Encourage marriage and single income households?- oh no, it's gibs, gibs, put men to work in the home (huh), and just replace them with third worlders. Eat shit, BBC.
Even without marriage the entire social care system is woman orientated. There's a difference between "runaway dads" who pumped and dumped in the 60s and the men now who are at the other end of the spectrum.
Were in a society where a man who isn't even the father of a child is on the hook for 18years, even with proof. We're in a society where a sperm donor can face the same fees, fines and maintenance charges if the mother demanded it.
They've dropped all these conditions and restrictions on the male component socially, financially and legally that its not worth the time effort or money to jump through the excessive hoops, only to then spend a further quarter of a million raising a child who will only become indoctrinated to either hate you, or themselves.
Lastly they've also completely ignored the medical reasons for low birth rates.
My dad was a sibling of six, because three of them fecking died before age 10. Even in the UK housing sanitation didn't really clean up until late 60s,70s and big families were a continued thing because of poor medical advances.
Were now at a point where we HAVE to put everything in just one or two children. We can't afford to keep more and the medical services are at a state where we don't need to "breed in the spares" any more.
They're arguing that being at a replacement rate of 2 is bad... When really it's the opposite. Higher replacement rates generally mean lower quality of life. 2.4 children is the stereotype for a reason. It's the optimal number with some bucking the trend.
How exactly do you 'lose out' from making work more flexible?
It's retarded to do it for reasons of 'gender equity' as the BBC says, but it's a pretty great thing when possible.
But this was very interesting:
"From a demographic point of view, none of this actually needs to be a problem," says Prof George Leeson of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing.
Fertility rates in western Europe have been below replacement level since the 1970s but populations have continued to grow. "The population has just been refreshed and replenished by migration," he says.
And falling populations can have positive effects in terms of climate change. "At the moment the fact that we're not having as many children as our parents and grandparents did is giving the global village a bit of a breathing space," says Prof Leeson.
Impossible has glommed on to the "stormcucks" meme so fucking hard in an effort to make his pathological anti-woman obsession seem less insane. "I hate women with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but at least I'm not mildly anti-Semitic!"
Watching he and Antonio bond over their mutual dislike of the JQ crowd is so heartwarming. Nothing brings people together like shared hatred for an idea that conflicts with their own individual explanations for all the problems. Don't worry if those individual explanations regularly contradict each other. Such minor disagreements can always be put aside to run defensive cover for people so oppressed that criticizing them is literally a hate crime.
Young women being so intolerable and self-centered that nobody wants to start a family with them is not a conspiracy.
It makes sense that an economy built around growth would import people to get around that issue. Confronting it would get women and the men they raised voting the entire government out.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Our social elites' anti-life world view is enough. Presumably if the third world is actually able to back fill our society successfully they'll get ground up too and have to be replaced as well.
If you read it, you'd see they say that giving it to men has no effect, so we wouldn't get it. We'd just have to work the extra hours.
I read it twice and I am not sure where you got that.
Anyway, that would be bad for women's employment opportunities. You can't give a group extra rights without simultaneously hurting it. If a company hiring a female worker will have additional costs imposed on it, but not with a male worker, the market dictates that male workers will be more attractive one way or another - in the worst case with the companies hiring more female workers going out of business.
Oh God, that highlighted text will attract all the stormcucks.
Well, it does sound extremely dodgy. Not just that he cheers the replacement of native Europeans by (Islamic) immigrants, but also in that he simultaneously says that demographic decline is not a problem because immigration, and because it's actually good for his global warming cult.
Working from home women found they could spend more time with their children and they choose to have more. The same effect wasn't found in women with lower levels of education or with men.
Here, they tried to bury it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world, with innumerable amounts of laws protecting them, power positions in their control and a friendly media. Any attempt to mitigate their privileges' effect would be met with being blacklisted from stock exchanges, being dragged through shit by the media and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
They're saying that they can maintain the population growth needed for economic stimulus through immigration, but eventually this will stop working and they'll then pivot to "the population is crashing, but that's a good thing because climate change" instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
Then how are they uncompromising?
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.
It's implied. If it doesn't push men towards having kids, they don't need it.
And what can you do about it?
What other motive is there? If it was really about protecting kids, why not those sites? Why can someone go on Facebook, which is used to share CP, and buy ads, paying with Mastercard? There has to be a motive, it wasn't just random. The one they gave is obvious BS, so follow the money and it leads to OF being the only beneficiary.
I don't consider a compromise that is knowingly taken for later gains by the same group to be true compromise. A true compromise is sacrifice for the greater good of society.
This is the first time you've said something that genuinely makes me question your sanity. We both know women are overvalued. We both know that pushing more people into the dating market will worsen their already extremely concerning ego trip. Why on earth would you want to tax people who don't get involved? It'd be better for society to tax those who do get involved with them, it can pay for all the damage they cause.
Japan's birthrates started dropping after ww2 after the new system and constitution was forced on them. Korea had this weird huge baby boom in 1960's-1970's and then took a nose dive
Erin Hye Won Kim at the University of Seoul found that fertility rates increased when men helped out more at home.
I agree to an extent, if the wife works all day around the house and you are watching TV is going to mess your marriage. This is one of the reasons I try to fix everything around the house myself and if there is nothing to fix I start a small project to keep me busy. I also help with the baby's bath and make breakfast and sometimes dinner in the weekends.
A happy, reasonable wife will want to have more kids.
Encourage marriage and single income households?- oh no, it's gibs, gibs, put men to work in the home (huh), and just replace them with third worlders. Eat shit, BBC.
That wouldn't help either. You have to flip the system, make men the ones who reap the benefits of having kids, because they literally gain nothing.
Marriage is a con to make women rich. Single income households are a relic, we lost our chains now, they can work.
Even without marriage the entire social care system is woman orientated. There's a difference between "runaway dads" who pumped and dumped in the 60s and the men now who are at the other end of the spectrum.
Were in a society where a man who isn't even the father of a child is on the hook for 18years, even with proof. We're in a society where a sperm donor can face the same fees, fines and maintenance charges if the mother demanded it.
They've dropped all these conditions and restrictions on the male component socially, financially and legally that its not worth the time effort or money to jump through the excessive hoops, only to then spend a further quarter of a million raising a child who will only become indoctrinated to either hate you, or themselves.
Lastly they've also completely ignored the medical reasons for low birth rates. My dad was a sibling of six, because three of them fecking died before age 10. Even in the UK housing sanitation didn't really clean up until late 60s,70s and big families were a continued thing because of poor medical advances.
Were now at a point where we HAVE to put everything in just one or two children. We can't afford to keep more and the medical services are at a state where we don't need to "breed in the spares" any more.
They're arguing that being at a replacement rate of 2 is bad... When really it's the opposite. Higher replacement rates generally mean lower quality of life. 2.4 children is the stereotype for a reason. It's the optimal number with some bucking the trend.
How exactly do you 'lose out' from making work more flexible?
It's retarded to do it for reasons of 'gender equity' as the BBC says, but it's a pretty great thing when possible.
But this was very interesting:
Complete batshit.
If you read it, you'd see they say that giving it to men has no effect, so we wouldn't get it. We'd just have to work the extra hours.
Oh God, that highlighted text will attract all the stormcucks.
"White genocide is real! REEEEEEEE!"
Yes, why believe that they are doing what they outright say they are doing?
Impossible has glommed on to the "stormcucks" meme so fucking hard in an effort to make his pathological anti-woman obsession seem less insane. "I hate women with the burning passion of a thousand suns, but at least I'm not mildly anti-Semitic!"
Watching he and Antonio bond over their mutual dislike of the JQ crowd is so heartwarming. Nothing brings people together like shared hatred for an idea that conflicts with their own individual explanations for all the problems. Don't worry if those individual explanations regularly contradict each other. Such minor disagreements can always be put aside to run defensive cover for people so oppressed that criticizing them is literally a hate crime.
Says the person defending women.
Who literally advocate that "misogyny" should be a hate crime.
Young women being so intolerable and self-centered that nobody wants to start a family with them is not a conspiracy.
It makes sense that an economy built around growth would import people to get around that issue. Confronting it would get women and the men they raised voting the entire government out.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Our social elites' anti-life world view is enough. Presumably if the third world is actually able to back fill our society successfully they'll get ground up too and have to be replaced as well.
I read it twice and I am not sure where you got that.
Anyway, that would be bad for women's employment opportunities. You can't give a group extra rights without simultaneously hurting it. If a company hiring a female worker will have additional costs imposed on it, but not with a male worker, the market dictates that male workers will be more attractive one way or another - in the worst case with the companies hiring more female workers going out of business.
Well, it does sound extremely dodgy. Not just that he cheers the replacement of native Europeans by (Islamic) immigrants, but also in that he simultaneously says that demographic decline is not a problem because immigration, and because it's actually good for his global warming cult.
Which is it?
Here, they tried to bury it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world, with innumerable amounts of laws protecting them, power positions in their control and a friendly media. Any attempt to mitigate their privileges' effect would be met with being blacklisted from stock exchanges, being dragged through shit by the media and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
They're saying that they can maintain the population growth needed for economic stimulus through immigration, but eventually this will stop working and they'll then pivot to "the population is crashing, but that's a good thing because climate change" instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Then how are they uncompromising?
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.
It's implied. If it doesn't push men towards having kids, they don't need it.
And what can you do about it?
What other motive is there? If it was really about protecting kids, why not those sites? Why can someone go on Facebook, which is used to share CP, and buy ads, paying with Mastercard? There has to be a motive, it wasn't just random. The one they gave is obvious BS, so follow the money and it leads to OF being the only beneficiary.
I don't consider a compromise that is knowingly taken for later gains by the same group to be true compromise. A true compromise is sacrifice for the greater good of society.
This is the first time you've said something that genuinely makes me question your sanity. We both know women are overvalued. We both know that pushing more people into the dating market will worsen their already extremely concerning ego trip. Why on earth would you want to tax people who don't get involved? It'd be better for society to tax those who do get involved with them, it can pay for all the damage they cause.
Japan's birthrates started dropping after ww2 after the new system and constitution was forced on them. Korea had this weird huge baby boom in 1960's-1970's and then took a nose dive
I think China's method will be most effective - ban feminism and pray that Chinese men don't see the mask drop from their "better halves".
I agree to an extent, if the wife works all day around the house and you are watching TV is going to mess your marriage. This is one of the reasons I try to fix everything around the house myself and if there is nothing to fix I start a small project to keep me busy. I also help with the baby's bath and make breakfast and sometimes dinner in the weekends. A happy, reasonable wife will want to have more kids.