"Society's Bias Against Motherhood Is Creating a New Problem" | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

"Society's Bias Against Motherhood Is Creating a New Problem"

Yes. Suggesting that society's bias against motherhood is more a case of capitalism, the natural partner of patriarchy.

We don;t have capitalism at the moment

You can't have 'too big to fails' in capitalism

Also what is this 'patriarchy' thing you're referring to?

have you looked much into who weilds the power in our world?

if you think those weilding the power give a fuck about men then you're dead wrong
 
Also, unless I missed it (which is possible, as my eyes have glazed over several times in the reading of this conversation) - how does the father of the child factor into the conversation? Why no mention of dad?
 
Also, unless I missed it (which is possible, as my eyes have glazed over several times in the reading of this conversation) - how does the father of the child factor into the conversation? Why no mention of dad?

Dads are out...the state is in...it's all part of the marxist plan
 
Yes, good goy, keep alienating people from your cause by being obnoxious and out of touch with reality.
EwzXED2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: SealHammer
To be honest I think this is balls.

I know plenty of professional women who are wanting to become pregnant but have either themselves or their partner are experiencing fertility issues.
 
To be honest I think this is balls.

I know plenty of professional women who are wanting to become pregnant but have either themselves or their partner are experiencing fertility issues.

Ok so why is fertility dropping?
 
No less cultural diversity means less creativity, expression and freedom

alright, I can understand that you're coming from the perspective that our differences are what drive creation (that's actually an Fi value too, funfact), but I really don't agree. I'm of the mind that our differences divide us and hinder undertakings that are bigger than the individual. As well, greater interchange of genetics and culture does not mean less expression, it actually probably means a greater range of expression within a group. Neither of us is going to reach a concession on this point because there is no right answer except what comes to pass. It's purely a matter of anthropology.

You are talking about the attack on ethnicity here but i was talking more about the attack on culture re: the above; ultimately they have to attack both to create the homogenous mass

In terms of ethnic diversity i think the loss of any part of humanity is a loss to the whole

if you were talking about an attack on culture you should not have said "europeans and people of european descent" because that is very explicitly a statement about peoples' genetics.

And again, I think that your preoccupation over everyone staying with their own race is both harmful and a waste of effort.

Why is it a terrible crime against humanity to attack jews as an ethnic group but yet the deliberate targetting of whites is ok?

if you've actually looked at a jew lately you might have noticed that they had white skin; in fact, there's an overwhelming likelihood that they were white. defining people by the color of their skin is fucking goofy anyway. japanese and korean people are white. russians are white. where they geographically originate from is the difference.

What we have now is an ongoing process of cultural marxism that is breaking down western culture alongside multi-culturalism which is breaking down european ethnicity

Now people have always mixed throughout history which is a natural process but we're not talking about a steady and natural mixing of cultures/genes....we are talking about a systematic attack against a certain group of people by another group of people who are not themselves living by the same standards they are imposing on others

so there really is no difference except genetics, gotcha.

what standards are they not living by? making babies with the non-whites? that's not a cultural standard, it's just an accepted act. nobody is forcing you to fuck the blacks or the mexicans, but if you want to, most people won't have a problem with it. why do you care who anybody else is fucking?

You're talking about jews who are descended from the khazars who have been kicked out of every country they have been to

The germans got so sick of their cultural marxism that they reacted violently against them
neither of these points is salient to the discussion. most jews are white people of european descent and they have no demonstrated motive to destroy their own heritage.
by the way you've implied that "cultural marxism" is a genetic trait of jewish people, or at the least is something that has been passed down through the generations as a family teaching. why do you think that?

What do you mean?
You said not all zionists are jews and the converse; if that's true, link me (link, don't infodump this thread) to your past posts where you've gone into specifics on non-jewish or non-white zionists (in the same depth as you've gone into the rothschild family)

When peoples around the world were affected by colonialism they lost their culture and identity and their communities broke down and they often turned to drink and developed many social ills

So conquerors know that they can destroy their enemy that way

no, colonialism affected people because they had a foreign culture imposed on them by a foreign people, often by physical or economic violence. they had social problems because their societies were being literally destroyed by totally alien people from faraway lands.

What we are experiencing in the present-day is a natural process of mixing and exchanging of ideas and genetics thanks to greater mobility of information creating a great sense of interconnection between people. This will accelerate as time goes on.

Oh no they are banking on having you and your friends utterly dominated by technology by the time they get to that point

Am I still the zionist banker loomynaughty cabal in this hypothetical or what?

e: also, I'm really sick of distilling your arguments for you. would you mind being a little more concise in the future?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rcs6r
We don;t have capitalism at the moment

You can't have 'too big to fails' in capitalism

Also what is this 'patriarchy' thing you're referring to?

have you looked much into who weilds the power in our world?

if you think those weilding the power give a fuck about men then you're dead wrong

Dood. Srsly? We don't have capitalism at the moment? Except globally.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_45/b3706001.htm

"if you think those weilding the power give a fuck about men then you're dead wrong". So who is wielding the power? Women? Aliens? Kittens? Why would female space kittens contribute to bias against white women in the workplace? It doesn't strike me as being in their best interest.

"Dads are out"? I don't even know what to make of that. Maybe the female space kittens intend to start artificially inseminating the working white women to create a master race?
 
Also, unless I missed it (which is possible, as my eyes have glazed over several times in the reading of this conversation) - how does the father of the child factor into the conversation? Why no mention of dad?

This is why I thought the word "parenting" was a better term since I didn't want the focus to be anti-male. I also think men are pressured to be full time workers, and expected to leave the daily care of parenting to others, even if they want to spend more time with their children. As a society, we still expect the mother to be more focused on nurturing than fathers. Gender division of labor. We still don't allow the father to be fully immersed in fatherhood as a the main caregiver. Our society perceives it as anti-masculine to expect that of men.

The idea that being a man is about work and providing for the family issued to make men feel they are best suited to provide for their family by making money, reinforcing the idea that their monetary contributions are more valuable than their human or social contributions. They are expected to sacrifice more for work than women are, and expected to be more flexible, and do more of whatever it takes to get the job done. While women are expected to give up more of their work time to spend time with family if there is a choice between her and her male partner becoming more actively involved in parenting. She is expected to make more sacrifices for the home.

So, I don't think anyone who agrees with the author's argument is anti-male. I think they are just pinpointing issues peculiar to women in terms of professional careers and motherhood.
 
alright, I can understand that you're coming from the perspective that our differences are what drive creation (that's actually an Fi value too, funfact), but I really don't agree. I'm of the mind that our differences divide us and hinder undertakings that are bigger than the individual. As well, greater interchange of genetics and culture does not mean less expression, it actually probably means a greater range of expression within a group. Neither of us is going to reach a concession on this point because there is no right answer except what comes to pass. It's purely a matter of anthropology.

That isn;t the point though...the point is the vision of the people behind these moves and their vision is to suppress creativity and expression because they see it as a threat to their authority

All the state spying revealed by snowden is an insight into the control freakery of these people

if you were talking about an attack on culture you should not have said "europeans and people of european descent" because that is very explicitly a statement about peoples' genetics.

I'm beginning to think that our disgreements occur from actual missunderstandings

Its BOTH....it's all tied up in the process. Culture, ethnicity, DNA and so on is all tied up in the process

It goes deeper still but i don't think this is the thread for that

And again, I think that your preoccupation over everyone staying with their own race is both harmful and a waste of effort.

maybe our disagreements don;t come from missunderstandings...maybe you do just deliberately twist what i say to try and disrupt things...the jurys out

I have not said people should not mix; i very clearly said that cultural and genetic mixing is a natural process

I'm talking about a rapid mixing because this has the effect of social dislocation leaving people alienated and weak and open to exploitation from outside influences

if you've actually looked at a jew lately you might have noticed that they had white skin; in fact, there's an overwhelming likelihood that they were white. defining people by the color of their skin is fucking goofy anyway. japanese and korean people are white. russians are white. where they geographically originate from is the difference.

Go and look at a map of genes

We are going to find out things about DNA in the coming years that will blow your mind relating to what DNA is, what it does and where it comes from

so there really is no difference except genetics, gotcha.

I don't know what you mean by this

what standards are they not living by? making babies with the non-whites?

Listen...i'm going to make this very clear to end this confusion: IT IS BOTH CULTURE AND ETHNICITY AS BOTH ARE BOUND UP IN THIS PROCESS

The zionists are trying to maintain a cultural and ethnic purity whislt trying to force the opposite on others; this is going to have implications for the stability of our countries in the years ahead

that's not a cultural standard, it's just an accepted act. nobody is forcing you to fuck the blacks or the mexicans, but if you want to, most people won't have a problem with it. why do you care who anybody else is fucking?

I don't in principle

What i'm talking about is the rapid change of our society through the mass movement of people which will have implications for language, culture, thought, politicas, economics, spirituality and many things besides

It is also going to destabilise regions leaving them ripe to be controlled by outside forces

neither of these points is salient to the discussion. most jews are white people of european descent and they have no demonstrated motive to destroy their own heritage.

They have bought into the lie given to them by the zionists of their origins

This lie is now being exposed by jewish writers like prof schlomo sand

by the way you've implied that "cultural marxism" is a genetic trait of jewish people, or at the least is something that has been passed down through the generations as a family teaching. why do you think that?

To get more insight into that you will have to delve into the occult and learn another dimension to human affairs

You said not all zionists are jews and the converse; if that's true, link me (link, don't infodump this thread) to your past posts where you've gone into specifics on non-jewish or non-white zionists (in the same depth as you've gone into the rothschild family)

I've spoken in depth about a network of people including: the royal families of europe, the vatican church, the black nobility (aristocrats close to the vatican) and the central bankers

I've spoken about how these groups are bound together by a network of secret societies of which freemasonry is the most well known component

Zionism is just another part of this secret society network

The aim of the network? Like i said: world government under their control

no, colonialism affected people because they had a foreign culture imposed on them by a foreign people, often by physical or economic violence. they had social problems because their societies were being literally destroyed by totally alien people from faraway lands.

Thats what multi-culturalism is as envisioned by the marxists; it is about making broders porous so that millions of people flood into countries which have different languages, religions and cultures etc

What we are experiencing in the present-day is a natural process of mixing and exchanging of ideas and genetics thanks to greater mobility of information creating a great sense of interconnection between people. This will accelerate as time goes on.

No we are experiencing a number of processes of which the sharing of information is only one

Am I still the zionist banker loomynaughty cabal in this hypothetical or what?

Not sure what you're getting at here
 
Last edited:

fertility is dropping in the west (and other areas)

http://www.nber.org/digest/jul09/w14820.html

[h=2]The Cost of Low Fertility in Europe[/h]
In the long run, low rates of fertility are associated with diminished economic growth.
As in many parts of the world, Europe has seen a rapid decline in fertility. In 1960, Estonia was the only European nation whose total fertility rate was less than two. Today, only two European countries -- Albania and Iceland — have fertility rates above two. Several factors are thought to be driving that decline in Western Europe: socioeconomic incentives to delay childbearing; a decline in the desired number of children; and institutional factors, such as labor market rigidities, lack of child care, and changing gender roles. Also, the nations in Eastern Europe have gone through major economic, political, and social change.
In the long run, low rates of fertility are associated with diminished economic growth, according to a new study by NBER Research Associate David Bloom and his co-authors David Canning, Günther Fink, and Jocelyn Finlay. In The Cost of Low Fertility in Europe (NBER Working Paper No. 14820), they observe that in the short term, low fertility rates raise per capita income by lowering families’ costs of child-rearing and boosting the share of working-age people. But as that working-age population moves into retirement, the number of workers who replace them will shrink. So, whatever short-term boon European nations may have gained from low youth dependency will be overwhelmed eventually by the economic burdens of old-age dependency.
If fertility rates stay at current levels and life expectancy averages 80 years, this study implies that Europe’s share of working-age people will fall from about 70 percent today to somewhere between 50 and 55 percent in the long run. That would suggest a 25 percent drop in the number of workers per capita, assuming that labor participation rates stay the same.
There are several ways to analyze the effects of fertility on economic growth -- these authors choose to concentrate on age structure. The idea is that fertility, mortality, and net migration together determine the size of a nation’s working-age population. The bigger is that group relative to the total population, the more workers there are, and thus the more income the nation is likely to generate. The smaller is that working-age group relative to total population, the smaller is output per capita in equilibrium.
Of course, small changes in any one of several variables can alter the picture dramatically. In France, for example, where life expectancy is 80, the fertility rate that would maximize the working-age share of France’s population would be 2.1 if young people started working at age 20 and retired at age 60. With retirement at age 55, the working-age share-maximizing fertility rate would have to rise to 3.1. With retirement delayed until 70, that rate would drop to two.
The same dynamic works at the other end of the working-age spectrum. If young people entered the workforce at age 15, the fertility rate necessary to keep everything in balance would rise to 2.6. If they entered at 25, then fertility only would need to be at 1.8 (below replacement level) to maximize the working-age share of the population.
Another factor is immigration, which typically helps to boost the size of a nation’s working-age population. But its impact is usually quite small. Austria, for example, has Europe’s third-highest net migration relative to its overall population, but over the past 45 years the absence of migration barely would have changed its share of working-age people, this study finds. Even if it did, political resistance to immigration is high.
“In short, migration is highly unlikely to have a major effect on falling working-age shares in Western European countries over the next decades,” the authors write. “The size of the economic repercussions of declining working-age shares on economic development, however, will critically depend on individual behavior.”
Previous research has shown that for every extra child that a woman has, her labor participation falls on average 1.9 years over her lifetime. So as fertility falls, women tend to spend more time working, which allows them to accumulate more savings, more experience, and possibly a better-paying job. This accumulation of physical and human capital may offset some of the overall long-term income decline that low fertility suggests.
-- Laurent Belsie​
 
Dood. Srsly? We don't have capitalism at the moment? Except globally.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_45/b3706001.htm

This is not capitalism it is being steered by central authorities in the central banks

"if you think those weilding the power give a fuck about men then you're dead wrong". So who is wielding the power?

It centralises more and more the higher you go up the pyramid

There are certain families near the top of the pyramid such as the rothschilds and rockefellers who weild a lot of control

Women? Aliens? Kittens? Why would female space kittens contribute to bias against white women in the workplace? It doesn't strike me as being in their best interest.

The aim is to centralsie power...this is historically what has happened everytime there has been a crisis

So economic instability (caused by the bankers in the first place through fear mongering leading to runs on the banks) justified the creation of a central bank (the fed...the IRS was created in the same year to manage tax). World war 1 led to the league of nations. World war 2 led to a world bank, the IMF and the United Nations

The next crisis the network is planning to use to create an even more globalised 9centralised) power structure. in the meantime they are clumping countries together into trading blocks like the EU, the african union, nafta and so on and in the future these will then be merged into one

"Dads are out"? I don't even know what to make of that. Maybe the female space kittens intend to start artificially inseminating the working white women to create a master race?

Funny you say that because that is exactly what the fabians have been discussing for over a hundred years as illustrated by fabian aldous huxley in his book 'a brave new world'

The long range plan is to merge us with technology beginning with injecting microchips
 
This is why I thought the word "parenting" was a better term since I didn't want the focus to be anti-male. I also think men are pressured to be full time workers, and expected to leave the daily care of parenting to others, even if they want to spend more time with their children. As a society, we still expect the mother to be more focused on nurturing than fathers. Gender division of labor. We still don't allow the father to be fully immersed in fatherhood as a the main caregiver. Our society perceives it as anti-masculine to expect that of men.

The idea that being a man is about work and providing for the family issued to make men feel they are best suited to provide for their family by making money, reinforcing the idea that their monetary contributions are more valuable than their human or social contributions. They are expected to sacrifice more for work than women are, and expected to be more flexible, and do more of whatever it takes to get the job done. While women are expected to give up more of their work time to spend time with family if there is a choice between her and her male partner becoming more actively involved in parenting. She is expected to make more sacrifices for the home.

So, I don't think anyone who agrees with the author's argument is anti-male. I think they are just pinpointing issues peculiar to women in terms of professional careers and motherhood.

Definitely not anti-male here. Unfortunately, patriarchal belief systems repress males and females equally in the ways you pointed out. I believe the only counterbalance to that problem is to defy culturally entrenched gender stereotyping by raising our children as individuals free to express their own unique intellectual and emotional natures.
 
To be honest I think this is balls.

I know plenty of professional women who are wanting to become pregnant but have either themselves or their partner are experiencing fertility issues.

I think what's happening is that women wait longer to have children, to pursue career and other goals. As a result, when they do want to have children, they are not as fertile as they were in their twenties and so end up having to spend quite a bit of time, effort, and money trying to have children. So, the time spent working hard earlier on in their younger adulthood to become successful and established in jobs or careers, is the same thing that seems to have kept them from making a decision earlier that would not be as risky. Now, as they try to get pregnant so they can raise a family, that want is compromised by a bio time table they can't control. Fact is women don't have the same opportunity as men to be able to have kids going into their 60s, 70s+. And if they do have kids, their jobs are sometimes inflexible and put them in positions of constant compromise where they are having to make regular decisions to choose one at the expense of the other.
 
Definitely not anti-male here. Unfortunately, patriarchal belief systems repress males and females equally in the ways you pointed out. I believe the only counterbalance to that problem is to defy culturally entrenched gender stereotyping by raising our children as individuals free to express their own unique intellectual and emotional natures.

What is the 'patriarchy'?

You keep mentioning it

You speak about it so much that you must know what it is so please explain it to me because as you've probably seen i like listening to 'conspiracy theories' so please explain this 'patriarchy' theory to me it sounds interesting

Who are the 'patriarchs'?

Are they an alien race? What star system are they from?
 
Our country is not child/family friendly, especially the Republicans. They claim family values, but if they really cared for family values, they'd probably be willing to put in place more socialist measures like extended maternity and paternity leave.

And yes, because we're so work-a-holic, women who have children are penalized for it professionally. I think this problem does have a name though. It is one aspect of the 'Double Burden' that many women face.
 
Definitely not anti-male here. Unfortunately, patriarchal belief systems repress males and females equally in the ways you pointed out. I believe the only counterbalance to that problem is to defy culturally entrenched gender stereotyping by raising our children as individuals free to express their own unique intellectual and emotional natures.

Agree with the idea that we approach this from a non-gendered perspective since that generally leads to defensive responses. Rather than label the problem patriarchy which gives the impression that it's a male vs. female thing, I think people are more likely to get involved and work with others to address this more favorably if seen from the perspective of equal rights and fairness. I think in the end, we need to stop making people feel they have to choose to be worker or a parent, since they supposedly can't do both well. Not a fair choice. Supposedly, something's gotta give.
 
I think what's happening is that women wait longer to have children, to pursue career and other goals. As a result, when they do want to have children, they are not as fertile as they were in their twenties and so end up having to spend quite a bit of time, effort, and money trying to have children. So, the time spent working hard earlier on in their younger adulthood to become successful and established in jobs or careers, is the same thing that seems to have kept them from making a decision earlier that would not be as risky. Now, as they try to get pregnant so they can raise a family, that want is compromised by a bio time table they can't control. Fact is women don't have the same opportunity as men to be able to have kids going into their 60s, 70s+. And if they do have kids, their jobs are sometimes inflexible and put them in positions of constant compromise where they are having to make regular decisions to choose one at the expense of the other.

Yeah a lot of women are putting off having children to later in life and that is one aspect of the fertility issue

But mens fertility rates are dropping with each generation

Do you see the diofference?

Women make choices that then affect their fertility but men are having their fertility taken away from them through chemical castration