, years go by….
“But for those who do want marriage, I wouldn’t think for one second that women today are the least bit confident that they can find Mr Right just one year after they start looking. I would say in most cases, if she is really looking (and pretty much every single woman I know…. is) the amount of time it will take her to find Mr. Right is basically… limitless. What’s more, she knows it. Every single book and magazine that she reads (and these women do read them) tell them it will take years, in some cases, many years.”
Yep. The search for the “right one” is cast as a heroic quest. I think a lot of women get caught up in the search, it becomes part of who they are, and so they are not quick to settle down with whatever “right one” they find. If they bother to look at all. If one subscribes to the “it just happens” motif, the looking is cast as desperate.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. IVF works best for younger women who are having trouble conceiving, not for women trying to unnaturally extend their child bearing years.
@ Feminine but not feminist
Considering how many women have historically (and still do today IF they don’t use birth control and don’t deny their husbands sex) had far more than 3 children, even if starting at that age
Historically women have not delayed first time motherhood until their thirties. I don’t think that you can compare women who have been having children in their twenties and continue having them in their thirties and forties to women who are delaying first time motherhood until their mid-thirties. If I wanted a large family I wouldn’t risk it by waiting.
CDC data about first time motherhood by age over time at the link.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db152.htm
@Feminine But Not Feminist
It is surprising both how young they say a woman should start for 3 children at 90%, and how old they say a woman can wait to try for a child if they are willing to accept a 50% failure rate. But I don’t think this rules out the data in the chart. The key in each case is the percentage of confidence. Somewhere around age 35 the infertility rate reaches 10%. With just this in mind, the need to start early if a woman wants a 90% chance of having three makes sense. If the woman continues to be fertile, she can of course have many more than three.
As far as looking at modern data vs historic, this is something the article explains:
“When women (or men) choose to ignore God’s design, we can expect bad things to happen.”
Holy moley, Splashman, you just said a mouthful. This is what I personally term “circumventing God.” It applies to everything from birth control, sexual stimulants (for ED), IVF, formula versus breastfeeding, open-heart surgery, etc. This topic has been really on my mind as I struggle with the use of medicine as “unnatural” and against God’s will.
I was going to write about this today, anyway, but didn’t fully feel inspired till I saw your comment. I had a grandfather who had a second heart surgery *very* late in life, and I couldn’t help but shake the feeling that some of these “medical advances” are a way to cheat death and show rebellion to God (he was not religious), and there were quite a few bad things that happened afterwards that never would have happened had his life ended when it naturally should have.
I had a great uncle who was a Christian Scientist who died relatively young (early seventies, I believe) from a heart attack in his home. It was his wish not to have medical intervention, and his wife respected those wishes, though it meant she had to witness his terrible pain and eventual death. This was looked upon as a terrible thing. Why hadn’t he just gone to the hospital? He’d still be alive, if he had. Well, he felt very strongly about his beliefs and he lived and, eventually died by them. I have a lot of respect for him for that, even though I didn’t know him well. He and my grandfather were not close as one can see they were very different.
I confess, I have a hard time accepting IVF children because I view it as unnatural. It is the very opposite of submission, it is rebellion against God’s design. For what reason were you not able to have children, and what result, possibly negative ramification, will that now have?
It all comes back to what you said about “God’s design.” If we are acting in manners that oppose his design, we can not expect our bodies to function at their optimum level. When I first looked at this article, I thought to myself, “Sick.” Young people are designed to have children, older people are not. I think the message is getting out there to some extent about women having less desirable eggs the older they become, but I still think the idea that men can (or should) have children late in life persists. My husband is sixty and I am thirty-seven, and even if circumstances made having children together a more viable option, I still think it would be incredibly irresponsible to have them. We had both delighted in the prospect of maybe getting to share that experience together, but things happened in such a way that took that option away. Now, I could rebel against that, or I could ask myself, what is God telling me by the doors he is shutting?
I believe the concept of “submission” goes far, far beyond being obedient to one’s husband and reaches back past the obedience to parents and into the region of God’s will. Where there is God’s will, there is a way. Everything else is an aberration.
@ Kate Minter
So you purport to struggle with using little blue pills, old men reproducing and medical intervention as being unnatural, against God’s will & against God’s design. And then 4 rambling paragraphs later you reveal that you are 23 years younger than your 60 year old husband.
I do hope you fully understand that, at best, that missive paints an extremely damning picture of you anxiously anticipating your sugar daddy to push off.
Kate,
I’m not so sure that taking advantage of medical advances is “thwarting God’s design”. So I don’t think you have much to worry about. God has sent us talented individuals that are good at deciphering the secrets of his creation to save lives or make our lives easier or to solve intractable problems. These are blessings, not devil’s work.
The way I see it, if he wants to take us, he’ll take us regardless of what we do. If he doesn’t want a woman to have a child, then all the IVF in the world won’t help her. But I don’t think he’ll condemn us for cherishing life enough to extend it or perpetuate it regardless of the technology used.
Just my thoughts.
Medical advances were already there. Man doesn’t invent anything we discover it. All of the things we do on earth and space were there when God created it. DNA test, satellite navigation and nuclear power was available to early man he just hadn’t discovered it yet.
I’m reading at the American Urology Association website that male factors are soley responsible in about 20% of infertility cases and contribute in another 30-40% of cases. Since I know that IVF can be an intervention for males with subpar sperm counts, I wonder how many IVF cases involve this. I only thought of this because my husband had vague memories of possibly having mumps as a child(it can affect the testes and cause infertility) and he decided to get a semen analysis. No problems were noted.
Regarding “God’s design”, I get the impression from reading articles like this that getting pregnant at 35 is almost considered unnatural. My paternal grandmother, born in the late 1890s had my dad at 35. I had my last kid at 35. I had tons of classmates from my Catholic school days either were born when their mom was older or had siblings that were born when mom was older.
It has never been easier for a 22 year old woman to aim very high in her husband hunting…
It’s a rapidly closing window though, if your predictions are to be believed. The more attractive a man is marriage-wise, the less likely he is to seek it in today’s environment, if only as a matter of self-preservation. This is only going to get far, far worse.
Women who are serious about marriage should understand the disproportionate legal risks facing men that do marry, and behave in such a way to assuage these fears (i.e. virgin before marriage, strongly oppose divorce and single motherhood). It’s a basic empathy test to even be considered.
Still, many men have married such women, only to have had their lives destroyed in the process. So this won’t be enough to change their minds in the end. Until family law is reformed (or better yet abandoned), expect men to continue to avoid marriage in growing numbers no matter what. Even once reformed, it may be another 30 years before men marry in the same numbers today, if even that. This is what the next generation of women are facing.
Cube Archer: My husband is penniless. Nice try though 🙂
If as a woman you are not serious about reforming divorce law, alimony, child support and custody, etc., then you are not serious about saving marriage.
Anything short of this to amounts to re-arranging furniture on the Titanic.
@ Kate Minter
Cube Archer: My husband is penniless. Nice try though 🙂
Life insurance?
I’m joking. I disagree with you about medical care being against God’s will. God let’s us discover these things and there was medicine used in the Bible.
Regarding “God’s design”, I get the impression from reading articles like this that getting pregnant at 35 is almost considered unnatural. My paternal grandmother, born in the late 1890s had my dad at 35. I had my last kid at 35.
Because it is largely unnatural. The examples you provided are outliers. Those who did have kids at age 35+, likely already had several before reaching that age.
The idea of a woman waiting until age 35 before conceiving her first child is a completely new and unnatural phenomenon.
” I get the impression from reading articles like this that getting pregnant at 35 is almost considered unnatural.”
Not unnatural, just unlikely.
@ Kate Minter
“My husband is penniless. Nice try though :)”
And you keep digging the hole deeper.
I only have your words to go from, as ill chosen as they may be.
from your original post, “struggle” implies that you have prayed and researched your conflicts; including you mention that older men probably shouldn’t sire children. Yet even a person of minimal faith and Biblical knowledge can easily make reference to men (in the good book) much older than 60 who fathered children.
Your description of “struggle’ rings extremely suspect and hollow.
Michelle: It’s not that I completely disagree, it’s that I’m unsure. If you can think of any particular passage from the Bible that applies, I’d be appreciative.
Cube Archer: Perhaps you should examine your need to personally attack me for no good reason and stick to responding to the original topic. I shall not engage with you further.
@ Kate Minter
1 Timothy 5:23; Isaiah 38:21; Luke 10:34
Medicine was used and its use was not condemned. Modern medicine is much more advanced of course, but so is modern transportation. I don’t believe that advanced medicine is anymore sinful than flying instead of traveling by donkey.
“plans on dating for one year before getting engaged, plans on being engaged for a year before getting married,”
…That is not a reasonable timeline for a couple trying to remain chaste.
Women who are serious about marriage should understand the disproportionate legal risks facing men that do marry, and behave in such a way to assuage these fears (i.e. virgin before marriage, strongly oppose divorce and single motherhood). It’s a basic empathy test to even be considered.
Yeah, well, we all know how well women do in the “empathy” department when it comes to anything male. A three percent “pass rate” on such a “test” would be earth-shatteringly optimistic. It’s akin to setting up a test for boa constrictors in which a “pass” would be a snake that refrains from devouring the mouse placed front of it.
GeminiXcX @ July 29, 2015 at 11:49 pm
“@seriouslyserving
Your personal story is nice, except for ‘I told him the Lord would provide, and he did!’
The Lord does not provide husbands (spouses) to anyone.”
True, but Serving’s attitude is still a good one. A woman who openly trusts Christ is likely to openly trust a husband, too. This is how young women can push back against the Churchian insistence on “backup plans”.
A feminine attitude of trust and optimism does a lot to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most husbands would rather hear “I trust you” over “I love you”.
Part of submission is giving up control, and part of giving up control is choosing to believe that things will work out as they should.
…
IBB @ July 29, 2015 at 11:17 pm:
“But here’s the thing, the guys who make the most money are fighting them off with a stick.”
Silicon Valley proves this totally wrong. Those guys are forced to sleep alone on dragon hoards of (not-yet-confiscated) money.
…
rdchemist @ 10:22 am:
“I’m not so sure that taking advantage of medical advances is “thwarting God’s design”.”
I agree and this would be a fascinating side discussion. It’s no accident that the bulk of technological progress happened in the Christian world. Invention and discovery is a uniquely Christian way of worshiping God. And yet, some people think faith is the opposite of science!
They don’t know their Western history.
Medicine was used and its use was not condemned. Modern medicine is much more advanced of course, but so is modern transportation. I don’t believe that advanced medicine is anymore sinful than flying instead of traveling by donkey.
Another straw man argument. No one here is even implying that medicine per se is sinful/unbiblical. Using medicine for sinful/unbiblical ends (e.g., abortions, sex change operations, vivisection/mutilation) is the problem.
But of course you already knew that …
TFH,
Doctor or any PhD are horrid choices for women, because (1) they take enormous amounts of time and effort (precluding having children young), (2) you don’t complete your training and start your career until you are about 30, and (3) you run up an enormous amount of debt (again, precluding you from quitting/suspending your career to have children).
Plus, they don’t make that much money relative to the time & money invested in getting the degree.
Vets (which need 7-10 years of education) make LESS than software engineers with a 4 year degree.
75% of medical doctors make less than $200,000 a year, and only the elite few make more than $300,000.
PhD’s in other areas (like biology)? I know a couple of guys that QUIT their PhD programs when they realized that getting a PhD would not contribute one more dime to their income. They described PhD programs as a racket by academia.
@ seriouslyserving & @ Gemini
You’re both right. God does provide, and He is the source of every good and perfect gift, including a spouse, but that doesn’t mean that He requires nothing from us.
I liken it to looking for a job. When my wife and I decided I should leave the Army, we prayed for a new job. So did our kids, our relatives, friends, etc. That doesn’t mean that I sat at home waiting for the perfect employer to call. I started preparing for transition over a year beforehand. And that doesn’t count the years of preparation developing the skills that employers want.
And God DID provide in ways I never could have predicted.
Likewise, a young man or woman looking for a mate absolutely should pray. And that young man or woman should also develop the qualities that will make him/her a desirable mate for the kind of mate he/she desires.
@ new anon says:
July 30, 2015 at 1:18 pm
“75% of medical doctors make less than $200,000 a year, and only the elite few make more than $300,000.”
I know men in their mid-to-late 30s in the oil field making that much with a 2-year degree in electronics/instrumentation. Think about that for a minute.
Thank you, Michelle! I’m going to take a look into that now 🙂
New anon-
Agreed. Unless you 1. Get a PhD in a field that is in high demand and 2. you can get someone else to pay for it.
That’s what I did.
You Americans are so rich.
There is no question (to my mind) that female lawyers are amongst the most unpleasant women on the planet. Why is this? Whatever faults male lawyers have I would not say that they are intrinsically nasty; indeed they are often very relaxed. Female nastiness makes female lawyers poor lawyers; it is as if they don’t really grasp what is required of them and replace coherent strategy with non-stop aggression.
One of the most unpleasant female lawyers I ever met (I assume she qualified) was a woman who had just and only completed her first year as a Law Student (at the time I had been qualified for ten years) yet her air of entitled superiority as against a mere male like me was stratospheric. I had met her socially and was not putting up with that, and so I walked out – never met her again.
@new anon
I’d add a few caveats. Humanities PhD’s take the longest, 7-10 years. Science PhD’s are much shorter (I had friends who got one in 3-4 years). I’m finishing a PhD in English and I have classmates who had children before they started (usually after a bachelors and master’s folks in my program start around age 25) or they have a child while in the program (usually after coursework is completed, sometimes before or after comprehensive exams. This happens before you can formally start writing your dissertation. This is usually when you have the most time. There are articles out there that recommend this as having small children while on the tenure-track, if you’re lucky, is difficult.). However, unless one has a spouse with a stable career and health insurance, it can be difficult to have a child while in school on a teaching or research assistant budget. People with spouses who have good jobs are usually the ones having babies either before they start the PhD or during.
I work full time at the university where I am enrolled so my job pays for my school. Plus I have work experience so I’m not totally dependent on the roll of the academic job market dice.
Opus, some people never come to grips with one of the basics of life: don’t be more trouble than you are worth.
jbro1922 said:
I’m finishing a PhD in English…
It’s not a good idea to start a post with a statement giving everyone a reason to question your judgement. You have the opportunity for a free education, and you choose to study a subject that will provide you zero advantages in life.
There are articles out there that recommend this as having small children while on the tenure-track, if you’re lucky, is difficult.
This is part of the racket my friends referenced. A PhD serves the same purpose in academia as licensing boards do in other professions–to limit the number of people able to enter those professions and thus provide job security for those already in the profession.
People with spouses who have good jobs are usually the ones having babies either before they start the PhD or during.
Again, what are the advantaged–long term–of jumping through these hoops to get this piece of paper?
I work full time at the university where I am enrolled so my job pays for my school.
Congrats.
I’m not sure if you are in favor or against getting a PhD. The overall lesson I took from your comment was that unless several specific circumstances fall together–almost a perfect storm–that a PhD is not worth the trouble.
I wrote this a while back:
” Note that the odds of a mother conceiving a child with Down’s Syndrome begins steadily getting worse every year due to her advancing genetic age starting at NINETEEN years old. Another related piece of information not widely known outside of fertility professionals is the life expectancy dropoff issue that aging would-be mothers face.
“It turns out that there is a roughly even reduction in life expectancy in daughters with increasing maternal age (but not increasing paternal age, which affects health of children much less ) past starting at the latest by about age 34. Conceiving at age 44 [if you even could] would knock about a decade off the life of any little ones you’d want to put in dresses and put bows in their hair. And, it’s not a case of “they just die at 66 instead of 76, with everything the same before then”.
Rather, they’d have about a 14% reduced life expectancy (more likely to die during every year they’re alive) and reduced vitality (health) all through life, from the very first day you hold them in your arms and you tell you that you love them. It is apparently universal for all women, can’t be tested for (other than with a calendar), and can’t be avoided. It is probably related to universal changes with advancing age in ova cell organelles called telomere shortening, from most human cells only having a certain number of times they can divide.
This effect likely also applies to considerable extent to sons as well, but this is not as well understood. Further supporting these findings is what many researchers have consistently found about people who live really long lives (with good health and keeping their minds intact into advanced old age): they nearly always had very young mothers. (Health of cytoplasmic DNA, which comes exclusively from mothers and none from fathers, is apparently much of the reason for this.)”
So, women really should plan on being done with using their own ova prior to age 30 (unless they froze some, and that’s still very expensive, unreliable, wasteful, and comes with some possible health issues for her).
I wonder what happens to the diesel electrician making six figures? Its all STEM?
mmaier2112 says:
July 29, 2015 at 8:58 pm
“I have a friend whose NG husband volunteered time in the desert of Iraq to earn hazard loot to pay for one of two rounds of IVF. Neither took. They’ve since adopted.”
My wife and I still have some leftover frozen embryos from our IVF/surrogacy deal. (The egg donors were both age 23 at the time.) The right couple could have 1 or 2 of them. (White, heterosexual, married, etc.)
There is no question (to my mind) that female lawyers are amongst the most unpleasant women on the planet. Why is this? Whatever faults male lawyers have I would not say that they are intrinsically nasty; indeed they are often very relaxed. Female nastiness makes female lawyers poor lawyers; it is as if they don’t really grasp what is required of them and replace coherent strategy with non-stop aggression.
Maybe there’s a different attitude within the legal profession in the UK, I don’t know, but I’ve found that lawyers of both sexes here in the States seem to display the same attitude toward clients/potential clients that they would display in the courtroom towards adversaries. Maybe there’s a mindset, if only a subconscious one, that leads them to believe that displaying such an attitude bolsters confidence in clients of their willingness or ability to fight for their clients’ interests at all costs. If so, it doesn’t work. In fact, it comes across as condescending arrogance. Again, this might be just an American thing, but it would seem to explain in part why lawyers here, of both sexes, are so negatively stereotyped. Then again maybe they really ARE, collectively, condescending and arrogant. The last time I needed the services of a specialized lawyer, I interviewed two dozen of them before I settled on one – from a final pool of two. These were the only two –both of them men– who didn’t talk to me as if I was a retarded child.
A PhD serves the same purpose in academia as licensing boards do in other professions–to limit the number of people able to enter those professions and thus provide job security for those already in the profession.
This is exactly right. And for clinical psychologists, the PhD is required to be licensed. It is illegal in most states to call yourself a psychologist without a PhD and a license. And the professional organizations (APA) job is to “advocate” for the profession (ie-create a bottleneck). The number of PhD slots is > the number of available internships which is > well paying jobs for clinical psychologists.
This creates a shortage of us in perpetuity. I got in, now everyone else stay out so I can be in demand!
“It’s not a good idea to start a post with a statement giving everyone a reason to question your judgement. You have the opportunity for a free education, and you choose to study a subject that will provide you zero advantages in life.”
Alright, point taken. Depends on how you define “advantage.” As Capt Jack said “Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate.”
“This is part of the racket my friends referenced. A PhD serves the same purpose in academia as licensing boards do in other professions–to limit the number of people able to enter those professions and thus provide job security for those already in the profession.”
I agree with this.
“Again, what are the advantaged–long term–of jumping through these hoops to get this piece of paper?”
Love of learning. Intellectual rigor. And yes, you can have these things outside of an academic setting.
“I’m not sure if you are in favor or against getting a PhD. The overall lesson I took from your comment was that unless several specific circumstances fall together–almost a perfect storm–that a PhD is not worth the trouble.”
It’s a mixed bag. I’ve enjoyed my program overall, yet there is quite a bit of red tape and narrow-mindedness in academia that I could do without. Every industry has its downsides.
Dalrock was very nice to end the article by using 2 children as an example. 2 children are sub replacement level. In order to have replacement level population growth 3 children are needed which means 23-4=19 yr of age. This is the age a women has to start looking for a husband. This once again shows college for females and civilization are incompatible.
Agreed that a Ph.D. is a dumb thing for a woman to get who wants a family (really, in most cases, a dumb idea for almost anyone these days).
Great essay on the subject:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north427.html
I like to say that a master’s degree for a woman typically means her having not much of a family, and a Ph.D. means she probably will have NO family. Kind of evolutionarily maladaptive thing to do, even if those things usually pay off (and mostly they don’t, now).
@Luke
Please provide a link to what you wrote above regarding life expectancy.
TFH, both egg donors and I are fairly bright people. (I estimate 125/145/133 IQs, respectively.), all with at least one B.S. degree (2 of with STEM ones).
Also, odds are that the children from those embryos would be blue-eyed blondes of Northern European ancestry. And, the embryos have been genetically tested, so have essentially NO chance of any trisomies, cystic fibrosis, etc. Better genetic odds than getting a 3-YO castoff from some trailer park lower-class type (who may or may not have used various recreational pharmaceuticals). Saving time is nontrivial, too.
Anyway, if you’re not interested, just pass the offer by.
The One, I lost it, to my eternal regret. However, the truth of it was confirmed for me by our fertility clinic doc.
It’s not that I don’t believe you, but such a study would have to involves thousands of people and track them throughout their lifespan. I’m unaware of such meta studies and I work in the medical profession, not maternity though
TFH, you are the only poster on this forum (aside from Dalrock himself) who I make a point of stopping and reading every word you have written, when I’m going through old threads. Your posts in response to my kind offer have IMO been uncharacteristic and reprehensible.
@vRichard Cook says:
July 30, 2015 at 2:22 pm
“I wonder what happens to the diesel electrician making six figures? Its all STEM?”
Not at all. There are lots of men in the trades making six figures in the oil industry. It’s a high risk/high reward, boom/bust industry, and we’re in a trough for now, but the men I know who got laid off landed on their feet because they have an abundance of marketable skills. They’ll be back when things pick up.
I have no experience in other areas of the private sector, so I won’t comment on those.
@ TFH says:
July 30, 2015 at 3:08 pm
“No matter what Oscar and his wife does, the kids will be ‘gangbangers’. No amount of good upbringing can change this, in Luke’s view”
Yes, those Ethiopian gangs are the scourge of the Great Pacific Northwest! Scourge, I tell you! I shudder to think what they’ll do to my bona fide with MS-13!
The potential for leftover frozen embryos is one of the reasons that I personally couldn’t choose IVF. I suppose if my husband decided we should do it, then I guess we would, but we’d need to only fertilize as many eggs as we were willing to gestate. I couldn’t bear to have some of my children trapped, frozen, not alive, not dead. Nor would I want to put them up for adoption; it would eat at me that my babies were with someone else.
I am not saying this to criticise. I have Catholic friends who did IVF and plan to make “excess” embryos available for adoption, and I’m sure that the recipients will feel blessed to receive them. But, weak woman that I am, I couldn’t bear to abandon my children, and for me that’s what would be involved.
Oscar, I work in the oil patch. Easily 60% of rigs that were drilling 9 months ago are cold-stacked now. Further, pay cuts (per hour/day rates) are hitting in combo with fewer hours/days for those still employed in the biz. The field guys doing completion and pipeline work are still doing okay by most accounts, though that is not for forever.
If I were 16 and wanted a fast route to high-paying oil work, the welders do great. For older dudes with little education, driving 18-wheelers is pretty steady there. Agreed that electronics certificates can do much for a guy. Engineers still get the best treatment, though.
I am now given to wonder if two different people write under TFH’s handle, the way semantic analysis supposedly indicates 2+ people do under IBB’s name. It’s hard to reconcile the master who wrote “The Misandry Bubble” with the reflexive, unthinking, shallow PC smarm I’m seeing from him today, and have seen previously from him on occasion on discussions of nature and nurture (BOTH of which are crucial, after all).
Man, you guys are all pissed off talking about HBD again and I wanted to talk shop about how cool it is being an army psychologist.
If I were of an age to be marrying a pretty young woman, knowing what I do now, all of the things mentioned above would be important, but for me, the thing I want to know is does she have a history of persistence.
Marriage and family don’t magically transform the mundane aspects of life into exciting, fulfilling experiences. If the first time she’s ever had to deal with duties and responsibilities is in marriage, to my mind, that doesn’t bode well.
ha, another study showing the ceiling to be 32! hopefully girls will get the message. unless it’s on muffpo or buzzfeminst, they will probably ignore all the facts.
Siobhan says:
July 30, 2015 at 3:43 pm
“The potential for leftover frozen embryos is one of the reasons that I personally couldn’t choose IVF. I suppose if my husband decided we should do it, then I guess we would, but we’d need to only fertilize as many eggs as we were willing to gestate.”
That’s not how it works, Siobhan. To get 3 or 4 good embryos, fertilizing as many as 10 ova is needed. Somewhat similar waste occurs in natural fertilization, so it’s not as if God doesn’t also lose many along the way. (Compare for any primitive species the the difference between eggs laid and resulting adults for a REAL education in what level of reproductive waste is “natural”.)
Actually, TFH is doing a more than passable impersonation of Deti – his list of female qualities, I mean, not his anti-white tirade – and before I get accused of being anti-Indian I am sad today that my charming neighbour, his wife and small sons from Tamil Nadu has today returned home to Mumbai as his Visa of twelve months duration has expired.
Seems like whenever Luke and Oscar are actively commenting on a thread, no matter the topic, TFH just can’t restrain himself from picking that old HBD scab. Where is Lyn87 when you need him?
TFH, I think what we are starting to see is a backlash against multiculturism more than racism in the manosphere. It’s going to get worse. Drawing distinctions is going to be hard. The identity politics games of the feminists and race hustlers have left some scar tissue. I’m pretty well flatly tired of how white male culture has been open season for SJW’s my whole life. I doubt I’m the only one.
@Scott
This creates a shortage of us in perpetuity. I got in, now everyone else stay out so I can be in demand!
Reminds me of medieval guilds.
Luke: “It’s hard to reconcile the master who wrote “The Misandry Bubble” with the reflexive, unthinking, shallow PC smarm I’m seeing from him today […]”
Yes, he is to be highly respected for his work on The MIsandry Bubble and for his hard-nosed analysis of women’s behavior in modern society. When it comes to matters of race, for three years my view has been that TFH behaves like this because of bad experiences he has had with white nationalists in the past. I witnessed them first-hand. Four years ago, he feuded with a blogger named OneSTDV that was more of a personal spat than one of facts and ideas. OneSTDV certainly had some “white knight” beliefs about white women, as did some other white nationalists, but wasn’t as many as TFH made it out to be then, and it’s even fewer now.
Like Luke, I also read all of his comments on this blog, and it’s apparent to me that TFH has never really updated his views on white nationalism or European consciousness in several years. I’ve seen no indication that he understands the ongoing merging of red pill ideas on sex with red pill ideas on human populations. His catch phrase of “White Knight Nationalism” becomes increasingly inapplicable as men concerned about the survival of Western Civilization learn and promote game.
F. Roger Devlin, the author of the legendary “Sexual Utopia In Power” (which Dalrock has recently promoted), has long been a white nationalist. There is nothing “white knight” about his view of women.
As much as I have respected and learned from TFH’s comments on matters of sex in the five years I have been reading his work, he has chosen to maintain that “women + democracy = feminist police state” is the primary cause of Western decline – even as men he has long admired, such as Roosh, have begun to identify mass immigration from the third world and anti-white “diversity” as pressing issues.
I don’t know if TFH will ever shed the legacy of his past with crazy white nationalists and rethink the matter, but if he doesn’t that’s fine. He’s still a hard-hitter on matters of sex which are vitally important. In fact, he has become more hardcore as the years go on! But, I would not engage with him in any useless flame wars on matters of race.
I actually think the difference between HBDers and blank sate theorists is likened to middle of the road to extreme, respectively. It seems reasonable to me that mean intra group differences in temperament and intelligence are heritable but that the environment also plays (and is still playing) a role.
To suggest it is 100% either/or strikes me as not passing the walking around test.
Indeed, Eincrou. I guess TFH has never seen a list of Science Nobel Prize winners, or contemplated what the world political map of 1914 meant. Fred Reed’s list here is apt:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/WhiteMales.shtml
” Don’t misunderstand me. We pale males aren’t perfect. Far from it. We’ve got warts on most of us. We leave things all over the living room. We drink beer and chase women. Sometimes we punch each other out in bars. But we have contributed a few things to civilization. For example:
Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Algebra. Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. The penis. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.”
But then again, I also think the end result should be “everyone is held to the same standards of behavior, regardless of race” since there really isn’t another fair and equitable way to run a society.
Thing I have to remember is, white male culture is getting burned down by God, and He’s using feminists and race hustlers to do it.
This must be how Habbakuk felt when he realized that God was sending the Babylonians as instruments of correction in his time.
I also think a point being missed is the importance of heredity to patriarchal systems. This is why “cuckservative” is stinging so much for some.
TFH
Then we are talking about a difference in degree and not in kind. While I would adjust your estimates in favor of a higher degree of behavior variance accounted for by biology, I don’t think your percentages unreasonable.
I’m just having trouble understanding that this assertion is incompatible with manosphere orthodoxy. I don’t think Vdare, jay mans blog, HBD chick or those who can see are hate sites. I welcome the unfreezing of the taboo on simply asking these questions.
Although I am not a geneticist, I was fortunate to attend a program of study with roughly the same amount of graduate level study in research design and statistics. In fact I wish I had a little more Asian in me so that part might have been easier 🙂
I don’t publish (much) but I have moved to an academic position so I better start.
But because of that, I can follow the links that those sites offer and do a pretty good job of keeping up. I just have to familiarize myself with jargon and I am comprehending it. And it seems the body of literature is growing daily.
Not sure what that makes me, or why I am outcast from this part of the internet because I read that stuff.
Forgot– when I write “links” I mean links to highly respected peer reviewed journals.
I will say this, though.
In certain corners of the HBD sub genre, there seems to be a big preoccupation with Jews. I’m not sure I would call it anti semitism but it is odd.
Not because they recognize their dominance in finance, movie production, etcetera. That is kind of the point– recognize apparently natural distributions and move on.
It’s why although I know my son, who is going into a STEM program this fall might find himself outgunned by a curve-blowing Asian kid, I don’t fret over it. I just tell him he needs to work harder and utilize other strengths.
But some HBDers don’t extend this same sane approach to Jews. They seem mad about what they have accomplished as a group.
I guess I am not reading the right articles. I am not seeing a lot hating backs for their low IQs. I am seeing a lot of recognizing that these mean differences occur and asking “whats up with that? Is there a genetic component? Is it 100% cultural/socialized? Why after all these decades of trying to change these stubborn distributions are they so hard to dislodge?”
I also don’t read CH and ROK, et al. My son does, but he is 18. He has a lot of growing to do as he thinks through what all this means. I am trying to figure out to help him harness that angst into something good.
Well then they aren’t leaders and they certainly aren’t Christians. People are different. Sometimes large groups of people are different. It’s no big deal to notice it and have theories about it.
Good discussion, headed to bed.
As proof, I present Canada. Canada has a skill/merit based immigration policy, with far fewer unskilled types. As a result Canada is already 17% Asian, but there appears to be no disharmony between Asians and whites in Canada.
The elephant in the room is that Canada doesn’t have to deal with a little something called Mexico.
It’s far easier to maintain a skill-based immigration policy when you don’t have millions of unskilled immigrants attempting to enter your country illegally every year, no?
Many of Canada’s economic stats are outperforming the US now for the first time in a century
Well a number of analysts believe Canada experienced a 2nd consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth, which is making the news here. And a few also believe that Canada is amidst a housing bubble even greater than the US experienced pre-2006.
Re: tips for a young woman to find a husband:
“…She has to proactively mention that she is serious about marriage, and has remained a virgin.”
This one doesn’t work.
Unless she’s from an Amish community men just plain won’t believe a woman when she says she’s a virgin. Today’s young women are bathed in sex culture from a young age. They are told by our media and schools that showing their bodies and having sex is “go grrrl power.” They have sex.
Whenever I heard this I always translated it as “I was on the carousel earlier, but I regret it now. I want you to wait and work for what I gave other guys for free.”
22 year old virgins exist, sure. But good luck finding one. Only a sucker would take a woman’s word at face value.
@TFH
It may seem strange how they hate blacks for ‘not having high IQs’ while they simultaneously hate Jews for being ‘too smart’.
I don’t keep up with that particular crowd, but from the stuff that has filtered through, I honestly have never seen that take place. 99% of complaints are based on behaviour (“burning down neighbourhoods”; “excessive self-interest”).
Dragonfly,
TFH had a good list. I would alter it by stating she must have long hair. Just long enough to toss, as TFH describes, is inadequate for me. The Bible uses the term, “long hair is her glory”. I do not see 5″ of hair qualifying as being so great that it would be seen as her glory, better than all else she has. Personally, I find it very attractive when her hair is long enough to reach past her breasts.
I would also add feminine clothing. Deut 22:5. A man wearing a dress or a woman wearing pants is not appealing, at least not to me. And cross-dressing is apparently not desirable to God either, given the term “detestable” that is used (at least in the NIV translation).
GeminiXcX also had a great list.
IBB @ July 29, 2015 at 11:17 pm:
“But here’s the thing, the guys who make the most money are fighting them off with a stick.”
Just as Gunner Q, I have to disagree.
Maybe I am the wrong “type”, as I am not interested in dating, only marriage. Therefore, I refuse to start a romantic relationship with a woman who already portrays herself as unsuitable. Thus I ignore some potentials that could have led to romantic relationships. But regardless, I make what I consider to be very good money. I also have a house and nice vehicle, which allow for perception of my wealth (not my reason for them, but still). I however find no need to carry a stick around, with which to “beat off” women.
@Dalrock………Nice Post!
@Scott
“”I know a few guys who are in their mid thirties, in great shape, not drug abusers, careers taking off, masculine. Good, solid men. Most of them have pretty much kissed women off. (Or they are players).””
Agreed! A few years ago I posted on a thread here about a “match making business” that we have in our office tower,where I work here in Toronto.The woman that runs the business(who is also a tenant of ours) had a “singles night” one Friday night after work.There were over 100 women that showed up.The number of men?…(if my memory serves me correctly)….6! It was a joke! This is where I started to really see how men were opting out.Of course,men were blamed for the catastrophe.She has told me that her biggest problem is getting men to sign up for her services….and that she generally has a ratio of 4 to 5 women for every man on her books.Also,a bar that I frequent after office hours for a beer with colleagues now has a “Men’s Night”. I went to one a few months ago just to check it out.There were approximately 7 women for every man present.The irony is that the bar owner got the idea for a “Men’s Night” from an accountant that I know that frequents the establishment also.A “Gay” accountant!
@IBB
“”the guys who make the most money are fighting them off with a stick.””
OH YA!……….but,besides sex?….they bring absolutely NOTHING to the table!
“”The highest earning guys who are getting all the p-ssy they want keep playing the field.””
There is no reason to stop playing the field.The BS,the financial & legal implications is NOWHERE near worth the p***y that you are getting!…..Not by a long shot!
@TFH
“”I can tell you that if you are known for having money, and have Game, you don’t actually have to spend anything at all.””
110% correct!…….I NEVER spend money on women.They are generally a waste of time & money! I get laid more than any married guy I know….and I spend nothing on women.When I go over to see one of my “booty calls”…..they have already bought beer for me.My brand of beer….not theirs!!
@Opus
“”There is no question (to my mind) that female lawyers are amongst the most unpleasant women on the planet.””
Are they ever!…..WOW! I consider wimminz attorneys to be the most obnoxious,entitled,know it all,insufferable c***s on the planet! They are also the most “dateless” shrews that I have ever met! Therefore,they make GREAT booty calls! I have one that I have been shagging for the past year.I cannot stand her! When she doesn’t have her legs in the air and screaming like a banshee???….I want to punch her in the head! That is the probably my best reason for screwing her.I hate her guts!
@TFH
“”Because a lot of successful Jewish men are marrying white Christian women, while the Jewish women are not equally desired the other way (or by Jewish men).””
90% of Jewish men that I know want nothing to do with Jewish wimminz!….UGH! I have warned men here COUNTLESS times to avoid Jewish wimminz like the plague! They are in a league all their own! Get involved with one of those harpies and you can kiss your life goodbye!!!!……..Shalom!
@Dale
“”I am not interested in dating, only marriage. Therefore, I refuse to start a romantic relationship with a woman who already portrays herself as unsuitable.””
My advice to you is to read the laws in the country,state or province that you reside.Then after you have read them,have yourself a “sit down” with a HIGHLY competent attorney to discuss those laws.You will find that you might be shooting yourself in the head! That income,house and car might very well end up hers……and you will be sleeping in a cardboard box!….if you are lucky! Of all the married men I know(and I know A LOT of people) I can count on one hand the number of men that have told me that “I like being married and would gladly do it again”.The other 5000,or so, have told me that “it was the stupidest thing that I have ever done but,I have to stick it out.Otherwise I will lose everything that I have ever worked for”…….My personal advice to you?….DON”T DO IT!!!!!!!….you will live to regret it!
@ Moses,
“This one doesn’t work.”
I understand you. I can really sympathise with why it doesn’t work – basically for the reasons you give.
But…on the other hand, I don’t advocate that women disclose their ‘status’ to a prospective husband ESPECIALLY if she IS a virgin.
I didn’t understand this at the time I was dating, but I think I understand things better now.
It seems a bit ‘try hard’ if you are trying to convince someone you are a virgin. They will naturally, get suspicious about you.
I never disclosed. When my husband (then boyfriend) directly asked (because of ‘no action’ 3 months or so into our relationship), I actually didn’t answer. He says I blushed and looked away, which is probably true, because I am sensitive about this subject.
I never discussed virginity with anyone who I was interested in or who was interested in me because I thought it was too much of an intimate discussion to have with someone who is not yet ‘established’ as a husband-potential. Even having this discussion with a man was, in itself ‘slutty’, in my view. (Yes, I had weird ideas about life, and still do, lol).
In my case, my husband drew his own conclusions. Soon before we married, I gave him a straight answer. Of course he was able to ‘prove’ it, so to speak, once we were married.
It takes a lot of trust on the part of a man to do what my husband did.
I don’t really expect that level of trust from men because…exactly what you say above…
It is difficult, yes. When you look at things from a man’s point of view…
I feel considerable sympathy for TFH. A razor-sharp mind merged with the clearest of writing is an unbeatable combination; entirely American yet with one foot (as with Sherlock Holmes at Grimpen Mire) stuck in a south east asian quicksand. As such he has (rightly or wrongly) a dislike of Islam which no white person may voice (the dislike that dare not speak its mind) yet I must speak up for that religion or at least those members of that religion who live in that town in Yorkshire known as Rotherham: the men merely noticed that young English women were sluts and acted accordingly, in no way essentially different from Heartiste and Roosh or for that matter Krauser and those who ape those sex-gods.
Rotherham is part of an anti-male witch-hunt facilitated by The Home Office, a department of government that these past twenty years has been the unofficial headquarters of the Frauen Reich; a department that has produced such horrors as Operation YewTree, an operation designed to put mortal fear into every man who was normal in the seventies and eighties, which has led innocent men like Harris, Richard and the like out to The Scaffold and the demonisation of the reputation of that good man the late James Saville, indeed the very Sexual Terror that F.Roger Devlin so perceptively predicted in his essay.
One has to see the bigger picture; but I fear that I am perhaps drifting a bit too far off what might be appropriate for this blog.
ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/anz-bank-launches-a-super-deal-for-female-employees/story-fn91wd6x-1227460840565
Rather than talking about helping women progress, ANZ Bank will beat its rival banks and major corporates today by promising an extra $500 a year employer super contribution for its 12,700 female staff in Australia, as part of a raft of benefits aimed mainly at women.
The move will be announced at a lunch in Sydney attended by chief executive Mike Smith, former prime minister Julia Gillard and tennis legend Martina Navratilova.
Joyce Phillips, ANZ’s chief executive global wealth, said ANZ had calculated the average pay gap between men and women in Australia was $295 a week, or $15,000 a year.
“That amounts to around $700,000 over an entire career, which in most parts of Australia is enough to buy a house outright,’’ she said.
ANZ is the first bank in Australia to discriminate positively in favour of women in terms of compulsory super contributions, although actuaries Rice Warner have been giving female staff an extra 2 per cent since 2013 and Unions NSW followed suit about a year ago.
The only complication to date is that organisations planning to do so have to get a waiver from the Human Rights Commission to be allowed to discriminate in that way.
So raising the overhead costs is now called “beating its rivals”? Seems counter-intuitive to me, as it provides a direct disincentive for potential clients.
@Exfernal:
Good piece of advice: if a CEO says anything about the company going “progressive” or “focusing on diversity”, sell the Stock if you have any. It’s always a sign of lazy business.
At the same time, I’d be surprised if that even survives Aussie-land courts. It’s a pretty explicit discrimination on the basis of sex alone. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I must speak up for that religion or at least those members of that religion who live in that town in Yorkshire known as Rotherham: the men merely noticed that young English women were sluts and acted accordingly, in no way essentially different from Heartiste and Roosh or for that matter Krauser and those who ape those sex-gods.
Weren’t/Aren’t some of those ‘sluts’ 9, 10, 12 years old? You OK with that?
You are either trolling or sick.
Some must have been 13 14 and 15 and it would appear that you are OK with that. Paedocrit!
Agreed! A few years ago I posted on a thread here about a “match making business” that we have in our office tower,where I work here in Toronto.The woman that runs the business(who is also a tenant of ours) had a “singles night” one Friday night after work.There were over 100 women that showed up.The number of men?…(if my memory serves me correctly)….6! It was a joke! This is where I started to really see how men were opting out.Of course,men were blamed for the catastrophe.She has told me that her biggest problem is getting men to sign up for her services….and that she generally has a ratio of 4 to 5 women for every man on her books.Also,a bar that I frequent after office hours for a beer with colleagues now has a “Men’s Night”. I went to one a few months ago just to check it out.There were approximately 7 women for every man present.The irony is that the bar owner got the idea for a “Men’s Night” from an accountant that I know that frequents the establishment also.A “Gay” accountant!
In the early 2000s I was a stationed at Fort Bragg, a lowly E-4, newly minted soldier, fresh off a divorce. Totally wrecked life. 30 years old, starting a basic life-rebuild.
So I signed up for match.com. Without fail, a huge portion of the women there would have a profile like this:
“I am looking for E-7/O-3 or above. Must be Special Forces or professional (Doctor/Lawyer). Please do not communicate if you do not meet these qualifications.”
I was very blue pill then. But this was one of those moments when the red pill was flicking sand in my face.
Are they ever!…..WOW! I consider wimminz attorneys to be the most obnoxious,entitled,know it all,insufferable c***s on the planet! They are also the most “dateless” shrews that I have ever met!
The fact that even male lawyers won’t date them speaks to how repulsive they are.
I have one that I have been shagging for the past year.I cannot stand her! When she doesn’t have her legs in the air and screaming like a banshee???….I want to punch her in the head! That is the probably my best reason for screwing her.I hate her guts!.
Be careful, brother; you’re masturbating with a meat grinder here. Any male non-lawyer who fucks a female lawyer is playing Russian roulette with five loaded chambers).
90% of Jewish men that I know want nothing to do with Jewish wimminz!….UGH! I have warned men here COUNTLESS times to avoid Jewish wimminz like the plague! They are in a league all their own! Get involved with one of those harpies and you can kiss your life goodbye!!!!…
Jewish woman are indeed their own natural repellant, no additional chemicals or additives necessary.
I have to believe that the only reason why the Jewish race has survived up until this point is because of the persistence of the tradition of arranged marriages up until very recently. Now that this tradition is history (except maybe among the ultra orthodox) and Jewish men and woman are both succumbing to the hedonic marriage model common to the rest of the western world, a demographic tome bomb is slowly detonating that bodes ill for the western Jewish community’s future. Alas, unless either some psychiatric genius comes up with a successful personality transplantation technique for Jewish women, or unless Talmudic Law (“Jewish Shariah?”) were to become law of the land, I don’t see things changing anytime soon.
@MarcusD, Exfernal,
It’s protection money. The businesses hope by doing this it will insulate them from criticism and allow them to get on with their business.
You see businesses doing the all the time. They institute some politically correct program or policy hoping this will appease the left enough that they can get on with running their business.
Of course, it’s never enough. SJWs always return for the next inch, which is why giving a SJW an inch always results in (eventually) giving them a mile–one inch at a time.
@PuffyJacket
“”Well a number of analysts believe Canada experienced a 2nd consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth, which is making the news here. And a few also believe that Canada is amidst a housing bubble even greater than the US experienced pre-2006.””
I am one of those believers! I just left a meeting in the Family Office where that was the main subject of discussion.When a seller here in Toronto is asking 650K for a house….and they get 800K?…..you know that a meltdown is imminent.We have been waiting for this to happen for the last 3 years.We have certain commercial properties that are targeted.The best time to buy is when there is blood in the streets!
22 year old virgins exist, sure. But good luck finding one. Only a sucker would take a woman’s word at face value.
Unbelieving believers, when will ye believe?
I have dated SEVERAL women who were virgins, right here in the United States. Their ages ranged from mid-20s to 38. No, I am not kidding, and if any of you know how to plow through the bull of women you’ll quickly arrive at the truth. My last gf was a virgin through and through. She was also very attractive, with all the right curves in the right places, and she as well endowed in her bosom as well (something that I find irresistible in a woman) . I truly hated breaking up with her, but I knew I had to do it.
Most of the guys who say women are lying when they say they are virgins are the ones who are too chicken to ask women direct, probing questions, and press for an answer. Women generally don’t lie about virginity, if you ask the right questions. Even the ones who claim to be “born-again” virgins will fess up when you ask them direct questions, though they will quickly rationalize their “status”. Or maybe it depends on the quality of the women folks are talking about.
Let’s stop the bull, please. If you ask a woman you’re flirting with if she has ever had sex and she huffs and puffs, or says it’s “none of your business”, or “I am not into that anymore”, chances are her notch count is higher than zero. Most virgins are proud to say they are virgins, and they often volunteer the information without probing as such.
90% of Jewish men that I know want nothing to do with Jewish wimminz!….UGH! I have warned men here COUNTLESS times to avoid Jewish wimminz like the plague! They are in a league all their own! Get involved with one of those harpies and you can kiss your life goodbye!!!!……..Shalom!
Jewish women founded modern feminism. You can hardly mention any popular feminist dating back 40 years who was not Jewish.
I was driving along today listening to the radio and I switched channels into the tail end of the Dire Straights song Money For Nothing.
I’m not good enough to write up a real Poe’s Law SJW outrage at this, but recalling that one of the stations blanks out the word “faggot”, I realized this is a perfect example of how male sensibilities are more important than female ones as women are still referred to as “chicks” and objectified by noting that rock stars are getting “chicks for free”.
PATRIARCHY!!
MISOGYNY!!!
BURN THEM!!!
Individuals aren’t statistical categories, and individual women will have different results based on their body chemistry and overall health. So, if you probably have a few extra years if you’re especially pretty and therefore don’t need them. Meanwhile, if you’re below average, you’ve probably got fewer years, even though you’re likely to have to work harder for it. Life’s a bitch like that.
@Dave: Not necessarily true. Although that linked list is hardly complete, lacking for example the names of Susan Brownmiller, Shulamith Firestone, Naomi Goldenberg, Gerda Lerner, and Robin Morgan (all Jewish feminists), but there are also prominent non-Jewish feminists, like D. A. Clarke, Nikki Craft, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Barbara Ehrenreich, Marilyn French, Linda Gordon, Anne Koedt, Diana E. H. Russell, Gloria Jean Watkins (bell hooks) and so on and so forth….
Once again, Dalrock, your hard work and research is much appreciated!
It’s a little more than single digits for me, but not much. What’s interesting is the mindset of many of the dudes who are clearly miserable. Many of them laud their wives beyond any reasonable comprehension when they are in male company. I have acquaintances who, I expected, to be married to absolute angels — then the minute you see these happy couples together, the shrike wimminz are berating and mocking their husbands in public so brutally that one wonders that the victims don’t cause a run on the family courts.
All things considered, it’s an odd bit of Stockholm Syndrome.
Dear TFH:
I’ve long noticed this also. The Jewish woman seems identical in outlook and temper to the Mormon woman. They’re both raised up to believe that they are “special” and their parents dote and spoil them way beyond anything that’s healthy. When they’re adults both of these types love to divorce their Jewish and Mormon husbands and get a huge charge out of taking their man for everything he is worth. It’s totally disgusting.
Much of it is also the encouragement of the clergy. Rabbis and Mormon bishops are often about as patriarchal as Gloria Steinem, and serious men in both communities ought to be calling these “leaders” to account.
No offense to any of my sisters in the audience who are hardcore submissive wives (nor any offense to any decent shebrews either). I know there are some women who take their roles seriously, but the stats speak for themselves.
Fuck’n lol. Boxer, quit fucking around.
Regards,
Gemini
@Dave
I always thought asking about the virginity question was far less revealing than the “how many hotel rooms” question. Also, if you are ever allowed to “sleep over on the couch because you drank too much”. Basically, if you can sleep near her, someone else did and probably got to touch her in the bargain.
As for Jewish women, only their children are considered Jewish, so the men must marry them to have Jewish children. Muslims on the other hand pass religion through the male line, so men can marry Christians, Jews, or muslimas. The interesting thing is that demographically, the Orthodox/Haredi portion of the population is rapidly overtaking with a fertility rate between 3 and 7 depending on the community, early marriage, and difficult divorce. A very frum woman would actually be a good choice.
“I understand your frustration. I have 8 different “Dalrock” accounts alone, and trying to invent a unique personality for each account gets confusion when you lose track.”
We knew Frankfurt CVS would f**k up your prescriptions sooner or later, Horkheimer.
TFH,
Just wanted to drop by and say that there likely are much more people reading your comments than only writing in here.
It`s just a shame you stopped writing posts on your own, and now one has to CTRL+F through Dalrock`s comments to get some of your insights and views.
I would say in most cases, if she is really looking (and pretty much every single woman I know…. is)
Bullshit.
Pingback: The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude. | Dalrock
Does this table count for women who go through spells of lactational amenorrhea? Bearing in mind it’s in no way uncommon for a breastfeeding woman not to regain her fertility until her child is nearly 2 years of age. We do live in a formula feeding culture so probably not. I turned 27 in April and am half way through my first pregnancy and I hope to have 3 or 4 more.
@ Kate Mintner is a concern troll. Note how she writes a long-winded introduction above how men sometimes should and sometimes shouldn’t use medical inervention to improve their lives. The reasoning seems to be that they should only when it is better for the people around them (meaning: better for HER or women around him).
For example, he grandfather with the heart problem should have just known it was time to go and stop burdening his family with his disease.
“I had a grandfather who had a second heart surgery *very* late in life,”
Well, yeah, if he died soon thereafter it would have been late in life, would it not.
Then there was the uncle who declined medical care, when he sould have accepted it.
“and his wife respected those wishes, though it meant she had to witness his terrible pain and eventual death”
Oh, the poor wife! She has to witness the pain. What about the poor sod that actually had the pain, the man who dies, painfully? Isn’t he the poor one?
Then she eventually gets to the point: Shge is 37 and her husband is 60. Then in a later post she haas the gall to claim that her husband is penniless. I’m sorry, but NO woman marries a man 23 years her senior who is pennliless. It just does not happen.
“My husband is sixty and I am thirty-seven, and even if circumstances made having children together a more viable option,”
What was unviable about it? Stop being vague. Was it the fact that you waited too long to get married? And now you don’t want him to be able to have a child with a woman that can or will? Or was it that simply you were not going to have a child with him, no matter what?
Here is what I think: His body, his choice.
“I’m sorry, but NO woman marries a man 23 years her senior who is pennliless. It just does not happen.”
Oh, but it does. And it tends to make people very upset. I’m only now starting to fully understand why. My husband is a mountaintop guru conveniently located in my living room. I positively dote upon him. I understand your disbelief. You haven’t seen him riverdance 🙂 I’ve been called a troll for years. There are many who don’t believe my stories, but they’re all true.
Oh yeah, another reason why women behaving like men might be a bad idea….
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/14/us-health-fertility-workers-idUSKCN0QJ2A220150814
I’ve noticed a change in attitude in four generations of women in my family back home. My paternal great-grandmother passed away when I was 16 but I heard her talk about why she had 11 kids. There was no “why”, that’s just what you did. My grandmother often talks about how “children are a blessing” so for her it wasn’t just something you did with no thought, it was done with joy and seen something spiritual. She only had 5 though. My own mother had three and said “three was enough!” My sister hasn’t had one yet and says if she ever does, it will be one only because the cost of living and education is so high and there are other things to life than just sex and popping kids out. Some of my female friends from back in school used to say India is overpopulated so they refuse to contribute to the problem and are never having kids.
Pingback: Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Worthwhile Reading & Viewing
Some of my female friends from back in school used to say India is overpopulated so they refuse to contribute to the problem and are never having kids.
O geez! Aren’t there too many people who own cars these days? I wonder why those women own or drive cars…….
Mickey Singh says:
August 26, 2015 at 2:31 pm
“Some of my female friends from back in school used to say India is overpopulated so they refuse to contribute to the problem and are never having kids.”
They don’t grasp the situation well at all. The Earth is overpopulated (and becoming increasingly so) with Indians, Muslims, Africans, etc.,whom it needs fewer of. The Earth is UNDERpopulated with white Westerners (and Japanese), whom it needs more of. Check the Nobel Prizes in Science and Medicine (or average IQ by country, or tendency towards terrorism) if in doubt on this.