Have women... in the West at least... "Flipped the Script?"

[LizzieMaine]

Of course. Social constructs have all sorts of benefits, both sociological and biological. But it's not general "human nature" to not want to have children. Quite the opposite.

Some people just flat don't like kids. Nothing biological about it, nor is society responsible. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Edward]

Anyway, this planet has over 7 billion people... don't worry about the biological existance of homo sapiens.

Mn. Humanity's own breeding levels are quite possibly one of its biggest threats.

But it's not general "human nature" to not want to have children. Quite the opposite.

Not wanting kids came perfectly naturally to me. Of course, I think you're implying interest in the production process here rather than an avoidable end result?

 

[Fastuni]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I was merely pointing out that Retro Spectators "hypothetical exercise" regarding ways to "ensure human survival" has no relation to reality.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think a lot of the people who worry about the birth rate are more concerned about "the wrong kind of people" reproducing. Me, I'd like to see global population cut about in half, and I'm convinced if we don't do it ourselves by cutting down on reproduction, nature will take care of the situation for us -- probably thru some kind of fast-moving pestilence that won't be particular in who it takes.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Not wanting kids came perfectly naturally to me. Of course, I think you're implying interest in the production process here rather than an avoidable end result?

Well, I'm referring to humans in general, but now that you mention it, the desire to engage in the process is natural as well.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Perhaps that's true BUT who's the breadwinner? Who makes the lion's share of the cabbage... who's subordinate in the relationship. That's where the bear chit in the buckwheat.

Worf

I wish you could have met my grandparents. Both born in the late 1890s. Holland dutch, grandpa was 5'4", a cement mason, a tough customer, a scrapper. Grandma was 5'10", daughter of a bargee, a hard worker and very positive in her opinions. The only person I ever saw who could give Grandpa a look and make him change his mind.

Grandpa was a good worker until he got silicosis from sandblasting bathtubs for Crane with no protective gear. Then Grandma supported the family by working as a scrubwoman and real estate speculator. They lived in a 2 storey house of cement blocks Grandpa built on a lot Grandma finagled for nothing by buying a piece of property and subdividing it.

I don't know if you could have told them who was "subordinate" in their relationship but it would have been fun to watch you try.

Not everyone fits into neat little categories, now or in the past.

 

[Edward]

I think a lot of the people who worry about the birth rate are more concerned about "the wrong kind of people" reproducing. Me, I'd like to see global population cut about in half, and I'm convinced if we don't do it ourselves by cutting down on reproduction, nature will take care of the situation for us -- probably thru some kind of fast-moving pestilence that won't be particular in who it takes.

I'm completely with you on that. Problem as I see it is all too many people breed because it's the done thing, rather than having given any conscious choice as to whether they have the inclination and resources (not limited to financial - I'm thinknig more of the patience, time, et al to do the parenting thing. If more people honestly thought about it, and society in places was less judgemental than it can sometimes be with regard to those who step outside the done thing, I'm of the opinion it would help in this regard. I fully expect that if humans don't control their own population, nature will indeed address the imbalance in the ecosystem in all sorts of ways. I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the increasing numbers of us with no parental instinct are a first wave population control attempt by nature.

Well, I'm referring to humans in general, but now that you mention it, the desire to engage in the process is natural as well.

That's where evolutionary drive meets conscious choice.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Some people just flat don't like kids. Nothing biological about it, nor is society responsible. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And then there are those who genuinely enjoy kids and appreciate them, but also realize that they'd make terrible parents, and are honest enough to admit that they'd be terrible parents. I have to say that I appreciate that, as opposed to people who get all starry-eyed at the sight of someone else's cute offspring. I don't care how many nieces and nephews one may have, or how many times one may have acted the babysitter: parenthood, at least if it's done right, involves decades of subordinating one's needs and wants to those of your children. And I'm not saying that it isn't worth the commitment, just that one usually has no idea what the hell they're getting into until it's too late to turn back.

 

[Worf]

Perhaps your looking at the situation solely through a male perspective? It's understandable considering you're a man!

Consider the female point of view. Do many women walk around crowing about being the breadwinner? Or wanting the lion's share of everything and then some? Or who's on top and who is the subordinate(inferior) part of a relationship? How many women want their husbands unemployed and barefoot at home?

Not many women I know are as obsessed about establishing social status by the size of their..bank accounts or other body parts. Those who do tend to mimic the worst traits of men dressed up as "Empowered".

In the relationships I've observed and would consider healthy it appears both parties want the other to be as fulfilled as themselves in whatever position they take in a relationship.

Welp... my experience and the surveys I've seen suggest that money in the primary reason relationships fail here in America. I also know MANY women who spend a great deal of time discussing and displaying trinkets of status AND wealth. They might not put it in terms of being a "bread winner" but women are often extremely status concious. The thing is it's no longer women basking in the status of their husbands accomplishments and wealth... but their own. There's a whole generation of women, my age and a little younger, who are educated, intelligent, accomplished but alone and childless because they refuse to date or marry "beneath themselves". They refuse to become involved with men with less intelligence, staturs or wealth than themselves. This makes for no relationships or "unhealthy" ones as while many women and men may talk a good game about love overcoming all odds, part of us are still socialized into traditional roles that no longer exist in this reality.

Worf

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's kind of ironic when you look at overall postings on the Lounge. The overwhelming majority of posters who participate here are men, who are constantly displaying their $900 leather jackets and comparing the length of their zippers. The threads in the women's section tend to be far less material-symbol oriented and much more practical in nature. Granted, the Lounge is a small sample, but it's still an interesting comparison.

Worf -- you're a smart guy, and you need to meet a better class of women.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I think it's kind of ironic when you look at overall postings on the Lounge. The overwhelming majority of posters who participate here are men, who are constantly displaying their $900 leather jackets and comparing the length of their zippers.

There is an inordinate amount of peacocking on various parts of this site.

 

[Fastuni]

Well, it is a forum largely dedicated to rather special fashion interests.

 

[Edward]

There's a whole generation of women, my age and a little younger, who are educated, intelligent, accomplished but alone and childless because they refuse to date or marry "beneath themselves". They refuse to become involved with men with less intelligence, staturs or wealth than themselves. This makes for no relationships or "unhealthy" ones as while many women and men may talk a good game about love overcoming all odds, part of us are still socialized into traditional roles that no longer exist in this reality.

Worf [/SIZE]

To be frank, I'm not seeing how women - or, indeed, men - declining to be in a relationship for the sake of being in one if it's not a relationship that in and of itself makes them happy is necessarily a bad thing. [huh]

 

[winterland1]

Dude, grow up. "men chase women" sounds rapey. We are out of the caves now. A woman can say "No" and just choose another partner ...or none. Deal with it.

I don't have a yes or no answer for the initial question. But I see what you mean with the development. There is less and less manual labour and if womens score better at school/college/university it would be only fair if they get better jobs. I think that's good. I want the best doctors, scientist and engenieers possibly. It wouldn't mean men can't do this things anymore. They just have it less comfortable now.

Seems kind of harsh telling someone to grow up. I don't see how saying men chase women sounds rapey. Holy PC. Interesting discussion though. I would think part of our interest in cool leather jackets and the such is to attract the opposite gender.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Meh. Some of us would rather see a man who actually does hard work with his hands than one who has to dress up to look like he does.

 

[Stanley Doble]

"There's a whole generation of women, my age and a little younger, who are educated, intelligent, accomplished but alone and childless because they refuse to date or marry "beneath themselves". They refuse to become involved with men with less intelligence, staturs or wealth than themselves."

I have heard of this. I wonder what kind of man they are waiting for? Brad Pitt riding on a white horse with his shirt off, thousand $$$$ bills dripping out of his pockets?

If their ideal man even exists, why would he settle for her? Such a man could have his pick of any woman he wants.

They also don't seem to realize women are in the majority and the older they get the more women outnumber the men. And, yes girls, all the good ones were grabbed off while you were wangling the corner office.

 

[Stanley Doble]

I think the 70s feminists sold them a bill of goods and laughed all the way to the bank. Now they are wondering what the hell happened, and why the Disneyland of "I can have it all" never came true. But they never question whether what they were taught to believe was even possible.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Feminism was hijacked by the Boys From Marketing the moment the Boys realized that more women making more money meant more crap for them to sell. The kind of "upscale" suburban "empower every woman except my Guatamalan nanny" feminism that Sandra Tsing-Loh bleats about in the Atlantic has nothing in common with real street-marching/blackjack-swinging/overthrow-the-whole-damn-system feminism, and never did.

The twenty-something girls I know have a very refreshing view of all this. They aren't looking to "have it all," they just want to find someone who respects them as human beings, not as ambulatory sex toys, and who isn't drunk/high/stupid/playing video games 90 percent of the time.

 

[herringbonekid]

Men will have to keep themselves in shape, learn how to cook, clean and take care of the children lest they wind up working or under achieving at some middling job with no hope for advancement or fulfillment.

you mean young men will have to learn how to be responsible, dignified, grown ups ???

good.

 

[Fastuni]

Haha, my thoughts exactly.
Keeping in shape, cook and clean sound like basic skills every human (in a relationship and particularly when not) ought to know, least one ends up desolate, hungry and dirty.

Seems kind of harsh telling someone to grow up.

Saying every unmarried person having sex is ¨immoral¨ and ¨messed up¨ who will ¨die off anyway¨ seems kind of harsh and certainly immature.
As is thinking that only men can chose women and not the other way around.