I do not see how you can possibly encourage relationships and parenthood and still make comments like " Since the fall of Roe, the Republican Party has become actively hostile to women’s reproductive rights, pushing female voters left."
That statement is simply untrue.
Republicans are not hostile to reproductive rights for women, they are actively advocating for the rights of babies to be born.
Teaching women to hate men is part of the communist playbook. When no one starts families, then they are atomized and easily ruled by The State. Only two generations ago, before late stage feminism took over, the TFR of South Korea and America was above 3.
Now birth rates across the developed world have plummeted and everyone is worse off for it. The data shows that young liberal women have the most mental health issues and antidepressant usage of any demographic. Keep scrolling through tiktoks about hating men, surely that will help... Chairman Xi thanks you for weakening the CCP's competition.
If I had my life to do over again, one of the many changes I would make would be to have more children. My three sons bring me more joy and satisfaction than any job or personal accomplishment. But in the period, when I was dating women who could have kids, we were saturated with doom messaging about 'unwanted pregnancy,' and 'unplanned pregnancy,' and 'teen pregnancy,' all of which was synonymous with failure. Culturally, we've extended the 'exploring years' right through the period when we are at the age to have children, and there were no messages, not even from our parents, that indicated it was a great idea, and good for us, to be parents, and no one told me how much fun my kids were going to be. Thankfully, nature's call overrode those messages and I recklessly became the father to three amazing boys who are the finest people I know.
"...the Republican Party has become actively hostile to women’s reproductive rights, pushing female voters left."
Funny how this piece ends with several paragraphs of anti Republican rhetoric but nothing to balance it concerning the Democrats. I guess the Dems aren't part of the problem? Anna, please step out of your bubble!
I like the sentiment in the last paragraph. Yet the three previous paragraphs excellently illustrate the problem. In those, the author's word choice, message and conclusion show absolute faith in the rightness of the current feminist position -- without much exploration of the value that could be found in considering the positions bluntly presented by her male peer group.
Gaetz is an ass but what is inherently wrong with his strategy if one wants to win the numbers game that is an election? The Dems do exactly the same calculations to court the cohort of the population that will vote for them.
Watters is an abrasive comedian, but same answer as to Gaetz plus Watter's blunt prescription for men to find women to marry also points to a solution to the birthrate problem, the sexual polarization of society and will force the men, and the women, to moderate their extreme views if they are to be successful. Is that a problem?
Lastly, I would suggest that the polling on marital rape is more based in definition than her interpretation would imply. Too many men are wary of what was bad sex last night turning into rape the next morning. How often that actually happens is up for debate, but it has happened often enough that men are wary of the perceived risk from a regretful woman.
If we don't want 'women and men to become sworn enemies' the BOTH sides have to listen to the other, not just the men accepting what it is the feminist women want to say.
Funny the concern is the supposed “misogyny” of the GOP… meanwhile nothing about the normalized misandry found in college classrooms (which rivals - and likely surpasses - the antisemitism found in college classrooms & is likely contributing to the massive gender gap in higher education).
OMG.........talking about cherry picking and ignoring context. Any discussion comparing South Korea fertility to the US needs to start with the demographic charts sitting side by side. Then you would notice the differences which incidentally didn't start recently, but literally 3-4 generations ago. Korea never had a baby boomer generation like the USA. Their demography went from a pyramid (healthy demographics) in 1960 to starting to turn into a diamond by 1980. The diamond indicates smaller amounts of younger folks (most importantly young women). Currently their biggest group of women are 50-60 years old and it falls off significantly from that age group down. In 10-15 years it will resemble an upside down pyramid. The USA basically from age 60 down was a straight line until 10-15 years ago when total women started to decrease. The reason isn't some female strike on marriage and children, but a successful campaign against teenage pregnancy that finally took hold around 2005-2010 (use of condoms seems to be the reason). Call it unintended consequences of public policy aimed at doing good.
Then the survey she uses (hyperlinked to an article) to point out male misogyny is one from a "progressive lobbying firm" which doesn't publish (at least I couldn't find it) its polling and a quick look tells us it is a marketing piece to get progressive politicians business. The article hyperlinked also spends time trying to generalize from facts like males do the vast majority of the serial killings and murders to the average male's behavior. The numbers they come out with are so far astray from what the publicly transparent polling numbers are it is impossible to take it seriously.
Finally it prioritizes a minor issue, that of career women putting their career above marriage and having children or some pretend trend of female strike from marriage and motherhood here in the USA. This causes later marriages (or no marriage) and as a result more childless women and fewer births with this small subset of women. I will add that our reduction of Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) who were for the most part young, ambitious and family oriented has also played a small part in our current fertility rate (actually a higher part than the aforementioned career women).
This is a classic piece of propaganda..................free from any discussion generated from real data.
Taking a line from Ted Lasso, “be curious, not judgmental.” I truly believe when people take the time to truly get to know another person and their journey in life, it knocks down walls and brings people together. My friends, we are all closer than we think to getting along. It doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything (who does) but it takes a little work to sincerely talk with someone, put in the effort. It’s worth it! THIS IS HIW WE BRING SOCIETY BACK TOGETHER!
My friends, I challenge you to try this! Start with this sincere question, “I’m curious, can you help me understand…….” and just listen.
There is a single percentage point difference between men and women who are pro-life. Pretending that pro-life versus pro-choice debate is about men versus women is ridiculous left-wing framing.
The doom and gloom of this and other articles of its ilk likes to spin a “we’re doomed, we’re in danger if we don’t change course” mentality and plays into the worst of this kind of rhetoric.
Given time and self reflection, a lot of these sentiments tend to mature and dissolve, because people easily become swept up in their feelings about the next new “it” thing of whatever the current zeitgeist is and realize the fault in this line of thinking. For those that don’t, it’s called regret and learning to live with the consequences. Plenty of folks can and probably will find relationships later in life even if they don’t have kids, or have fewer than they expected. The percentages sound large, but what was the sample size and where were they polling—urban, suburban, rural? How chronically online are some of these folks, and how much of their perception is altered by it? Can we get the standard deviation or did the author fail to really deep dive into how the stats were compiled?
Pointing the finger at one party can be helpful but overall it fails to take into account how much these sentiments are simply further escalations of one group overreacting to one another in a “anything you can do I can do better” type of retaliation. Some people will double down, and others will grow up and out of it, do a reassessment of their values, and make an about face. I had two friends, 35, both get married happily in the last 6 months. One is expecting and the other is trying.
In 1977, I quit my teaching position in order to start a movement to work for equality, while still maintaining the male-female balance upon which the survival of all species depends.
Feminists had hijacked the value of “equality” and created a misandrist movement which promoted new sexist stereotypes and new forms of sex discrimination, and while destroying male-female balance and increasing anger and resentment between men and women. Feminism is politically and financially profitable, but fatal for our civilization.
I see more and more signs that my warnings of the past 47 years were accurate.
I think you're mischaracterizing Watter's comment. I didn't see his statement, but I know that in the past polling has shown married women are as Republican leaning as men,, but unmarried women that need the state to do what men do for married women break hard for the Democrats.
Brilliant insight from Jessica Vaughn @JessicaVaughn
"Unmarried women almost always vote for liberals precisely because of their emotional distress. They simply cannot be ok in the meat grinder of a world that requires them to play games designed for men with competitive traits they not only lack, but were designed to do the opposite function of men, which is to nurture and beautify. Putting square pegs in round holes was of course going to make women psychotics. 80% of unmarried women in the west will always vote to take the wealth of those who have it and demand the state give it to them. Marriage negated this compulsion back when there was a suitable man for every suitable woman, and everyone was suitable for someone. You could be below average and still buy a house and afford the basics. Marriage offering a safety net to women predisposed to be dependents their entire lives could never scale open borders, and the internet giving global women direct access to American men. Whole societal model is now broken. Liberalism flipped to some authoritarian leftism where the patients run the asylum. Why do too few know when to recognize their choices have failed them? Modern leftism is mostly asking anyone to come take care of all the failures of the individual in the current model of reality we occupy. They want the state to create a new reality. Is it working? Revolution is a Frankenstein creation, at present."
Love the comment from JMF and that he worked Ted Lasso into this. Good work sir.
Also, I swear this will be a temporary problem. People with the ideology don’t reproduce. It will die off with time.
I keep saying we’re witnessing the evolution of the human race in real time. Before all that was needed to ensure reproduction was a sex drive. It was either life long celibacy or have a baby at some point. Birth control changed that. Now people don’t just have to chose to have sex they have to chose to have kids. If there is any genetic commonality between those who choose to have kids then those genes will become more prevalent overtime aka we evolve.
Although if politicians simply incentivized people to have kids that would change. What if having kids meant you didn’t pay income tax for 18 years? Boom! Kids. Probably for the wrong reasons but kids none the less. Although maybe we would evolve to be more greedy at that point…. My mind is spiraling here.
I do not see how you can possibly encourage relationships and parenthood and still make comments like " Since the fall of Roe, the Republican Party has become actively hostile to women’s reproductive rights, pushing female voters left."
That statement is simply untrue.
Republicans are not hostile to reproductive rights for women, they are actively advocating for the rights of babies to be born.
(edited for typo)
Teaching women to hate men is part of the communist playbook. When no one starts families, then they are atomized and easily ruled by The State. Only two generations ago, before late stage feminism took over, the TFR of South Korea and America was above 3.
Now birth rates across the developed world have plummeted and everyone is worse off for it. The data shows that young liberal women have the most mental health issues and antidepressant usage of any demographic. Keep scrolling through tiktoks about hating men, surely that will help... Chairman Xi thanks you for weakening the CCP's competition.
If I had my life to do over again, one of the many changes I would make would be to have more children. My three sons bring me more joy and satisfaction than any job or personal accomplishment. But in the period, when I was dating women who could have kids, we were saturated with doom messaging about 'unwanted pregnancy,' and 'unplanned pregnancy,' and 'teen pregnancy,' all of which was synonymous with failure. Culturally, we've extended the 'exploring years' right through the period when we are at the age to have children, and there were no messages, not even from our parents, that indicated it was a great idea, and good for us, to be parents, and no one told me how much fun my kids were going to be. Thankfully, nature's call overrode those messages and I recklessly became the father to three amazing boys who are the finest people I know.
"...the Republican Party has become actively hostile to women’s reproductive rights, pushing female voters left."
Funny how this piece ends with several paragraphs of anti Republican rhetoric but nothing to balance it concerning the Democrats. I guess the Dems aren't part of the problem? Anna, please step out of your bubble!
I like the sentiment in the last paragraph. Yet the three previous paragraphs excellently illustrate the problem. In those, the author's word choice, message and conclusion show absolute faith in the rightness of the current feminist position -- without much exploration of the value that could be found in considering the positions bluntly presented by her male peer group.
Gaetz is an ass but what is inherently wrong with his strategy if one wants to win the numbers game that is an election? The Dems do exactly the same calculations to court the cohort of the population that will vote for them.
Watters is an abrasive comedian, but same answer as to Gaetz plus Watter's blunt prescription for men to find women to marry also points to a solution to the birthrate problem, the sexual polarization of society and will force the men, and the women, to moderate their extreme views if they are to be successful. Is that a problem?
Lastly, I would suggest that the polling on marital rape is more based in definition than her interpretation would imply. Too many men are wary of what was bad sex last night turning into rape the next morning. How often that actually happens is up for debate, but it has happened often enough that men are wary of the perceived risk from a regretful woman.
If we don't want 'women and men to become sworn enemies' the BOTH sides have to listen to the other, not just the men accepting what it is the feminist women want to say.
Funny the concern is the supposed “misogyny” of the GOP… meanwhile nothing about the normalized misandry found in college classrooms (which rivals - and likely surpasses - the antisemitism found in college classrooms & is likely contributing to the massive gender gap in higher education).
OMG.........talking about cherry picking and ignoring context. Any discussion comparing South Korea fertility to the US needs to start with the demographic charts sitting side by side. Then you would notice the differences which incidentally didn't start recently, but literally 3-4 generations ago. Korea never had a baby boomer generation like the USA. Their demography went from a pyramid (healthy demographics) in 1960 to starting to turn into a diamond by 1980. The diamond indicates smaller amounts of younger folks (most importantly young women). Currently their biggest group of women are 50-60 years old and it falls off significantly from that age group down. In 10-15 years it will resemble an upside down pyramid. The USA basically from age 60 down was a straight line until 10-15 years ago when total women started to decrease. The reason isn't some female strike on marriage and children, but a successful campaign against teenage pregnancy that finally took hold around 2005-2010 (use of condoms seems to be the reason). Call it unintended consequences of public policy aimed at doing good.
Then the survey she uses (hyperlinked to an article) to point out male misogyny is one from a "progressive lobbying firm" which doesn't publish (at least I couldn't find it) its polling and a quick look tells us it is a marketing piece to get progressive politicians business. The article hyperlinked also spends time trying to generalize from facts like males do the vast majority of the serial killings and murders to the average male's behavior. The numbers they come out with are so far astray from what the publicly transparent polling numbers are it is impossible to take it seriously.
Finally it prioritizes a minor issue, that of career women putting their career above marriage and having children or some pretend trend of female strike from marriage and motherhood here in the USA. This causes later marriages (or no marriage) and as a result more childless women and fewer births with this small subset of women. I will add that our reduction of Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) who were for the most part young, ambitious and family oriented has also played a small part in our current fertility rate (actually a higher part than the aforementioned career women).
This is a classic piece of propaganda..................free from any discussion generated from real data.
Taking a line from Ted Lasso, “be curious, not judgmental.” I truly believe when people take the time to truly get to know another person and their journey in life, it knocks down walls and brings people together. My friends, we are all closer than we think to getting along. It doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything (who does) but it takes a little work to sincerely talk with someone, put in the effort. It’s worth it! THIS IS HIW WE BRING SOCIETY BACK TOGETHER!
My friends, I challenge you to try this! Start with this sincere question, “I’m curious, can you help me understand…….” and just listen.
There is a single percentage point difference between men and women who are pro-life. Pretending that pro-life versus pro-choice debate is about men versus women is ridiculous left-wing framing.
So, according to a study at the university of tik tok all the women who hate men are removing themselves from the gene pool?
Ok then, carry on ladies.
The doom and gloom of this and other articles of its ilk likes to spin a “we’re doomed, we’re in danger if we don’t change course” mentality and plays into the worst of this kind of rhetoric.
Given time and self reflection, a lot of these sentiments tend to mature and dissolve, because people easily become swept up in their feelings about the next new “it” thing of whatever the current zeitgeist is and realize the fault in this line of thinking. For those that don’t, it’s called regret and learning to live with the consequences. Plenty of folks can and probably will find relationships later in life even if they don’t have kids, or have fewer than they expected. The percentages sound large, but what was the sample size and where were they polling—urban, suburban, rural? How chronically online are some of these folks, and how much of their perception is altered by it? Can we get the standard deviation or did the author fail to really deep dive into how the stats were compiled?
Pointing the finger at one party can be helpful but overall it fails to take into account how much these sentiments are simply further escalations of one group overreacting to one another in a “anything you can do I can do better” type of retaliation. Some people will double down, and others will grow up and out of it, do a reassessment of their values, and make an about face. I had two friends, 35, both get married happily in the last 6 months. One is expecting and the other is trying.
Have some patience and chill your bits.
In 1977, I quit my teaching position in order to start a movement to work for equality, while still maintaining the male-female balance upon which the survival of all species depends.
Feminists had hijacked the value of “equality” and created a misandrist movement which promoted new sexist stereotypes and new forms of sex discrimination, and while destroying male-female balance and increasing anger and resentment between men and women. Feminism is politically and financially profitable, but fatal for our civilization.
I see more and more signs that my warnings of the past 47 years were accurate.
Anti-abortion is not universally about being anti-reproductive rights. For many conservatives, it’s about the babies’ right to live and be born.
I understand that some people say it’s the same thing… IT’S NOT. A woman’s right to kill her child vs. the baby’s right to live.
Most conservatives have NO PROBLEM with contraception. We do have a problem with killing babies.
I think you're mischaracterizing Watter's comment. I didn't see his statement, but I know that in the past polling has shown married women are as Republican leaning as men,, but unmarried women that need the state to do what men do for married women break hard for the Democrats.
Brilliant insight from Jessica Vaughn @JessicaVaughn
"Unmarried women almost always vote for liberals precisely because of their emotional distress. They simply cannot be ok in the meat grinder of a world that requires them to play games designed for men with competitive traits they not only lack, but were designed to do the opposite function of men, which is to nurture and beautify. Putting square pegs in round holes was of course going to make women psychotics. 80% of unmarried women in the west will always vote to take the wealth of those who have it and demand the state give it to them. Marriage negated this compulsion back when there was a suitable man for every suitable woman, and everyone was suitable for someone. You could be below average and still buy a house and afford the basics. Marriage offering a safety net to women predisposed to be dependents their entire lives could never scale open borders, and the internet giving global women direct access to American men. Whole societal model is now broken. Liberalism flipped to some authoritarian leftism where the patients run the asylum. Why do too few know when to recognize their choices have failed them? Modern leftism is mostly asking anyone to come take care of all the failures of the individual in the current model of reality we occupy. They want the state to create a new reality. Is it working? Revolution is a Frankenstein creation, at present."
Love the comment from JMF and that he worked Ted Lasso into this. Good work sir.
Also, I swear this will be a temporary problem. People with the ideology don’t reproduce. It will die off with time.
I keep saying we’re witnessing the evolution of the human race in real time. Before all that was needed to ensure reproduction was a sex drive. It was either life long celibacy or have a baby at some point. Birth control changed that. Now people don’t just have to chose to have sex they have to chose to have kids. If there is any genetic commonality between those who choose to have kids then those genes will become more prevalent overtime aka we evolve.
Although if politicians simply incentivized people to have kids that would change. What if having kids meant you didn’t pay income tax for 18 years? Boom! Kids. Probably for the wrong reasons but kids none the less. Although maybe we would evolve to be more greedy at that point…. My mind is spiraling here.
Someone help me. ;)