I might not agree with all the points she is making, but at lest someone from that, uhh, "side", is talking about this...
Perhaps the most salient points are towards the end:
Take the UK, which is likely to face enormous demographic changes as a result of uneven fertility rates. For instance, it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the strongest predictors of fertility is religiosity: more religious people have more children, and a tendency towards religiosity is moderately heritable. Having suffered the humiliation of the atheist revolution, it seems that believers are set to have the last laugh. Which is bad news for secular feminists, among others, given the very direct conflict between their values and those of the ancient religious traditions that are set to surge.
But then here’s the thing: the future belongs to those who show up, which means that the South Koreans who hope that the whole country will “simply disappear” are likely to get their wish. The question we have yet to answer is whether it is possible in the long term to sustain the kind of affluent, urban, secular culture represented by South Korea, or whether we will always revert back to the poverty, parochialism, and rigid control of women that characterised most of human history. In other words, is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
Lol. "Liberalism" and "secularism", and their consequences...
And it’s interesting because, while fertility rates have declined massively since around the 70s, the cliff seems to have been jumped just after the end of the Cold War…
So something defining “modernity” happened in around 1990, across pretty much the whole developed world, that has sent us on this path…
I could speculate as to what, exactly, but it’s very noticeable that some time around then is “the point of no return”, if you will…
But of course these people wouldn’t consider anything beyond their own lifetimes “modern”, so that’s how they can say stuff like this, lol…
Something weird fried humanity’s collective brains in the 80s and 90s, and we really have never recovered from it, imho…
is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
is it possible to be feminist and fertile. So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.
Sussman suggests that the cause is the “deterioration in relations between women and men”. “I think the most fundamental issue at hand is that a lot of girls realize that they don’t really have to do this anymore,” one South Korean women tells the author. “They can just opt out.”
WGTOW is just as hilariously self defeating as political lesbianism. Women are the ones who benefit from relationshits, not men. It's no skin off our asses if they go earn their own living instead of leeching off us and controlling our lives and living spaces. They're only good for sex and even then the price isn't worth it unless you're Chad.
the truth of the matter is that birth rates are not falling evenly across the whole world
Translation: The shitskins are breeding like rats, and while they back female supremacists for gibs they'll put the project in mortal danger if the feminists ever lose control of the clown show. Unlike the GOP, the shitskins won't stay content as feminist house niggers.
Pure insanity. Women are happiest being mothers. There are exceptions but the majority of women do not find happiness by working their way up the corporate ladder.
The problem is women will wait forever for their booty call to wife them up rather than settle for a nice guy.
Women haven't exerted selection choice on their mating choices for thousands of years (when marriage was a handhsake between father and groom.) they literally are not evolved enough to breed optimally.
Even if there were some kind of pro-civilization evolutionary pressure the less than 10000 years of civilization is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of years of evolution that led to their shitty mating choices. To make a dent in the problem we would have to allow women who fuck shitty men and their offspring to starve for death for tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. They would have to be given the freedom to make those shitty choices so their bad mating choices could be bred out, and civilization would die long before we saw any improvement. That's why marriage was a handshake between father and groom to begin with. The betas aren't going to underwrite civilization when women's deadbeat fucktoys get all the benefits.
It's a common misunderstanding between evolution and natural selection that everything has to take tens of thousands of year to change.
It takes that long to evolve new heritable traits.
But natural selection can take an already existing phenotype from 1% prevalence to 90+% prevalent, or vice versa, in just a few generations. If the selection pressures are strong enough.
The difference between a problem solvable in 60 years or one solvable in >10,000 is if good enough women currently exist.
There's no such thing as WGTOW, women just won't leave men alone. Remember how a bunch of feminists infiltrated some coomer gacha game to hide the Megalia hand symbol in some promotional videos?
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been single for years and besides the occasional pang in the heart wishing that there were actually any good women to be hand, I just jerk it and move on with my day and forget about women.
It's not a hate thing even. I just don't care. I do my job, do the things I want, hang out with friends, jerk it and occasionally bang a girl. I also agree women subsist off of men like parasites, which is why I don't keep any around.
I'd much rather go the traditional route but my autism shakes me like a dog and I think about how the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this relationship economy. I'd have to have a few dozen failed relationships before I find a half decent girl these days, and I just can't be bothered to deal with all that fucking nonsense.
If a good girl ever comes along and plops into my lap, fine, I'll bite. But I'm not searching.
Louise perry is an example of the frequent excuse "feminism would have worked except men screwed it up." She complains about women getting pumped and dumped but acts like women are forced into it somehow. She still wants women to have the freedom to be whores just with the option to claim permanently any man they feel like.
Feminists don't care and will never care. Any of the perceived problems of feminism will happen for the next generation and since the feminists won't be having children, they care about the next generation even less than most people.
In my opinion, what she is observing is one of God's built-in mechanisms for ensuring His creation abides by His natural order. Men and women are not identical. Feminism, i.e. allowing women to control the state of the society, does not work as this is not the role of women. Feminism inevitable leads to the collapse of that society. A patriarchal society, where men control the state of the society, which is men's role, will take its place.
From a practical point of view, this is way societies should align themselves with His natural order. In doing so, they can be successful and thrive. Fail to do so, and they run a real risk of butting against the mechanisms He has but in place to ensure they stay as intended.
Feminists fear the consequences of feminism?
O rly??
When the inevitable outcome of your ideology is your own extinction, then you are in a death cult. Because that’s the definition of a death cult.
Feminism is fertility negative. If they honestly are concerned they'd stop being feminists
I might not agree with all the points she is making, but at lest someone from that, uhh, "side", is talking about this...
Perhaps the most salient points are towards the end:
Lol. "Liberalism" and "secularism", and their consequences...
This is so good.
Yup, sure is.
And it’s interesting because, while fertility rates have declined massively since around the 70s, the cliff seems to have been jumped just after the end of the Cold War…
So something defining “modernity” happened in around 1990, across pretty much the whole developed world, that has sent us on this path…
I could speculate as to what, exactly, but it’s very noticeable that some time around then is “the point of no return”, if you will…
But of course these people wouldn’t consider anything beyond their own lifetimes “modern”, so that’s how they can say stuff like this, lol…
Something weird fried humanity’s collective brains in the 80s and 90s, and we really have never recovered from it, imho…
Main culprit imo: Globalization
Losing factories -> need degrees which delays childbirth
No border policies + multiculturalism -> loss of traditional cultural homogeneity
Death of mom&pop businesses -> further loss of communal attachments, further need for degrees, don't need kids to help with the business, etc
Global spread/dominance of Hollywood values -> you can guess that one
Etc.
I could write a book on it but to me it's clear that this is the main issue which keeps making things worse
Birth control.
In any case, the solution is old school patriarchal families, but Louise Perry would never accept that.
fat+flouride+plastic+soy+discouragement of boys and the deterioration of women around them.
All T killers
The combination is bound to have an effect.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
It sounds like another effect of 1971.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Edit: Damn, already got beat to it.
A group of my favorite writers (all Gen Y) call it Cultural Ground Zero, and put the turning at 1997.
Brian Neiemeir right?
Along with J. D. Cowan and a couple of others, yeah.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.
Feminists are not secular (whatever that means anymore, honestly). They're a cult.
WGTOW is just as hilariously self defeating as political lesbianism. Women are the ones who benefit from relationshits, not men. It's no skin off our asses if they go earn their own living instead of leeching off us and controlling our lives and living spaces. They're only good for sex and even then the price isn't worth it unless you're Chad.
Translation: The shitskins are breeding like rats, and while they back female supremacists for gibs they'll put the project in mortal danger if the feminists ever lose control of the clown show. Unlike the GOP, the shitskins won't stay content as feminist house niggers.
Pure insanity. Women are happiest being mothers. There are exceptions but the majority of women do not find happiness by working their way up the corporate ladder.
I would correct that to sleeping, in many cases, but otherwise yes, lol…
The problem is women will wait forever for their booty call to wife them up rather than settle for a nice guy.
Women haven't exerted selection choice on their mating choices for thousands of years (when marriage was a handhsake between father and groom.) they literally are not evolved enough to breed optimally.
Even if there were some kind of pro-civilization evolutionary pressure the less than 10000 years of civilization is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of years of evolution that led to their shitty mating choices. To make a dent in the problem we would have to allow women who fuck shitty men and their offspring to starve for death for tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. They would have to be given the freedom to make those shitty choices so their bad mating choices could be bred out, and civilization would die long before we saw any improvement. That's why marriage was a handshake between father and groom to begin with. The betas aren't going to underwrite civilization when women's deadbeat fucktoys get all the benefits.
It's a common misunderstanding between evolution and natural selection that everything has to take tens of thousands of year to change.
It takes that long to evolve new heritable traits.
But natural selection can take an already existing phenotype from 1% prevalence to 90+% prevalent, or vice versa, in just a few generations. If the selection pressures are strong enough.
The difference between a problem solvable in 60 years or one solvable in >10,000 is if good enough women currently exist.
There's no such thing as WGTOW, women just won't leave men alone. Remember how a bunch of feminists infiltrated some coomer gacha game to hide the Megalia hand symbol in some promotional videos?
Women are wired to demand male attention; if left alone, they would get eaten by wildlife.
Which is why they vote for access to mens' wallets through welfare programs rather than doing it on their backs the old fashioned way.
If you think about it a huge part of feminism is finding ways to exploit betas while denying them any benefits whatsoever.
Feminism is women's complete abdication of responsibility.
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been single for years and besides the occasional pang in the heart wishing that there were actually any good women to be hand, I just jerk it and move on with my day and forget about women.
It's not a hate thing even. I just don't care. I do my job, do the things I want, hang out with friends, jerk it and occasionally bang a girl. I also agree women subsist off of men like parasites, which is why I don't keep any around.
I'd much rather go the traditional route but my autism shakes me like a dog and I think about how the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this relationship economy. I'd have to have a few dozen failed relationships before I find a half decent girl these days, and I just can't be bothered to deal with all that fucking nonsense.
If a good girl ever comes along and plops into my lap, fine, I'll bite. But I'm not searching.
Louise perry is an example of the frequent excuse "feminism would have worked except men screwed it up." She complains about women getting pumped and dumped but acts like women are forced into it somehow. She still wants women to have the freedom to be whores just with the option to claim permanently any man they feel like.
Maybe the powers that be knew what they were doing and threw normal people a bone by drilling "no kids" into the skulls of the easily swayed left.
There will be much less of them in the future. And we can all benefit from that.
They don't need to produce children when they can convert normies kids.
Feminists don't care and will never care. Any of the perceived problems of feminism will happen for the next generation and since the feminists won't be having children, they care about the next generation even less than most people.
The battle of Lysitrata continues. Women think they can control the world, only to find out they can't control themselves.
In my opinion, what she is observing is one of God's built-in mechanisms for ensuring His creation abides by His natural order. Men and women are not identical. Feminism, i.e. allowing women to control the state of the society, does not work as this is not the role of women. Feminism inevitable leads to the collapse of that society. A patriarchal society, where men control the state of the society, which is men's role, will take its place.
From a practical point of view, this is way societies should align themselves with His natural order. In doing so, they can be successful and thrive. Fail to do so, and they run a real risk of butting against the mechanisms He has but in place to ensure they stay as intended.