01 November 2006
Some of the women at work were discussing when to have babies the other day.
The two women who started going on about it are 25, both single but in long-term relationships. One started going on about how absurd it was that her sister was married and pregnant for a second time at the tender age of 27; she couldn’t imagine doing that herself, what with her career and everything. The other expressed bafflement that her own mum had married at 20 and had all four of her kids within the next seven-years.
Both of them insisted it was best to wait before having children, one claiming she’d wait “a good few years yet.”
“At least until your thirties,” insisted the other.
“That way you can live a little,” agreed the first woman, “Get your career going, that kinda thing.”
Another woman, who is single, unattached and lives with a couple of (female) flatmates, chipped by saying she would wait “as long as possible before having her first kid.” She’s 30 by the way.
The others seemed to agree.
The conversation drifted and wandered off into something about holidays or jam or something similarly pointless; anything other than work.
I didn’t say anything but I was sniggering silently to myself. Women’s fertility peaks in the early twenties, starts to decline around 27 and halves over the next five-years and halves again in the subsequent five. Birth defects and miscarriages are more and more likely as a woman ages; according to Wikipedia, the chances of a 30-year-old woman carrying a healthy baby free of birth defects to full term is 77%, but when she’s 40 it’s slipped down to 35%.
Yet here these women were, two at their most fertile and one with a biological clock already ticking, insisting they would wait for years – as long as possible – before trying to have kids. For all their narcissism, a significant number of modern women don’t seem to realise much about themselves beyond what feminism tells them, like “don’t bother with babies, be free and liberated! Your career is all that matters, and if you really want kids, have them once you’re over 40!”
These women will probably end up childless, middle-aged and realising they missed the boat on childbirth.
They won’t be able to blame anyone but themselves. They will though, of course.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:38 PM
At 11:31 PM, phoenix said…
It is truly a monumental achievement that you didn’t laugh out load there. I know I would have. That type of thinking flies in the face of basic biological and medical knowledge, not to mention sheer common sense. Most older women I know tell me they think that they’d have children when they’re younger, like at 20, because they have so much more energy at that age. If women refuse to listen to men, at least listen to knowledgeable women. But I suppose that’s asking too much from women. I’ve also felt for quite awhile that people are in school for way too long, probably as a result of the large population. Maybe feminism is endorsed by the government not for women’s rights, but instead as a means to lower the population back to manageable levels. Previously this was done with plagues and wars, but the current world environment isn’t conducive to those means of population control. Therefore, the government needed to invent a method that wasn’t as obvious, and would have the support of the population. The government is not as stupid as it attempts to appear at times. I’m certain that in the very highest levels, the people that are really controlling everything, know full well that laws against co-habiting and the like won’t achieve anything other than preventing children from being born to successful men. By lowering the number of children born to successful people, the elite shrinks down. Colleges and universities can thus be scaled down again, and left only to the elite, rather than allow more people to reach that status.
I haven’t thought it all completely through, but it’s an idea I’ve had tossing around in my head for awhile. I really don’t believe that manginas and women could possible be this powerful by themselves. Someone much smarter and stronger is behind it.
At 12:32 AM, ditchthebitch said…
The most nauseating aspect of all of this is that in the midst of all of this insane stupidity that women possess, that they see themselves at the very same time as the ultimate ‘experts’ regarding relationships- they cannot wait to open their idiotic mouths and give endless amounts of their opinions in the form of relationship advice- also flooding the psychology field and screwing up countless lives there as well. I cannot think of any situation where in I would take advice from a woman for any reason… can anyone else?
At 5:33 AM, HAWKEYE said…
Duncan check this one out
At 9:02 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
What always makes me laugh is the way that females refer to their boring, mundane, office clerk of a job as a “career”. They give themselves fancy titles for what are, by and large, low-grade clerical jobs. Words like “executive” and “co-ordinator” are liberally spinkled into their job titles when the word “clerk” would suffice.
Women constantly spout on about themselves and yet know very little about their own bodies, particularly, as you point out, about their fertility, or rather lack of, as they age. This is why the government has recently introduced more paid maternity leave in order to encourage young women to have kids earlier. This is paid for by the employer of course and not the government, as was the case twenty years ago.
The real reason that the women in your office haven’t had kids yet is because men are avoiding marriage. Of course, the females you mention won’t admit that this is the reason, instead they give trendier reasons like their “career” or “I want to have a good time first.” The sad truth is that men are avoiding marriage like the plague, so these females have no choice and many will end up childless. Can you blame men for not wanting to get married with all this anti-male divorce legislation around. Marriage for men is financial suicide and an arrangement where all the cards are in the wife’s hand no matter how badly she behaves.
The women in your office can look forward to a life alone, childless, and as they age, manless too. If they wish to attribute blame for this they should look towards feminists and their male flunkies in government who created this situation in the first place.
At 10:46 AM, voloohaar said…
“They won’t be able to blame anyone but themselves.”
Duncan, Duncan, you should have known better by now. If there’s a problem, just blame a man! Or better yet – men! Keep things on an abstract level (male solidarity, Patriarchy, etc. – makes it difficult for level-minded people to call you on your bullshit, because you give them nothing to hold on, nothing concrete, just some nebulous notion about a thing called Patriarchy… and stuff…).
And I think we all know, they’ll be able to blame men alright. F*ck, the media et al will gladly encourage it! I can already see it: “Patriarchal minority forces female workers into childless misery” and “Male dominated working culture victimizes women who want children in their 20s” and titles like that… You’ll see.
At 10:51 AM, Omniquinn said…
Only a 35% chance that you’ll have a healthy baby at age 40. Women are rolling the dice on their own children’s health. But, hey. I’m sure their careers are worth it…
At 11:44 AM, Anonymous said…
It is their own free choice, but they do not ask themselves which man would marry such an old woman? They need a man to have children and to provide for them.
I do not want a woman over thirty, which high chances to have unhealthy children and a woman that is weaker and less motivated than a young one.
I doubt they are really doing what they want to do: is the job so much more interesting?
Certainly not and they will stop working when they have children and make their husband work for them.
For a man who wants many children it is better to choose a healthy, young wife.
A sixteen year old woman is in childbearing age, do not get any unhealthy children and if well educated can very well be a great wife.
When she is 40 she can easily be a grandmother. Until then she can easily get as much as ten children.
There is no reason why a woman should not have a many children and no “career”.
Such a dutiful woman is then fully entitled to being provided for by her husband. Such a woman needs to be patient, not demanding too much, because she has to be grateful, that her husband bears all the financial responsibility.
Talking financial responsibility: who would like to support a woman with debts, no income and no money, who is 35 and wants children and stop working?
The basic question for a man should be:
will I be happy with such a wife, those things she will give me and those things I need to give her?
In most cases a man will have to work for his wife, literally work for her. Even if the wife does not have many children and works a bit herself, it will still be not enough and he cannot make her work more without fearing divorce.
A man needs a wife who can take full responsibility for the children and household work if he wants to be happy.
It is nearly impossible to have a working wife and have a happy marriage, because most women will not accept a man who is not earning much more than them.
Today marriage is dead. Men may work hard, their wives are not loyal are grateful, they break the contract, all investments in the family are not of long duration.
You cannot marry anymore without fearing divorce.
Marriage in former times served both women and men. Men could be sure of a dutiful wife and women could be sure to not be let down by a man.
Children were best cared for.
Today divorce laws favor women, and make marriage a bad choice for men.
Marriage is better for women, but also very bad for those who want many children, they might become a victim of divorce laws like men.
All traditional behaving is made a victim of todays laws.
And sadly most men behave quite traditionally without having thought it through.
A man should have a woman who takes care of him. That is basically what happens when you have girlfriend: she is friendly.
A wife needs to be friendly all her life.
When looking around I do not see any woman I could trust for being friendly and caring for decades.
Of course a man can marry a career woman, but why marry, if he does never see his wife, if she has no children, if she does not care for them properly, if she can divorce easily?
At 12:11 PM, Mamonaku187 said…
I also hear similar conversations.
I read in an article the other day that men are usually more knowledgeable in a variety of topics, even women’s issues, more than women are!
Makes sense though, as most women are drifting along in a hormone induced nevernever land.
The way women act sometimes lead me to argue on my blog that Men are the natural leaders, and that women should follow.
We’ve given them the benefit of the doubt, but it must be quite clear to most men that women don’t know what the hell they are doing!!
It will be interesting to watch the outcome of these decisions that women are making indeed.
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous said…
‘Maybe feminism is endorsed by the government not for women’s rights, but instead as a means to lower the population back to manageable levels. Previously this was done with plagues and wars, but the current world environment isn’t conducive to those means of population control. Therefore, the government needed to invent a method that wasn’t as obvious, and would have the support of the population. The government is not as stupid as it attempts to appear at times.’
Aye, and Rockefeller also endorses it.
‘Russo recalls his conversation with one of the Rockefellers, who told him that they created and financed the women’s lib movement…’
And remember that the Rockefellers are heavily involved with the UN.
At 3:31 PM, Anonymous said…
Oh yes they will be able to blame. Everyone but themselves. That is beside the point though. The truth is women don’t want babies anymore than men do. They just pretend to want babies until it is to late then pretend that they waited to long and now they are the victims of their own actions. It’s all about being a victim with women.
At 4:39 PM, byrdeye said…
A woman’s peak fertility is at 23.
So, really, she should start seriously looking around 20 or 21…
When women wait till the midnight hour at 30, she will have to find, establish a strong relationship with and try for at least 8 months on average to get pregnant. Which easily totals up to 3+ years at a minimum. That’s cutting it CLOSE.
Well, problem is you can’t “pencil in” finding Mr. Right in your planner. It may or may not happen…on its own schedule, and is pretty random. So, what happens when the clock starts ticking down, and you haven’t even got possession of the ball yet, much less sunk a buzzer-beater?
Now, your whole future rests upon…a random wing and a prayer. If you CAN’T find Mr. Right in time, you will end up childless and alone forever! With no kids or hubby – as most men won’t bother marrying a barren woman. WTH is the point of that?
Sorry, but Nature will NOT wait on your ass, ladies! When that window closes, it CLOSES! You better plan ahead and allow yourself AMPLE TIME for a process that will take a few years at THE LEAST.
At 5:19 PM, ChicagoMan said…
what’s funny is how most women never really think about the future.
They do realize that by the time they decide they want to have a child they still have about 2 years minimum to wait if they want to be married or have a baby with someone other than a test tube.
Let me clarify, you do still have to find a sucker I mean man you want to impregnate you. You have to get pregnant on the first try and then wait about 9 months for baby to come.
This is why so many women in their 30s panic, they don’t think about the future or have any foresight.
Also if they have been on the pill this whole time, forget about getting pregnant.
My SO went off the pill (I should have never told her to) 3 years ago and there are times when protection isn’t used and she has not gotten pregnant. She was only on the pill for a few years.
They say that if you have been on the pill longer than 5-6 years that your chances of restarting your fertility are GREATLY diminished.
So basically the sluts at your work have to get off the pill 4-5 years (its even worse for the shot) before they even decide they want a baby. Find a man and then try to get pregnant.
SO if they decide at age 35 they want a child, we are talking about rushing to have a child by 40, where they have a great chance of birth defects.
Well they never really do think of cause and effect do they. Hence the panic at 35.
Men on the other hand, we may not have it announced, but we know very well what we want our lives to be like in 10-15 years. This is also why women act so impulsively, it would actually warrant thinking of the future.
At 5:32 PM, Tats said…
Women who have children young tend to lag behind those who don’t career-wise, financially, and are more vulnerable to being strapped for cash if their husbands divorced them. While I agree that ideally, women should have children in their 20s (due to biology), sometimes it’s just not possible.
Our society still rewards women who delay childbirth or otherwise have no children. Until we reward women for doing the right thing, biologically, you will have views like the ones you have heard.
I believe there is benefit to both views. Younger women have more energy, older women may have more patience and financial wherewithal. However, I don’t believe women should wait above a certain age. The risks associated with deteriorating quality of eggs is too high.
At 6:05 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…
Actually, you’re headed in the right direction. World leaders are indeed trying to control the worlds population, and these days, they have new methods they are employing.
Feminism, and its resulting rupture in the relationships between men and women, has been part of the plan to reduce the numbers of the lower classes (just about all of us).
AIDS and other STD’s less lethal but nevertheless that interfere with a woman’s ability to have children have been allowed to spread unchecked. The constant push for sex we see in the media is all part of the problem to destroy the family and spread disease.
Family courts and their anti-male hostility are also part of the plan. They cripple men already married, and scare away other men from marrying. Again, all part of the plan.
The constant barrage of anti-male sentiment in all areas of society furthers the erosion of our power. Eliminating men from college is also part of the plan, while increasing the attendance of women, thereby keeping women from breeding at a young age.
Everything we see that is going wrong in our society is part of a very well-orchestrated plan (dare I say plot?) to destroy our freedoms, and reduce our population dramatically. The truly rich and powerful have always viewed the common man as a necessary evil to be controlled, and eliminated when not necessary.
Sadly, all of the efforts of the men’s movement will NOT stop what is happening. All we can do is try to save a few.
At 7:55 PM, byrdeye said…
That Rockefeller admission is amazing!
It’s really a family vs anti-family battle that has been disguised as a MRA vs feminists battle…
At 8:51 PM, Maximus said…
Christopher, I agree mostly with your analysis of the symptoms of modern western society, but I might suggest that you look into the Communist Manifesto, 1848, by Karl Marx to find ALL the answers to the “plot” you suspect.
It’s not a plot. And this comment is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a straight forward statement of fact.
All the social re-engineering, which has created the harm – feminism, affirmative action, destruction of traditional family, dumbing down boys, etc – that has beset the western world since the seventies are all EXACTLY described in that Manifesto. It’s communism, socialism invading by stealth.
Most of us live in democracies and most of us are responsible for having elected the politicians who introduced the policies we are now suffering under – that is, we brought this misery upon ourselves. Maybe not you or me specifically but the majority did. And pollies sold the line that the public wanted to hear.
Phoenix makes a correct point too about Rockefeller. Despite the name being traditionally associated with capitalism. the fact is that through their philanthropy, they attempted to “do good” by implementing what seemed like creating “social justice”. Their intentions were good. And of course he is correct pointing out the UN connection.
Democrats, Labour Parties, liberals are all to blame and even elements of their oppositions bought the Marx ideal and dream of Utopia. It’s too bad that it doesn’t work in reality and now we’re paying the price. It’s frightening that those on the left of politics still believe, with a religious zealotry, that Marxism is social justice and must be fought for.
Capitalism and conservativism may not be the answer either, but for the moment it’s the best option we’ve got – the lesser of the two evils.
Things are starting to turn around, but only in those nations which have rejected leftist (Marxist) politics. In Australia there is really beginning to be an observable improvement in human relations. In Britain things look they are really getting shocking. I think the US is just in limbo, not getting worse, nor better.
At 9:28 PM, Thunderchild said…
Jeez Duncan – do you really want this generation of women to breed and produce more feminists.
Ayeeeeeeee Caramba !!
At 9:47 PM, Mamonaku187 said…
Thinking about this whole issue, I am starting to see the wisdom of the ancients at marrying younger (16+) girls off to older men.
The bride is fertile, and in most cases, would be untouched.
The older man, wise in the ways of women, would be able to properly manage her. She would do her duty, with a minimum of distraction to society at large.
I know quite a few girls that only date older men, and have been doing it since high school. They like the money, power, and respect that most older guys bring to the table.
Tom Leykis also makes mention of the older man/younger woman relationship every now and again.
It would seem that every possible social mechanism that has worked over thousands of years to get humanity to this point has been dismantled… it seems to me on purpose.
I wonder when the real villains behind feminism will step up and make their power-grab offical??
At 12:55 PM, Anonymous said…
Today women who marry young are looked down.
It is much better for a woman who wants kids to marry when she is sixteen than marrying when she is 30.
In Austria 2% of women were married between 14 and 15 in the 1800s.
It is sad to see so many women delaying marriage and concentrating on “careers”, which would usually be called “jobs”.
At the same time, do we want to go back to the old times when women were more or less forcibly married?
The individual freedom is important and if a woman wishes to study instead of getting married, she should do that.
Irresponsibility is the most important problem: women and men do not have to honour the marriage anymore, the marriage being a contract like any contract you do, when you buy a car or rent a house.
It would very well be possible to guarantee individual freedom and marriage if laws made women accountable for what they do when they are married.
The birth rate is always lower when women are not married at a young age. Achieving a high birth rate at the expense of individual freedom is a bad choice, but the laws must ensure that marriage is honoured and they have to make divorce illegal.
The individual man will continue to look for young wives, of course, as they are the most promising.
Like honouring marriage, working when someone got an education at the states expense should be mandatory.
I personally know women who get an expensive education and who know from the beginning that they will not work longer than five years, because she plans to get married and have children and STOP working.
Basically she will not work at all.
So the state paid an expensive education for nothing.
The point is not that women are incapable, but they need to work if they get an education. If they plan not to work, there is no need for an education.
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous said…
Too often we consider women as the poor little thing.
As I said a woman who gets an expensive education should be forced to work. It is like a woman who gets married: she has to stay married.
We consider women as poor little things when they kill babies (she was depressed).
We consider them as poor little things when they want kids instead of working using their expensive education (she did not know).
We allow women too much at the expense of the people. We allow them more than their natural rights. They are allowed more than men.
It is funny to see people argue that women need an education to be able to earn money but at the same time allowing women to stop working altogether when they are married.
A woman who got an expensive education and does not put it to use, is simply lost money. And that is sad.
Men are regarded differently: they have to work – always. They cannot quit. Not at work, not in war.
Even divorced they still have to work for the woman. They have to split assets with a woman who was just an enormous cost during marriage and never earned anything.
Men are taken accountable, often they are taken accountable for things they did not or for womens actions.
At 1:18 PM, Anonymous said…
It is shocking to see that women are very friendly when they are not married. As long as they are your girlfriend they are friendly, then it deteriorates.
I talked to many women. They do not see it as their duty to work and be friendly to their husband. Getting money and not having to work outside is seen as normal.
So women use double standards in regard to their relationship with men.
They consider themselves as slaves when they should serve men, but demand him to work for her endless hours.
The duties of husband and wife need to made clear. The wife has to make the husband happy, it is her duty.
Marriage is not defined any more.
Ask people: “What is marriage?”
Most will argue that husband and wife should support each other.
When it comes down to the definition of support, suddenly the discussion stops. People are not aware that support means hard work and literally servitude to the other one.
Strangely the man working his ass off for his (divorced) wife is never seen as slave.
The happy marriages of old people were the consequence of both doing their duty and being friendly and happy. And having no choice but to stay together.
At 11:11 PM, Jack Dumas said…
I remember seeing a show about five years ago (I cant remember if it was 20/20 or 60 minutes) and in this show the woman reporter (either barbara walters or leslie stall cant remember that either) was talking to a group of about 1/2 dozen women in their mid to late thirties that found out they could no longer have children. The woman reporter indicated that in her days, everyone knew that they needed to have kids before 35. What struck me, is that not one of the 1/2 dozen women took responsibility for their choice, they all blame the fact that they could not have children on the fact that no one had told them that it could be harder for women to have baby after 35 and in some case, not possible. In other words it was societies fault that they could not have any kids. Of course, the reporter was very sympathetic and never asked them how it was possible that they did not know. I for one do not buy since I knew this fact and had known it for many years and to top it all off I’m a guy, which means I never really paid attention to that subject but that fact is repeated so many times that frankly you would have try hard not to be aware of this fact.
For these women to plead ignorance was completely stupid but not one of them stepped up and said, yes I heard this fact before but decided to ignore the advice.
At 12:24 AM, mfsob said…
Bottom line with all of this, women are incapable of rational, objective thought. They don’t think, they feel. The problem with that is that Real Life doesn’t give a rat’s behind about their feelings … but men already know that,
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous said…
Feminism told them they’re some sort of superior creature. No matter what, in any situation, women believe whatever option makes them better/stronger is what it really is. So when medicine and biology say that you can’t have kids after 35 usually, women are convinced that science is just sexist, and it’s not true. Only women are stupid enough to think like that, and that’s the problem.
Women are supposed to be free to choose when they get married. That’s fine, I agree, but then they also can not complain when others do not want to marry them, and when their child-bearing age has passed them. Ignorance is not a defense. There’s nobody to blame but themselves.
Of course, the true reason women don’t want to get married when they’re younger is they hate commitment. Younger girls just want to have sex with multiple different guys, they don’t want to be faithful to one guy. If men stopped chasing women around so much, then maybe women wouldn’t be so promiscuous at a younger age. If men actually respected other men’s relationships, there would also be less cheating. Yeah, it’s still women’s fault, but these are contributing factors. Feminism can be blamed heavily on manginas and men putting women on pedestals. That’s why feminism will never be eradicated, its roots are deep
At 5:12 PM, ChicagoMan said…
I agree anon. It’s sad, but manginas and players perpetuate feminism and this slut behavior of women.
We already know that most women can’t act rationally and are heard creatures, this is why we must wake up the public’s eyes, the mangina’s eyes and the player’s eyes to what’s going on.
If you ask me, I think that these people are to blame for what is happening to our society.
The effect of this ignorance on these peoples’ behalf is the bottom feeder feminists.
I’m not blaming feminism on men, I am simply saying that there are men out there that make matters worse for themselves and for all men.
If these men would not behave like this, feminism as we know it would come to a screeching halt since unfavorable laws would no longer get passed and women would be forced to be held accountable.
At 1:35 AM, NYMOM said…
“In Austria 2% of women were married between 14 and 15 in the 1800s.”
But historically most women in the west were married by the age of 19, maybe early 20s…after that you were considered an old maid.
So even if they didn’t get married at 14 or 15, they certainly didn’t wait until their 30s to marry…
My mother and her mother and all her sisters (which were many) all were married before 20 and had their first child already or on the way…
So it’s not that women were married before 16 in the west, but they were certainly married well before 30…
At 1:40 AM, NYMOM said…
Remember something else.
Because nutritional levels were so much less then also, young women menstruated later. As you have to have a certain level of fat to menstruate…when you look at the pictures of young women (or young men from the 1800s) you can see how slim people were then compared to today…the only people who were chubby were babies…
So who knows how much sex people were having then, since teens menst. later, it didn’t show up in illegitimacy rates.
At 1:43 AM, NYMOM said…
“By lowering the number of children born to successful people, the elite shrinks down.”
That appears to be a natural process that happens to every civilization…the elite have fewer offspring then others and eventually die off. It happened in Rome and later all the royal families of Europe as well (including the lesser nobility)…maybe inbreeding makes them less fertile or weak or something.
I don’t think the government plans these things. It appears to be a part of a natural process of civilizations.
Why I don’t know.