Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

So…you think women should have children to start families. That is entirely possible without settling for a man. Whose interests do you think you’re serving?

The children's interest for starters. Children of single mothers have statistically far worse outcomes than those raised by two parents -even accounting for resources.

And societies interest. Better adjusted children means fewer incarcerations, drug abuse, crime, etc.

But I'm certainly not a mouth piece for an ideology that is fundamentally anti social and leads to suffering. But by all means continue to advocate for your death cult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

So…you think women should have children to start families. That is entirely possible without settling for a man. Whose interests do you think you’re serving?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Ah, mediocre means not-affluent, got it.

She's the female equivalent of the men who keep trading for the younger model and won't settle for someone aging gracefully.

Women prioritize resources and men prioritize youth /beauty and that PP is a prime example of someone who is taking those preferences to a pathological extreme.

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Ah, mediocre means not-affluent, got it.

No, a good marriage is a great deal for a woman and her children. A bad marriage is a bad deal for a woman and her children. Yes, she gets to define if the marriage is good for her or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

This is absolutely dystopian. I’m assuming you consider yourself liberal. I hope that you embrace the mantle of destroying the family unit, disassembling society to its component parts, and radically remaking the world, when (what I used to think were) wild eyed conservatives accuse you of it.

I’m starting to understand the existential threat posed by liberalism as much as I understand the threat from nihilist populist authoritarians.

I’m not obligated to make babies & “continue the human race.” I would never give birth no matter what. I hope you realize that.

You not procreating makes a ton of sense to me.

How so?

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

It doesn't matter how many resources you may bring to bear for child raising. Your child statistically will be worse off by being raised by a single mom than by a mother and father. But by all means keep encouraging anti-social behavior that hurts children.

Of course it does. A lot. A kid born to a wealthy single mother is going to do 1000% better in every way than a kid born to a drug addict mom & dad in Kentucky.

Not sure if you're being serious in your argument. The case is not whether resources may improve a child's outcome. The argument was that raising a child without two parents is detrimental to the child...even controlling for resources. The statistics bear this out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

This is absolutely dystopian. I’m assuming you consider yourself liberal. I hope that you embrace the mantle of destroying the family unit, disassembling society to its component parts, and radically remaking the world, when (what I used to think were) wild eyed conservatives accuse you of it.

I’m starting to understand the existential threat posed by liberalism as much as I understand the threat from nihilist populist authoritarians.

I do.

That’s phenomenal - I was worried for a second you masqueraded as “normal”. As long as you self identify as being from the loony left commie fringe, I think we are all set here and can end the discussion.

We are a long way from true gender equality.

Yes, probably because the vanguard on the feminism side are asking for absolutely batshit crazy things like relegating all “mediocre” men to work camps or something while milking “desirable” men for their sperm to be used by the high earning women to create a new, feminist society.

And the people who are anti-feminist simply espouse the misguided, yet much easier to accept, view that everything is working fine now and the status quo should be maintained and then point out the other side are bunch of whack jobs.

I’ll never stop wondering why we don’t have equality…

Please identify the post in which anyone suggested relegating mediocre men to work camps? Not choosing to reproduce with someone is not a crime.

I was simply assuming since the desirable men were being put into a sperm farm, the mediocre men would be put to use. However, mass murdered is an option too, I suppose.

For what it’s worth, my proposal gained immediate support from a PP.

My suggestion is that highly desirable men will start being compensated more highly for sperm donation, similar to egg donation.

Mediocre men will simply have to improve their desirability if they really want a family and children or they will remain unpartnered. The era of the volunteer housekeeper/surrogate/wet nurse who is also the breadwinner and housekeeper ends.

I assume in this model you believe you’d be in the ruling class of women and not relegated to “mediocre” status, yourself - quite a reach. Perhaps mediocre women and men can both be put into domestic servitude to support their superiors, since you’ve created no space in your system for necessities to be taken care of.

Your proposal is a fundamentally different one than mine, though. Mine has the added attraction for loons bc of the elements of centralized control and state run optimization.

Plus, the sperm farm/work camp (optional death camp) framework has already garnered support, though. And without forced labor in your model, no one is doing the dishes.

I hate to tell you I’ve already achieved my optimal outcome— I’m married to a top 10% man who believes fundamentally that he has to contribute equally or more in all areas of our lives just as I do. I contributed more to gestating and delivering our children. He contributes more income. We both wash dishes.

I don’t know who is a “mediocre” woman in your model, because I have never met a woman who didn’t get sexual attention from men if she wanted it. So all women will retain the option to reproduce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

This is absolutely dystopian. I’m assuming you consider yourself liberal. I hope that you embrace the mantle of destroying the family unit, disassembling society to its component parts, and radically remaking the world, when (what I used to think were) wild eyed conservatives accuse you of it.

I’m starting to understand the existential threat posed by liberalism as much as I understand the threat from nihilist populist authoritarians.

I do.

That’s phenomenal - I was worried for a second you masqueraded as “normal”. As long as you self identify as being from the loony left commie fringe, I think we are all set here and can end the discussion.

We are a long way from true gender equality.

Yes, probably because the vanguard on the feminism side are asking for absolutely batshit crazy things like relegating all “mediocre” men to work camps or something while milking “desirable” men for their sperm to be used by the high earning women to create a new, feminist society.

And the people who are anti-feminist simply espouse the misguided, yet much easier to accept, view that everything is working fine now and the status quo should be maintained and then point out the other side are bunch of whack jobs.

I’ll never stop wondering why we don’t have equality…

Please identify the post in which anyone suggested relegating mediocre men to work camps? Not choosing to reproduce with someone is not a crime.

I was simply assuming since the desirable men were being put into a sperm farm, the mediocre men would be put to use. However, mass murdered is an option too, I suppose.

For what it’s worth, my proposal gained immediate support from a PP.

My suggestion is that highly desirable men will start being compensated more highly for sperm donation, similar to egg donation.

Mediocre men will simply have to improve their desirability if they really want a family and children or they will remain unpartnered. The era of the volunteer housekeeper/surrogate/wet nurse who is also the breadwinner and housekeeper ends.

I assume in this model you believe you’d be in the ruling class of women and not relegated to “mediocre” status, yourself - quite a reach. Perhaps mediocre women and men can both be put into domestic servitude to support their superiors, since you’ve created no space in your system for necessities to be taken care of.

Your proposal is a fundamentally different one than mine, though. Mine has the added attraction for loons bc of the elements of centralized control and state run optimization.

Plus, the sperm farm/work camp (optional death camp) framework has already garnered support, though. And without forced labor in your model, no one is doing the dishes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

This is absolutely dystopian. I’m assuming you consider yourself liberal. I hope that you embrace the mantle of destroying the family unit, disassembling society to its component parts, and radically remaking the world, when (what I used to think were) wild eyed conservatives accuse you of it.

I’m starting to understand the existential threat posed by liberalism as much as I understand the threat from nihilist populist authoritarians.

I do.

That’s phenomenal - I was worried for a second you masqueraded as “normal”. As long as you self identify as being from the loony left commie fringe, I think we are all set here and can end the discussion.

We are a long way from true gender equality.

Yes, probably because the vanguard on the feminism side are asking for absolutely batshit crazy things like relegating all “mediocre” men to work camps or something while milking “desirable” men for their sperm to be used by the high earning women to create a new, feminist society.

And the people who are anti-feminist simply espouse the misguided, yet much easier to accept, view that everything is working fine now and the status quo should be maintained and then point out the other side are bunch of whack jobs.

I’ll never stop wondering why we don’t have equality…

Please identify the post in which anyone suggested relegating mediocre men to work camps? Not choosing to reproduce with someone is not a crime.

I was simply assuming since the desirable men were being put into a sperm farm, the mediocre men would be put to use. However, mass murdered is an option too, I suppose.

For what it’s worth, my proposal gained immediate support from a PP.

My suggestion is that highly desirable men will start being compensated more highly for sperm donation, similar to egg donation.

Mediocre men will simply have to improve their desirability if they really want a family and children or they will remain unpartnered. The era of the volunteer housekeeper/surrogate/wet nurse who is also the breadwinner and housekeeper ends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are really saying is having children is a bad deal for women. Which many women have already figured out. Being dinks has many advantages for both spouses.

But the work environment n the US is hostile to moms. Imagine if moms got a year of paid leave and free crèche/prek standard. It would be a whole different ballgame.

And yes, moms do have to work. Since the odds of divorce are 50/50, a wealthy husband is not a good bet over building your own career. Everyone has to be self reliant.

Having kids with a man is a bad idea for a highly paid professional women, because she gets two dependents and a lot of workload with him contributing much less. Men need to 'man up" and step up their game, being equal contributors in all areas. Otherwise gender roles in large metropolitan areas where women have access to big money will completely switch: it will be hard for men to find a wife who is willing to have kids!

This

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

This is absolutely dystopian. I’m assuming you consider yourself liberal. I hope that you embrace the mantle of destroying the family unit, disassembling society to its component parts, and radically remaking the world, when (what I used to think were) wild eyed conservatives accuse you of it.

I’m starting to understand the existential threat posed by liberalism as much as I understand the threat from nihilist populist authoritarians.

I do.

That’s phenomenal - I was worried for a second you masqueraded as “normal”. As long as you self identify as being from the loony left commie fringe, I think we are all set here and can end the discussion.

We are a long way from true gender equality.

Yes, probably because the vanguard on the feminism side are asking for absolutely batshit crazy things like relegating all “mediocre” men to work camps or something while milking “desirable” men for their sperm to be used by the high earning women to create a new, feminist society.

And the people who are anti-feminist simply espouse the misguided, yet much easier to accept, view that everything is working fine now and the status quo should be maintained and then point out the other side are bunch of whack jobs.

I’ll never stop wondering why we don’t have equality…

Please identify the post in which anyone suggested relegating mediocre men to work camps? Not choosing to reproduce with someone is not a crime.

I was simply assuming since the desirable men were being put into a sperm farm, the mediocre men would be put to use. However, mass murdered is an option too, I suppose.

For what it’s worth, my proposal gained immediate support from a PP.