Vox Popoli: The cost of educating women

Not only have the proposed benefits manifestly failed to manifest themselves, but the opportunity cost of future generations has begun to become readily apparent everywhere from Europe to Asia. One wonders how low birth rates have to fall in civilized countries before the elites begin to realize that the Taliban may not, in fact, be the stupid ones with regards to this particular matter.

I address a recent article on the correlation between female education, the declining Japanese fertility rate, and the reported collapse of the collective Japanese interest in sex at Alpha Game:

Throughout this period Japan experienced a sharp decline in the total rate of fertility. After a sudden downswing in the early 1950s, the birthrate continuously declined until the mid-1980s, when it began to drop rapidly, and by 1997 it fell to 1.39. In light of these findings, it is plausible to suggest that there is a relationship between the increase in women’s access to a higher education and the decrease in the fertility rate.

As one commenter there noted, if Nicholas Kristof read the post, his head would probably explode. But there is no empirical evidence indicating that female education is societally beneficial, and there is an increasing amount of evidence that correlates it with a broad range of societal ills. The Japanese birthrate has continued to fall, hitting a historical low at 1.26 per woman in 2005. In 2012 the number of deaths exceeded births for a sixth straight year.

Far from being the 21st century superpower that my university professors taught that it was certain to become, it is a literally dying society.

No society that wishes to survive should convert all of its prospective mothers into worker drones any more than it should convert all of its prospective farmers into doctors or telephone sanitizers. Sure, it takes longer for a society to die out demographically than starve, but the end result is the same.

Just ask the Shakers, another equalitarian society that believed in the importance of educating women.

Labels: Alpha Game, education

297 Comments:

civilServant October 21, 2013 2:10 PM: "She spoke to me."
Dice Clay October 21, 2013 2:18 PM: I got yer education right here, baby.
Red October 21, 2013 2:18 PM: Give women who are not married mothers any type of status is insanity.
Josh October 21, 2013 2:19 PM: It would be interesting to study marriage rates of Greek vs non Greek women, with a focus on southern schools.
cybro October 21, 2013 2:20 PM: The only "education" women are getting is how to become a professional victim.
TWS October 21, 2013 2:25 PM: Seriously, you can get all the education you need to run a household in grade school. Less if home schooled. I personally would like my daughters to have as much useful education as they prefer and can afford. I wouldn't mind a Mrs. degree. But I love grandkids.
VD October 21, 2013 2:25 PM: The only "education" women are getting is how to become a professional victim.

Given that there are female physicists here, that obviously isn't true. The HR professionals are arguably a more deleterious factor.
Josh October 21, 2013 2:31 PM: Vox,

Do you think college is similar to female participation in the workforce? Since a percentage of women have always gone to college.
buzzardist October 21, 2013 2:33 PM: The further problem, too, is that it is almost invariably the most intelligent women who get the most educated, and thus who end up having the fewest children. To the extent that intelligence is a quality inherited (whether genetically or through specific behaviors that intelligent people engage in with children to pass along intelligence), this means that the next generation will be less intelligent than the current one.

How does a society (or for that matter, a species) go into decline? When its most fit members fail to reproduce.

Having a lot of experience in Japan, I can't blame the declining birth rate entirely on women getting educations, but the correlation can't be denied. There are other factors involved that make Japan's population plummet so sharp. Absent husbands and fathers abandoning child rearing to mothers and, increasingly, to daycare workers, who are all female, meaning that young children get very little socialization with adult males certainly plays a role in young men not knowing how to behave as men and young women not seeking commitment in marriage relationships that were only ever cold and distant in their experiences. But Japan's educational system, which attempts to be radically egalitarian up through junior high and then decidedly meritocratic in high school and university, ensures that women with any ability to study advance to the best schools. And since sitting in a room for hours repeating monotonous drills is much easier for most girls to endure than it is for most boys, girls have a particular edge in the "studying" department, even if their subsequent outputs in life never quite measure up to their school performances.

Is it any surprise that Japanese corporations are seeing their once-dominant creative edges sag? Or that the country is at a loss for how to deal with its massive fiscal debts, even as the demographic trends have the country slipping from 120 million people down to 90 million within the next two or three decades? And it will only take that long because Japanese people have the highest life expectancy in the world. How does one deal with half a country in retirement? What does one do about a country where the average age of farmers is over 60? It really is the collapse of a society. Women don't marry until nearly 30 on average, and they rarely have more than two children. The ready availability of abortions and fairly loose social acceptance of the practice ensures that relatively few "accidents" produce any children. The slide continues, and even very generous economic enticements to have kids isn't doing anything to stop or even slow the demographic decline.
VD October 21, 2013 2:34 PM: Do you think college is similar to female participation in the workforce?

Almost certainly. Society can absorb a moderate amount of female participation in either. But as the farming analogy demonstrates, go past a certain point and you've got trouble on the horizon. But unlike farming, you can't use mechanic-enhanced productivity to substitute for child-bearing or child-rearing.
civilServant October 21, 2013 2:34 PM: "Kzinti cubs are tested by the Black Priests. Females are tested for intelligence; the ones who flunk their tests by revealing too high an intelligence are killed."
Will Best October 21, 2013 2:35 PM: I don't think you need to go so far as the Taliban and restrict access by state mandate. Removing the social safety nets however, would dramatically change the risk/reward equation for females who are inherently risk adverse to begin with.
Anonymous October 21, 2013 2:38 PM: "One wonders how low birth rates have to fall in civilized countries before the elites begin to realize that the Taliban may not, in fact, be the stupid ones with regards to this particular matter."

Since most elites are also zero-population nitwits, don't you suppose they see this as a feature, not a bug?
VD October 21, 2013 2:42 PM: Since most elites are also zero-population nitwits, don't you suppose they see this as a feature, not a bug?

You can go further than that. I think that is why they pushed female education in the first place. They're not stupid, they're evil.
Josh October 21, 2013 2:50 PM: Do really think most of them are that evil?
rcocean October 21, 2013 2:50 PM: Why do you morons constantly assume that population growth in EVERY country is a good thing? There are 126 million Japanese jammed into a country the size of California. The best thing for the Japanese would be a decrease in population to about 80-100 million and if all the population loss consists of the losers too timid or ugly to breed so much the better.
Kyle Hutson October 21, 2013 2:51 PM: I would posit that the decline of the Shakers had more to do with their belief in a lifetime of abstinence than the equality of sexes.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 2:54 PM: how to avoid the 'Die Phase'. that is the eternal question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

it's also amusing that the females devote attention to their young in INVERSE proportion the population level.

i suppose it could be asserted that the only thing truly interesting about the education bubble is that this is how women are choosing to avoid devoting time to child rearing THIS TIME.

as Vox has noted before, falling reproduction rates have presaged the destruction of numerous societies throughout history.
Will Best October 21, 2013 2:56 PM: Why do you morons constantly assume that population growth in EVERY country is a good thing? There are 126 million Japanese jammed into a country the size of California. The best thing for the Japanese would be a decrease in population to about 80-100 million and if all the population loss consists of the losers too timid or ugly to breed so much the better.

The problem is modern government provides $2 for every $1 you pay in which is only sustainable in a growing population. Which means that anybody that isn't producing at least 2 children per uterus is a drain on society while society is shrinking.

Where the elite are evil is they are the ones loaning the money to sustain the population decline, meaning that when the dust settles in Japan there will be 60 million Japanese being ruled by about 500 Lords, 5000 lesser Lords, and a million or so enforcers
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 2:56 PM: rcocean October 21, 2013 2:50 PM
if all the population loss consists of the losers too timid

yes.

because a highly aggressive, warrior culture Japan is something that ALL of the Far East has no unpleasant experiences with.
Js123 October 21, 2013 3:00 PM: Just out of curiosity, I had posted about the Shakers over at Alpha Game before coming over here. Did you put in the reference to the Shakers after reading my comment? If so, it's cool, I was just wondering if it was an incredible coincidence.
Daniel October 21, 2013 3:04 PM: I blame abstinence only education.

I mean, for the Shakers, not the Japanese.
dh October 21, 2013 3:07 PM: But unlike farming, you can't use mechanic-enhanced productivity to substitute for child-bearing or child-rearing.

Objection. Assuming facts not evidence.
VD October 21, 2013 3:13 PM: The best thing for the Japanese would be a decrease in population to about 80-100 million and if all the population loss consists of the losers too timid or ugly to breed so much the better.

Actually, the population loss will mostly consist of the most intelligent and best educated. So, we're looking at stupid and highly aggressive Japanese population.

Objection. Assuming facts not evidence.

Feel free to insert "it has hitherto proven impractical to substitute" for "you can't use" if you prefer.

Did you put in the reference to the Shakers after reading my comment?

No, sorry. But console yourself with the "great minds" thought.
Heh October 21, 2013 3:16 PM: Just ask the Shakers, another equalitarian society that believed in the importance of educating women.

When I was a callow youth, I visited England and some snooty Brit asked me if I knew anything about the Shakers. I made an offhand remark about them being chair-making pacifist eunuchs who were predictably extinct. No doubt this confirmed his low opinion of Americans.
Daniel October 21, 2013 3:20 PM: So, we're looking at stupid and highly aggressive Japanese population.

So...Sudan. What's wrong with Sudan? I love Sudanese food!
stevev October 21, 2013 3:26 PM: shit, what are HR professionals but modern day political offfcers and propaganda ministers. I only know of aggrieved victim women and white knight gays in my company's HR department.
Bob Wallace October 21, 2013 3:30 PM: I will not longer work for a woman boss because I have found they are either incompetent or marginally competent. And, of course, they don't know it and are outraged if they are informed of it.
Noah B. October 21, 2013 3:35 PM: "shit, what are HR professionals but modern day political offfcers and propaganda ministers. I only know of aggrieved victim women and white knight gays in my company's HR department."

It's not fair to paint with such a broad brush. I've known straight men working in HR who were just extremely bitter because they didn't have any useful or marketable skills.
verve10007 October 21, 2013 3:45 PM: "I will not longer work for a woman boss because I have found they are either incompetent or marginally competent"

Women in any kind of management position barely even show up for work at all- they are always OUT. Don't come in on Mon., Fri, come in after 10:30am, leave at 2pm, call in sick every other day, take off HUGE blocks of time. It's like some kind of phenomenon all across every industry- then one day they just suddenly quit their job and never work again, EVER.
Red Comet October 21, 2013 3:48 PM: The Japanese are at a crossroads.

They can return to the old ways where the majority of society is a father who works, a mother who is a housewife, and they have children, making it so that everyone (but feminazis) are happy again because they're following human nature and biological reality.

Or

They can go all-in on Western style culture rot where men and women are made to hate each other by a combo of anti-male legislation and propaganda from birth and massive abuse of anti-depressants and alcohol (not reported in the media naturally) are the only things keeping them all from cracking up completely.

This halfway shit they're in now just can't last. Gotta pick a path eventually. You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
old white guy October 21, 2013 3:54 PM: I guess todays women just want to f--k and do not want kids. too bad my generation had to work so hard for sex. I am sure my attitude would have been different had every little chippy dropped her drawers when I was ready for action.
Luscinia October 21, 2013 3:59 PM: MRAs and PUAs have ruined relationships.
stevev October 21, 2013 4:00 PM: Noah B. "I've known straight men working in HR who were just extremely bitter because they didn't have any useful or marketable skills."

Well, there is that factor, too. I'm not too afraid of painting with too broad a brush, since my company's HR department wields an even broader brush to implement its diktats.
Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia October 21, 2013 4:02 PM: Well, if all the world would start raising their children as the Spartans did....
Salt October 21, 2013 4:03 PM: I know a few intelligent, working women. They're mostly childless. It's the trailer trash that's breeding prodigiously.
stats79 October 21, 2013 4:08 PM: "I know a few intelligent, working women. They're mostly childless. It's the trailer trash that's breeding prodigiously."

I haven't met any women, trashy or intelligent (is this really two separate catogories?) that are breeding prodigiously. Well, except for traditional-Latin-Mass Catholics (of which there are very few) and Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Josh October 21, 2013 4:12 PM: I haven't met any women, trashy or intelligent (is this really two separate catogories?) that are breeding prodigiously.

Homeschoolers
Anonymous October 21, 2013 4:18 PM: Mormons, the Amish, Hasidic Jews. Gee, notice a pattern?
RS October 21, 2013 4:20 PM: I went to school in Japan in the mid-90's and, at that time, I wouldn't have characterized female education as a problem because the assumption was that, while everyone was educated, a women would be expected to stay at home once the children were born- if they had any. I talked to a number of female students and no one seemed inclined to fight those expectations- but that was a good while ago.

One thing I do know is that abortion is not frowned upon in Japan and is extraordinarily prevalent- most likely due to their huge population density. So I'd guess that the dropping birth rates are due to a number of factors. But who can say with certainty? Japan is a strange place.
Daniel October 21, 2013 4:30 PM: Gotta pick a path eventually.

Too late. They did. The numbers don't lie. Japan has already bred out its brains. Adam and Eve were an anomaly. See those under 20 folks? When your race has more living 70-75 year olds than 15-20 year olds, you aren't doing anything but playing out the string. At this rate, Japan will be down to half a million 60-65 year old men in 2070. Today, they have 4 million.

Heck, if every single Japanese kid under 5 today miraculously survives to see their sixties that number will still be half of what it is today.

No one's turning Japanese. The path has been chosen.

We are talking Detroit, on a national scale, with walkers.

And likely a moderate Philippine caliphate just sitting there with awfully long memories and a few needs...
Aeoli Pera October 21, 2013 4:34 PM: But Japan's educational system, which attempts to be radically egalitarian up through junior high and then decidedly meritocratic in high school and university

By itself, that actually sounds like a near-perfect middle ground. Maybe scale it back to elementary school for America (Japan's bell curve is high with small SD), pretend to wail over the retards who can't hack 5th grade, and start the meritocracy at 6th grade.
Anonymous October 21, 2013 4:35 PM: On the other hand, Japan is wonderfully closed to immigrants so if they keep the course there will still be something identifiably like the Japanese in a century when many European ethnic groups will have PC-ed themselves out of existence.
Aeoli Pera October 21, 2013 4:36 PM: Not endorsing the Prussian method, just sayin'...
Eric Wilson October 21, 2013 4:37 PM: Homeschoolers.

Heh. I was gonna say Vidad. But your category is surely broader.
ericcs October 21, 2013 4:41 PM: Traditional social engineering, considered essential and appropriate to maintain a primary pillar of the culture:

Egregious confiscatory taxes on two-income families, but none for those where the father works and the mother stays home with children. Deductions or lack thereof can also be appropriately applied.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, especially when it means the destruction of society and traditions in which most individuals have historically found a sense of belonging and worth.
Matamoros October 21, 2013 4:42 PM: Here's a girl who has now been corrupted by Mensa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10389264/Meet-the-British-schoolgirl-with-an-IQ-higher-than-Einstein.html
cheddarman October 21, 2013 4:43 PM: Vox, you can write a book on Samurai game. Bring back the Samurai, and the birth rate will explode.

Sincerely

cheddarman
Golf Pro October 21, 2013 4:58 PM: "Not only have the proposed benefits manifestly failed to manifest themselves, but the opportunity cost of future generations has begun to become readily apparent everywhere from Europe to Asia."

One of the problems you have here is that you have failed to identify the "proposed benefits" that have supposedly failed to materialize. There is not way to to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of female education, feminism, equal rights for women etc until we identify what benefits are and not only that but weigh the importance of each of these benefits.

It's quite clear that personal autonomy without having to face institutional or cultural roadblocks is unquestionably a benefit. If you don't think so, ask a women if she would prefer that her daughter be blocked by institutional bias from entering the field of endeavor they would like to enter.

Then there is the quasi libertarian benefit that provides any person the right to live their own life in any way they choose as long as they respects the equal others to do so.

Both of these are unquestionably benefits that come with women's education, feminism, etc.

What kind of weigh to do you give this kind of personal autonomy is the question. One way to determine a weight is to ask to whether most men would like to have severe limitations put on what they are allowed to do in society and if men would prefer to not be allow access to a libertarian social order whereby they are denied or blocked by the culture or society from the right to pursue educational or vocational choices of their liking.

I rather doubt many men would say, "bring it on."
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:08 PM: Any correlation between a low birth rate, and a high rate of MALE education, a high standard of living, high rates of taxation, and/or low infant mortality? Or are you oversimplifying again and simply cherry picking the one particular possible factor that you want to complain about?

**But there is no empirical evidence indicating that female education is societally beneficial, and there is an increasing amount of evidence that correlates it with a broad range of societal ills.**

Really? What's the standard of living in the US and Western Europe, compared to that in most Taliban countries? Or Africa?
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:11 PM: @ Golf Pro

The percentage of the population that really prizes autonomy and self-actualization is very small. What you are doing is privileging the few at the expense of the many. I believe it was William James who wrote that being poor was not having the resources to pursue one's dreams, or something very close to that.

If we view personal autonomy as a type of resource then it is one that only has real value to a very select few. Giving people large measures of personal autonomy when they lack expansive vision is like giving a bunch of good whiskey to a teetotaler; in other words, a complete waste.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:12 PM: What's the standard of living in the US and Western Europe, compared to that in most Taliban countries? Or Africa?

Post hoc much, Ann?
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:15 PM: Overbreeding is not necessarily a good long term strategy for maintaining a high population, anyways. The reason why, is that starvation is not a surgically neat process. For instance, let's say you live in a small country that can grow enough food to support 1000 people. If you overbreed, and end up with 1,100 people, it would be ludicrous to think that what will happen will be that 1000 people will get exactly enough to eat, and the extra 100 people will get nothing at all and die, and you will end up with 1000 people.

What is a far more likely scenario is that the 200 richest people will get more food than they need and get fat, another 200 will get exactly enough to eat, and 700 people will end up with less than they need, and eventually die of starvation, leaving you with only 400 people after everything is over.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 5:17 PM: Heh October 21, 2013 3:16 PM
Brit asked me if I knew anything about the Shakers. I made an offhand remark about them being chair-making pacifist eunuchs who were predictably extinct. No doubt this confirmed his low opinion of Americans.

another denomination started by a woman. and providing an excuse for women not to reproduce. also, started in Britain.

so, you should have asked him why HE was asking you about ancient British history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Bob Wallace October 21, 2013 3:30 PM
And, of course, they don't know it and are outraged if they are informed of it.

it's not the outrage at being called stupid that's the problem. most people get a might miffed if you call them stupid.

it's that they get outraged when you try to show them a process which is actually effective in getting them what they say they want. they would so much rather keep doing things the stupid way ... simply because that's the way they told you to do it.

it's more control issue than it is productivity issue.

Luscinia October 21, 2013 3:59 PM
MRAs and PUAs have ruined relationships.

MRAs and PUAs are giving women want they want.

what women want ( especially the constant trying to trade up ) ruins relationships.

no man will trust a woman who will drop him like a hat.

( useless to use the phrase "drop him like a bad habit" because women love men who are bad for them )

if you make it impossible for the men to trust the women ( false rape and domestic violence allegations, punitive and arbitrary divorce ) with whom they are supposed to form relationships ... just what the hell do you think is going to happen?

Matamoros October 21, 2013 4:42 PM
Here's a girl who has now been corrupted by Mensa.

*facepalm*

'smarter than Einstein', and what does she do with it? go to a glittering debutante ball with royalty and famous people.

get back to me when she revolutionizes physics.

i do wonder if this isn't actually one of the primary social reasons for Islam keeping the women sequestered in the home; create an artificial sense in the female of a smaller population ( because she doesn't meet that many people ) which induces greater care in her child rearing.

this would, of course, be concurrent with reducing her exposure to alternative males to whom she could trade up.
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 5:17 PM: Golf Pro,

Who will bear the children if all the women are working?

Simplified: How are babies made?
Eric Wilson October 21, 2013 5:22 PM: Then there is the quasi libertarian benefit that provides any person the right to live their own life in any way they choose as long as they respects the equal others to do so.

Both of these are unquestionably benefits that come with women's education, feminism, etc.

I guess in the Animal Farm sense feminism is about equality...
Rally October 21, 2013 5:23 PM: Japan of the future will be a robot empire.
whatever October 21, 2013 5:24 PM: GP: 'personal autonomy' is standard leftist code for 'radical autonomy', the benefits of which we are experiencing today as the meltdown into dystopia of what was once a viable society.

It would all be laughable if the results were not so demonstrably destructive to everyone involved. BTW, that would be demonstrably in reality, NOT in the immaculate memes and narratives of the leftist fantasyland.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:27 PM: Jonathon wrote: **If we view personal autonomy as a type of resource then it is one that only has real value to a very select few. Giving people large measures of personal autonomy when they lack expansive vision is like giving a bunch of good whiskey to a teetotaler; in other words, a complete waste.**

Jonathon - some people may not use personal autonomy much, and it might be a waste to have it available to them, but that is probably true of a lot of things. Most people probably wouldn't have much use for a musical instrument, either. However, if we then decided to remove all musical instruments from our country, we would be much poorer for it, because although the average person may have little use for one, they are extremely valuable in the hands of a musician who DOES have use for one, and the average person does value the RESULTS of the instrument, in the hands of the musician who has a use for it.

Personal autonomy is much like that, it is very valuable in the hands of a person who does have a use for it. And since we can't predict who will and won't have use for a musical instrument, or personal autonomy, it's best to have both available so that those who are able to make use of either can obtain them.
Golf Pro October 21, 2013 5:28 PM: "Giving people large measures of personal autonomy when they lack expansive vision is like giving a bunch of good whiskey to a teetotaler; in other words, a complete waste."

Unless we are talking about men, right? Would you be OK living in a society, Jonathan, in which your vocational and personal choices were severely limited due to cultural and societal and legal roadblocks?

"Who will bear the children if all the women are working?"
That would be the women. My wife had a fine, long career....And she had babies. How the hell did that happen? My best friend's wife has a career in medical research AND she has three children. How did that happen? Another friend of mine has worked n the wine industry for 25 years AND has 2 children. How the hell did that happen?

"I guess in the Animal Farm sense feminism is about equality.."
Actually, feminism is largely about equal access to opportunity. I have no idea why anyone would want to systematically deny equal access to opportunity.

"'personal autonomy' is standard leftist code for 'radical autonomy', the benefits of which we are experiencing today as the meltdown into dystopia of what was once a viable society. "

What the hell does "Radical Autonomy" mean? All I'm talking about the is the right of the individual to pursue their desires (be the vocational or personal) without trampling on another person's right to do the same. Is this something you'd be willing to give up? I rather doubt it.
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 5:30 PM: The most important contribution women can make to society is children. This is the only contribution men can not make.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:31 PM: @ Ann

first, yeah, we can predict who is capable of using personal autonomy; it's called an IQ test. Second, a social environment that aggressively foists personal autonomy on everyone pushes out identities that are stable and reliable, which is on what the vast majority of people rely.

The law of diminishing marginal returns strikes again. If you just hand out personal autonomy for being able to draw breath then it becomes value-less. We already reached that point some time ago.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 5:32 PM: a might miffed

"mite"
civilServant October 21, 2013 5:32 PM: no man will trust a woman who will drop him like a hat.

No (wo)man will trust a (wo)man who will drop him/her like a hat.

I rather doubt many men would say, "bring it on."

For themselves of course not. For others absolutely yes. And for libertarians this is not a contradiction because libertarianism is all about Me.
Brad October 21, 2013 5:33 PM: I was surprised to learn that Korea is in even worse shape than Japan, although it started later.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:33 PM: bob wrote: **no man will trust a woman who will drop him like a hat.**

You obviously never met my ex-boyfriend. Who I broke up with after he specifically told me that he preferred another woman specifically BECAUSE she was a gold digger, and he preferred gold diggers to the fact that I loved him, because 'he knew where he stood with them'. Whatever that means.

Right before I walked out, I told him that she was eventually going to betray and leave him, and he just smirked and said he knew that and would deal with it. Assuming that being all alone and miserable (as he is now, several years later) is 'dealing with it', then I'd say he was correct.

As for 'trading up', plenty of men are guilty of that, too. How many men have 'traded up' for someone younger and prettier?
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 5:36 PM: Winter is coming early this year. I just saw the first snowflakes in the air!
JartStar October 21, 2013 5:39 PM: Assuming that being all alone and miserable (as he is now, several years later) is 'dealing with it', then I'd say he was correct.

A) Ann Morgan B) Alone and "Miserable"
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:39 PM: Bob Wallace wrote: **"I will not longer work for a woman boss because I have found they are either incompetent or marginally competent"**

Bob, wonder if you could do me a favor and come to my work and explain that to the 50 people working there. Because several of them have told my male boss (to his face, no less) that HE is incompentent, and that I (a female) am the one who keeps that place running. Which I am not really comfortable with them saying, and I am also not comfortable having do constantly direct people as to what to do, probably because of my personality type (I'm that rarity, an INTP female), I'm neither comfortable with, nor good at handling power, and don't really like having to tell people what to do.
Josh October 21, 2013 5:40 PM: As for 'trading up', plenty of men are guilty of that, too. How many men have 'traded up' for someone younger and prettier?

Well, women file 70% of divorces...many of which are frivolous (think eat, pray, love)
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:41 PM: @ golf pro

No, most men in human history have not had radical autonomy. The reality of radical autonomy is that there is no such thing. I have a brother who is unbelievably talented at basketball; we're talking NBA level skills. He is also slow and 5'9. In no way would he ever have been able to play in the NBA, due to his physical limitations.

Rules, of any kind, are "obstacles". The NBA rim is set at an arbitrary 10 feet high. Radical autonomy would dictate that we set the rules of basketball to ensure that physical differences, which are unchosen, do not hinder someone's ability to excel.

If more personal autonomy is always better then the best is infinite autonomy. The maximum expression of self-definition is the freedom from all definition, at all. Why should I be restricted to self-definition, by temporal restrictions? Why can't I claim to be one thing one minute and then claim to be the opposite the next? THAT is the end-stage of infinite self-definition.
Jake-the-Rake October 21, 2013 5:42 PM: 1100 people will eat and obesity will be a major social ill.

A woman ain't smart if she don't wants kids. She'll be goods in beds, brilliant at the cocktails parties, but airs is not heirs and that leaves nothing of hers.
Jill October 21, 2013 5:43 PM: I haven't read through the comments, and maybe somebody has pointed this out, but the Shakers died out because they didn't believe in having sex. They increased only through adoptions. When it became illegal for religious institutions to adopt children, they died out. I'm not sure female education had anything to do with it; they were just nuts.

Although I do believe there is a correlation between higher education and lower birth rates--there has to be because women who are being educated tend to delay having kids--in any population with such low birth rates as Japan, you also have to take into consideration other factors, such as low fertility due to synthetic estrogens. There are always other factors. The dying countries of today have multiple issues that are preventing the populace from bearing offspring, and higher education for females is just one part. The biggest, I would think, is the philosophy that's been pounded into youths' heads: Children are bad because they are inconvenient and will further wreak havoc on the environment.
Josh October 21, 2013 5:43 PM: I'm neither comfortable with, nor good at handling power, and don't really like having to tell people what to do.

Do you think that you should be able to vote?
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:44 PM: Verve wrote:**Women in any kind of management position barely even show up for work at all- they are always OUT. Don't come in on Mon., Fri, come in after 10:30am, leave at 2pm, call in sick every other day, take off HUGE blocks of time.**

Bullshit. I work every day. I've worked after throwing up twice. I come in 2 hours early every day and work for free to get doen what needs to get done, and 'take off'' exactly one day a year for Halloween. My MALE boss on the other hand, comes in after all the work is done, and is constantly taking vacations.

** It's like some kind of phenomenon all across every industry- then one day they just suddenly quit their job and never work again, EVER.**

How interesting. My previous MALE boss did that.
Jake October 21, 2013 5:44 PM: The mass movement of middle and upper-class women into the work force is the direct result of intentional social engineering.

More women working = more taxable income, more money spent on clothes/food/gas/etc (all taxable) less time/effort into producing good at home for use at home (non-taxable). Less self-sufficiency for households and more dependence on the government. Perhaps more importantly, it meant the children spent less time with mother and father and more time in state run schools and virtually state run day cares.

The consequences are clear and ugly, sorting out which were desired and which were unintended, well that's hard to say.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 5:48 PM: Josh wrote: **Well, women file 70% of divorces...many of which are frivolous (think eat, pray, love)**

I can't draw conclusions from that without more data. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women and MANY are for frivolous reasons doesn't tell me how many men have 'traded up'. I'd need to know other things. How many women are getting divorced because their husbands have de-facto traded up (having an affair with someone younger and prettier). How many women have husbands who have de-facto traded up in the manner I describe and simply live with it and don't get a divorce?
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 5:49 PM: More snowflakes! Ann Morgan rocks, ergo all women are awesome at working and stuff!
Josh October 21, 2013 5:49 PM: Bullshit. I work every day. I've worked after throwing up twice. I come in 2 hours early every day and work for free to get doen what needs to get done, and 'take off'' exactly one day a year for Halloween. My MALE boss on the other hand, comes in after all the work is done, and is constantly taking vacations.

Didn't you just say that you were a rarity among women because you were an intp?
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:49 PM: @ ann morgan

Among same sex couples women are about twice as likely to dissolve the relationship as are men.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 5:52 PM: relationship = marriage or civil partnership
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 5:53 PM: She did say that, although she is much too judgemental for a "P". I am an ESTJ and also an asshole. Are you sure you are an INTP, Ann Morgan?
Josh October 21, 2013 5:54 PM: I'd need to know other things. How many women are getting divorced because their husbands have de-facto traded up (having an affair with someone younger and prettier). How many women have husbands who have de-facto traded up in the manner I describe and simply live with it and don't get a divorce?

I believe that 20% of divorces are for infidelity. But I'll have to check those numbers.

One thing to keep in mind, Ann, is that it is significantly easier for men as they get older to successfully trade up than it is for women.

So what is important is how many of each sex have attempted to trade up and not just look at how many have done so successfully.
Daniel October 21, 2013 5:59 PM: Winter is coming early this year. I just saw the first snowflakes in the air!

Sadly, this also explains A Song of Ice and Fire.

If only Martin had told us that the Song was set to the tune of Free To Be You and Me...
TWS October 21, 2013 6:02 PM: Good night. What a surprise, a post about women not even Western women mind you, and Ann thinks it's about her. My preschool grandchildren are more self aware.
Jake-the-Rake October 21, 2013 6:03 PM: There is no work in the universe more useful than that of a stay at home mother. Culturally speaking this truth is denied and replaced by sexy broads getting their tits into the upper realms of power, instead of into the mouths of a human beinglet made in the image of God. Of course THAT is really the highest reach of power... teaching a baby jesus how to do everything, even to like Brussel Sprouts. But that today is religious bullshit. It's poetry, nonsense.

Moving ten trainloads of Durum Wheat with a phone call to some really cool dude met at a company party... THAT'S power, satisfaction and fullfilment. Much better than waving a fucking rattle at a screamer with teething problems.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:03 PM: INTP - Infinitely, Nutty, Tinkerbell, Princess? Bah, Myers-Briggs is crap.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:06 PM: I have noticed that some people here seem to have a very unpleasant tendency of claiming that all sorts of social benefits (which they are never actually able to prove would really result), would occur if only the rights of certain groups were taken away or violated, and that (strangely enough) these groups just so happen to be groups other than those that they, themselves, belong to.
11B October 21, 2013 6:07 PM: At least the Japanese are not importing diversity. Their population is probably too high and drives up the cost of living and family formation. If and when the Japanese ever have a baby boom, at least the country will still be theirs. Can we same the same about the West?
rcocean October 21, 2013 6:07 PM: "because a highly aggressive, warrior culture Japan"

There is no warrior culture in Japan and hasn't been for almost 60 years. A couple A-bombs will do that. Further, from 1620-1850 Japan was called the "hermit nation" and hardly aggressive.

BTW, contradicting sentence fragments is so easy - thanks guy.
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 6:11 PM: Ann,

Define "rights" and their origin.

PUOSO
Josh October 21, 2013 6:11 PM: I have noticed that some people here seem to have a very unpleasant tendency of claiming that all sorts of social benefits (which they are never actually able to prove would really result), would occur if only the rights of certain groups were taken away or violated, and that (strangely enough) these groups just so happen to be groups other than those that they, themselves, belong to.

Any examples?
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:12 PM: Josh wrote: **One thing to keep in mind, Ann, is that it is significantly easier for men as they get older to successfully trade up than it is for women.**

That's true. But the original poster was complaining about those women who would want to 'trade up' if they could. And I don't think it's valid to complain about such behavior in women, but to give it a pass in men. The fact that men may be able to trade up more successfully (than women can) as they age is irrelevent as to whether it is undesirable behavior or not.

**So what is important is how many of each sex have attempted to trade up and not just look at how many have done so successfully.** That's also true, a person who attempts an unpleasant thing, be it 'trading up' or murder, is an unpleasant person regardless of the success of their attempt.

As a seperate question - if someone leaves a spouse with a specific unpleasant behavior such as doing drugs, emptying out the bank account and going to Vegas, or beating their wife or husband, would you consider that 'trading up'? I think leaving someone with a specific defect is a seperate matter.
Noah B. October 21, 2013 6:17 PM: Ann, I think you'll find that few here want anyone's rights to be taken away. Disapproving of the personal choices made by some is not the equivalent of advocating legal restrictions to prevent them from making those choices.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:20 PM: Ann, humans are tribal and what you are seeing is what you get when you have people forced to deal with each other when they have almost nothing in common, socially speaking.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: life creates morality, and every different type of life creates its own different type of morality.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:21 PM: Jonathan wrote: **INTP - Infinitely, Nutty, Tinkerbell, Princess? Bah, Myers-Briggs is crap.*

Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. It's basically the personality of the archetypical 'eccentric scientist'.

I've no idea if the test is crap or not, but I do have an awful lot of the traits of an INTP, including the fact that I don't really like power. I've seen managers come and go, and to be a good manager (or a good leader) you have to have certain traits:

1. You have to be able to use power effectively (which is going to include actually liking to use it).
2. You have to be able to use it fairly and not take advantage of it for yourself or your special friends.
3. You have to know what the hell you are doing with regards to whatever it is you are telling people what to do. If you are telling people how to do their jobs in a warehouse, you need to know how to run the warehouse.

Right now I find myself in the unenviable situation (from my point of view) of having to tell around 50 people what to do in a warehouse, because of the fact that I fill points #2 and #3. I'm able to do things fairly, and I know what I'm doing. But I fail abysmally at point 1, I'm not able to use power effectively, partly because I don't have much charisma, and partly because I really don't LIKE telling people what to do. Unfortunately I'm stuck doing it, because about the only trait my boss has is that he LIKES power. But he can't use it effectively any more than I can, and he also can't use it fairly and doesn't know what he's doing.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:22 PM: Ann, I would urge you to respond to stg58's challenge to define "rights" and specify from whence they originate.
frenchy October 21, 2013 6:22 PM: this explains why on you tube, there are all of those cat videos coming out of japan.

@ rcocean,

I think you need to read up on your history. ie: what japan did to russia AFTER 1850--they crushed them . . .and attacking pearl harbor and the pacific rim? that's not the action of a hermit nation. just because japan is not out invading everyone does not mean that the culture is not there.

however, i would agree with you in saying that japan is not as it used to be, and that "military class" that was responsible for pushing Hirohito into WW2 was subjugated after WW2. But not just by us, but also by the Japanese themselves with Hirohitos's edict, "we will bear the unbearable, and endure the unendurable."

..and then there were some war crimes trials that got rid of the pushers of that movement. :-)
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:24 PM: I suppose it's better than the ESFJ - Extremely sociopathic flatulent jerk. Seriously though, the Myers-Brigg is crap. You are simply engaging in confirmation bias when you view your results from that test.

OCEAN five is based on factor-analysis and is far more empirically robust.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:25 PM: The Japanese have already conquered the world and we just didn't realize it.

Hello? Kitty?
Golf Pro October 21, 2013 6:28 PM: " Radical autonomy would dictate that we set the rules of basketball to ensure that physical differences, which are unchosen, do not hinder someone's ability to excel."

I see what you mean now by "radical autonomy".Fine. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm merely talking about the kind of autonomy that allows those who want to pursue a course be able to pursue that course. If a lack of ability or lack of certain physical characteristics leads them to discover their choice of career or education isn't going to result in the fulfillment they hoped for, then that's that. But that's not an argument for not presenting men and women with an equal amount of autonomy.

"Why should I be restricted to self-definition, by temporal restrictions? Why can't I claim to be one thing one minute and then claim to be the opposite the next? THAT is the end-stage of infinite self-definition."

What does this have to do with the idea that there is great benefit for women in allowing them to choose their pursuits, free or social or cultural constrain the way men can? I don't see your point or why you are event talking about "radical autonomy". No one suggested such a thing.
Jill October 21, 2013 6:35 PM: "And I don't think it's valid to complain about such behavior in women, but to give it a pass in men. The fact that men may be able to trade up more successfully (than women can) as they age is irrelevent as to whether it is undesirable behavior or not."

Is it undesirable for moral or biological reasons?
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:39 PM: @ golf pro

If a lack of ability or lack of certain physical characteristics

One person's limiting characteristic is another's defining characteristic and there is no a priori distinction between the two. Rules are, by their very definition, limiting. Several feminist journalists and scientists have called for a change in the culture of scientific research because women have a different work/leisure trade-off valuation between the two. The claim is that the current climate that focuses on high-achieving, work-focused individuals ends up discriminating against women. There is a significant portion of the feminist world that is admitting that there are real, biological differences between male and female and that the rules should be adjusted to eliminate those differences.

What does this have to do with the idea that there is great benefit for women in allowing them to choose their pursuits, free or social or cultural constrain the way men can?

There's a cute, little lie snuck in there. Can you spot it? Yeah, it's that men are free to pursue whatever they like; they aren't.
Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:44 PM: Jonathon wrote: **Ann, I would urge you to respond to stg58's challenge to define "rights" and specify from whence they originate**

I already did deal with that question in an earlier post. But will again. What we think of as 'rights' would probably be more accurately (though also more cumbersomely) thought of as 'prerequisites'. Basically, it's part of a social contract, specifying things that you CAN'T do to people. For instance, take the 'right to life'. What that means is that there is a social contract in a society, in which I agree that I won't murder you, in exchange for you agreeing that you won't murder me. Human psychology being what it is, most people would not agree not to murder others, if those others were not also agreeing not to murder them.

It's possible that there could be a highly violent society in which there was no 'right to life', or no mutual agreement not to commit murder, but I don't imagine the people in it would accomplish very much, and would probably get wiped out by a more cooperative society.

A question to ask yourself, which of the following scenarios would make you angriest, and in which order:

1. You best friend went lion hunting and was killed by the lion.
2. You best friend went shopping in downtown Minneapolis, and the owner of a candy store kidnapped your friend and knifed him to death for no good reason.
3. Your friend went to Africa and was killed by cannibals from a savage tribe that had had no previous contact with civilization.

Rate these and give me your answer as to which would make you most and least angry and I'll get back to you about it later.
VD October 21, 2013 6:47 PM: One of the problems you have here is that you have failed to identify the "proposed benefits" that have supposedly failed to materialize. There is not way to to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of female education, feminism, equal rights for women etc until we identify what benefits are and not only that but weigh the importance of each of these benefits.

This isn't a comprehensive book, Golf Pro, it is a blog post. You can do the research yourself. There were many benefits that were promised, in fact, there are many benefits still being promised if only we more fully utilize the talents of the other half of the population, as the British PM's wife puts it. You seem to have difficulty grasping that the fact I have not conclusively proved something in a blog post does not mean my statement is not correct.

It's quite clear that personal autonomy without having to face institutional or cultural roadblocks is unquestionably a benefit. If you don't think so, ask a women if she would prefer that her daughter be blocked by institutional bias from entering the field of endeavor they would like to enter.

That is begging the question. Moreover, there is a considerable evidence to support the fact that most humans, though not all, actually dislike being presented with too many options. This is particularly true of women; surveys have repeatedly shown that women are unhappier now than before they were "liberated".

Although I do believe there is a correlation between higher education and lower birth rates--there has to be because women who are being educated tend to delay having kids--in any population with such low birth rates as Japan, you also have to take into consideration other factors, such as low fertility due to synthetic estrogens.

When the same correlation appears in Germany, Japan, and the USA, it is quite safe to point to the likely culprit being education + hypergamy. Obviously abortion and contraceptives play a role as well; how could they not. But everyone understands that. Far fewer understand the link between female education rates and reduced societal fertility. Without Game, and specifically the concept of hypergamy, how could you?

Also, shut up, Ann. No one, and I mean no one, believes that your opinion or your life experience has anything to do with Japan.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 6:56 PM: None of them would make me directly angry.

1. I would consider my friend an idiot for going lion hunting
2. I would just assume that the guy who knifed him didn't share any social contract with him
3. A combination of both 1 and 2. He's an idiot AND there was no extant social contract between the parties

Also, you didn't even bother to answer the more difficult part of the challenge, which was the source of "rights". Ann, your responses are very meandering, and it would be nice if you tried to answer them more directly and concisely.
zen0 October 21, 2013 7:07 PM: Is there going to be a Monday Nite Foosball Vikings thread?
A blow by blow of the destruction of one team or the other?
Hmmmmmmmm?
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 7:14 PM: Ann,

I am in between classes but it appears you have described a society in which we only have "rights" by sheer popular consensus. In other words, a democracy.

If that is the case, you have no idea what rights are, and I doubt you can tell me where they come from. In the future, you shouldn't use the word "rights". Use "societal privileges".
zen0 October 21, 2013 7:18 PM: Re: Japs

They should have listened to Yukio Mishima.
Jill October 21, 2013 7:19 PM: VD, I didn't necessarily mean "contraceptives". Obviously, they play a huge role in low birthrates. I was more specifically referring to the effeminate men in Japan who have no desire whatsoever to have children. This is a trend. Why? Is it philosophical, or is it chemical exposure?

Ultimately, though, female education isn't the culprit, but a symptom of the real problem, which is the anti-life philosophy that causes the youths of today to believe that children are a burden, both on them, as well as on the environment. This philosophy must be attacked and changed. When it is, we will likely see a shift in prioritization.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 7:34 PM: I think this is a part of the greater issue of a fundamental misunderstanding of education. The term originally meant to elicit things that were latent and potential in a person. Now, it's become about instilling a good that isn't there to begin with.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 7:35 PM: rcocean October 21, 2013 6:07 PM
BTW, contradicting sentence fragments is so easy - thanks guy.

except that you just opined that the timid and ugly Japanese would stop breeding, leaving only the children of the hyper-aggressive to fill the gap.

you can respond to sentence fragments all you want. it's really so sad that you likewise attempt to atomize your concepts and refuse to attempt to follow them through to their obvious conclusion.

we'll leave the non-obvious conclusions ( secondary and tertiary effects ) until you've grown up a bit.

rcocean October 21, 2013 6:07 PM
Further, from 1620-1850 Japan was called the "hermit nation" and hardly aggressive.

they weren't internationally aggressive. that's hardly the same thing as being populated by shrinking violets. sakoku was, in principle, merely the process that the Shogun used to eliminate social chaos and thereby constrain the number of threats to his absolute rule.

that it was also a response to having both the Chinese and Koreans kick their asses is likewise not an indication that they weren't actually aggressive. this is a situation where the Shogun decided that Logistics was the better part of valor.

the majority of the samurai movies and culture focus on the Edo period. a time in which any commoner to be murdered at the whim of any ronin, much less anyone higher ranking on the social scale.

the bushido code of the Edo period is the very definition of the aggressive warrior.

Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:12 PM
I think leaving someone with a specific defect is a separate matter.

indeed, it is. so why are you trying to conflate it?

Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:21 PM
Right now I find myself in the unenviable situation

so ... you're getting another job, yes?

Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:12 PM
And I don't think it's valid to complain about such behavior in women, but to give it a pass in men.

who gave men a pass? failing to comment about men doing X is not congruent with saying that it's desirable that men do X.

noting that it's easier for men to do X when they are older is not congruent with saying that it's desirable that men do X.

in the old social order, it was undesirable for men to act this way. remember all the shit Christians were getting when they were complaining about Clinton acting this way? because they were prudes?

yeah, don't complain about mature alphas fucking around WITH THE YOUNG WOMEN WHO ARE CHASING THEM and then also complain about the betas/deltas/gammas who won't marry the sluts because the bimbos couldn't find a better man to settle for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbpUfWz-rlc

i really don't like Pearl Jam but this song is good for comedy purposes if nothing else.

Ann Morgan October 21, 2013 6:12 PM
The fact that men may be able to trade up more successfully (than women can) as they age is irrelevent as to whether it is undesirable behavior or not.

it's not a question of un/desirable.

it's an explication of the fundamental foolishness / stupidity of a YOUNG woman fully engaging her hypergamy and then complaining as she gets older that she can't find a 'mature' man who will 'commit' to her.

you sows your seeds, you reaps your whirlwind.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 8:09 PM: honey bee OT:
colony collapse seems to be caused by insecticides used in agriculture
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/an-insecticide-infection-connection-in-bee-colony-collapses/
rcocean October 21, 2013 8:17 PM: Its rather humorous to read English-speakers (and I assume either Americans, Englishman, Canadians, etc.) label Japan as an "aggressive" nation with a warrior class.

Britain and later the USA have been involved in almost constant foreign wars and conflict with "subject peoples" for almost the last what 300-400 years. I mean what the hell Henry V doing in France anyhow? In the 1860's it wasn't the Japan bombarding England, it was the other way round. As for the Russo-Japanese war, it two to tango and its hard to see how Russians had a better claim on Korea than the Japanese did.
yukonyon October 21, 2013 8:34 PM: perhaps Feminism is God's tool for not letting man get too smart. He did, after all, confound the makers of a tower.
bob k. mando October 21, 2013 8:40 PM: rcocean October 21, 2013 8:17 PM
Britain and later the USA have been involved in almost constant foreign wars and conflict with "subject peoples" for almost the last what 300-400 years.

yes, if it weren't for them damned yankees there wouldn't be any war. ever. anywhere. at any time.

you should read up on melanin theory, you'll like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory

the question, goalpost mover, was whether Edo Japan should be considered an aggressive society or not.

the answer is that it first FAILED at aggression and subsequently decided that it wouldn't bother with external aggression anymore and would keep it's violence for it's own people.
Golf Pro October 21, 2013 8:55 PM: "This isn't a comprehensive book, Golf Pro, it is a blog post. You can do the research yourself. There were many benefits that were promised, in fact, there are many benefits still being promised if only we more fully utilize the talents of the other half of the population, as the British PM's wife puts it. You seem to have difficulty grasping that the fact I have not conclusively proved something in a blog post does not mean my statement is not correct.

It's clearly not a comprehensive book. That much is clear. However, your very first sentence of the post fails. Clearly, if we understand opportunity to be a benefit—and we should unless men are willing to forgo opportunity—then at lest one of the promised benefits has been manifested. And if we consider the lack of obstruction (societal, cultural or legal) to pursuing a vocation a benefit, the again we have another manifested benefit.

"That is begging the question. Moreover, there is a considerable evidence to support the fact that most humans, though not all, actually dislike being presented with too many options. This is particularly true of women; surveys have repeatedly shown that women are unhappier now than before they were "liberated".

Petitio Principi it is not. You need to better understand the idea of begging the question. Surely you aren't going to argue that the ability to pursue a vocation and possess autonomy without socially or culturally or legally discriminatory roadblocks is not a benefit of the women's movement. Men would not want such a thing. And women, having actively moved into every area of society since the feminist movement began seem to have demonstrated they want these things too. So clearly, we have a benefit that has been manifested.

Finally, being able or not to pursue a vocation through education without social or cultural or legal roadblocks doesn't amount to "too many options". It amounts to two options: Pursue and education or don't.

If you really want to make your case, then at least have the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious, rather than ignore it.
zen0 October 21, 2013 8:57 PM: Vikings debut of Josh Freeman in 10....9....8....
zen0 October 21, 2013 9:05 PM: Golf Pro puts one in the creek:

Surely you aren't going to argue that the ability to pursue a vocation and possess autonomy without socially or culturally or legally discriminatory roadblocks is not a benefit of the women's movement.

Surely you aren't going to argue that what benefits the "women's movement" benefits women are you?
Josh October 21, 2013 9:09 PM: Its rather humorous to read English-speakers (and I assume either Americans, Englishman, Canadians, etc.) label Japan as an "aggressive" nation with a warrior class.

Bushido?
Stg58/Animal Mother October 21, 2013 9:10 PM: That's a two shot penalty.
JCclimber October 21, 2013 9:15 PM: "There is no warrior culture in Japan and hasn't been for almost 60 years. A couple A-bombs will do that. Further, from 1620-1850 Japan was called the "hermit nation" and hardly aggressive."

Yes, Japan was completely peaceful during the "Hermit Kingdom" years, to use your terminology.

Ignoring all the internal wars that were constantly going on within Japan during that time period, jockeying for power and trying to overthrow the shogunate. Shhhh, don't tell anyone though. /s
Bob Wallace October 21, 2013 9:18 PM: "Bob, wonder if you could do me a favor and come to my work and explain that to the 50 people working there. Because several of them have told my male boss (to his face, no less) that HE is incompentent, and that I (a female) am the one who keeps that place running."

I've had incompetent male bosses, too. The easiest way to identify them is that they have MBAs.

However, I've never had a male boss who didn't even show up 75% of them time and when there did absolutely nothing.

Besides, I was talking about my experience, not yours.
steve October 21, 2013 9:35 PM: Someone should study Israel in this regard. The average Jewish woman in Israel now has about three children, the highest in the industrialized world. The rate rises with religiosity (from secular, to traditional, to orthodox to ultra-orthodox) but even the utterly secular have an above replacement rate. All Jewish women in Israel have access to higher education, soy, birth control and abortion. I have read many articles describing this phenomenon but none truly explaining it.
scoobius dubious October 21, 2013 9:49 PM: Japan isn't going to die out, unless they get stupid and start importing Filipinos and Pakis for no good reason. Which they aren't going to do, because their power structure isn't infested with vicious enemy Jews. The Japanese archipelago, geographically, is roughly the same size as California, but it has about 130 million people as compared to California's 30 or so million, many of them Mexicans, who don't really count as "people". If Japan's population were cut in half today, it would then be about the same size as the daring and brutal nation that took over half of Asia and bombed Hawaii. So long as they keep their borders closed and aren't replaced by foreigners, Japan has a perfectly bright future with even a quarter of its present population. Perhaps at some point in the future, Japan will only be occupied by say 40 million Japanese. But who cares, so long as they're actually all Japanese? That will still make it Japan, and they won't have a Muslim Students' Association to worry about, or mosques and tacerias sprouting up all over the place, or an infestation of scheming Jews working day and night to destroy them.

I think they have the better business plan than the white people, who have decided that they don't exist, and so their very nice countries are over-run by Muslims, Mexicans, Africans, and evil Jews.
clarifying russia 60 words israel October 21, 2013 10:00 PM: There is no need to study Israel beyond an understanding of human nature. Abortion is sadly legal in Israel but abortionists are rightly viewed as regrettably little different than the arrogant enemy who hates "our" children, hence their services are less resorted to in Israel than in places where "our" children are safer and arrogant enmity is not so clear.
POE Hunter International October 21, 2013 10:00 PM: There is no way scoobie is for real.
Harsh October 21, 2013 10:00 PM: Ignoring all the internal wars that were constantly going on within Japan during that time period, jockeying for power and trying to overthrow the shogunate. Shhhh, don't tell anyone though. /s

I have it good authority that all they were doing was playing gin. The whole samurai thing is a retcon.
zen0 October 21, 2013 10:13 PM: There is no way scoobie is for real.

He is a self-confessed nuisance.

Hey, everyone needs a schtick.
scoobius dubious October 21, 2013 10:16 PM: Yeah yeah yeah, lots of people are going to get their knickers in a twist over what I just wrote. Here we'll go again with the whole "anti-Semitic" thing, but srsly, I'm not. I know perfectly well that most Jewish people are very nice folks who aren't blameworthy in the least, just as I know that most white people were never slave-owners and most Germans weren't Dachau guards and most Arabs are cultured and hospitable people. But you have to bear in mind, despite being mostly very nice people, the British Empire did exist, and a lot of colonized peoples were not happy about it. Americans are mostly nice people, but there was an American Army that slaughtered a lot of Indians. I'm sure there are plenty of nice Turks out there, but, ya know... In the same way, it's simply unrealistic to refuse to admit that there aren't a lot of Jews working at cross-purposes to the interests of Westerners, and undermining them. Not all Jews, naturally, and not even most of them, and not even really a lot of them. But to say it's not happening at all is simply not true. Don't get so emotional, look at the world as it really exists. You can have all sorts of different opinions about things, but you don't get to have your own private reality. Peace. I'm really not a guy with any hatred, I'm just trying to see the world as it exists, and also, I enjoy being irritating. It's sort of just exaggerating to make a point. I don't have swastikas tattooed on my fingers or anything. Really.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 10:20 PM: “I made an offhand remark about them [Shakers] being chair-making pacifist eunuchs who were predictably extinct.”

Their demographic snafu most assuredly denied them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

“I will not longer work for a woman boss because I have found they are either incompetent or marginally competent.” 

 And yet another man on the public dole due the foibles of feminism!

“Giving people large measures of personal autonomy when they lack expansive vision is like giving a bunch of good whiskey to a teetotaler; in other words, a complete waste.”
 
Indeed, we have a duty to hit the road as traveling salesmen to pitch the idea to the unwashed masses how their utter stupidity will undeniably result in catastrophic demographic turmoil unless they “properly” live their life.

“They can return to the old ways where the majority of society is a father who works, a mother who is a housewife, and they have children, making it so that everyone (but feminazis) are happy again because they're following human nature and biological reality.”

Damn that libertarian principle called freedom of association.

“start the meritocracy at 6th grade.”

YES! One ought to be mindful of Sparta, as a militarist state, that murdered infants who failed to meet their standards for strength and endurance. I decree that only young boys entering middle school age endure a battery of tests to determine their level of leadership, competition, and stamina. In a “Fight Club” exercise, platoons will be created based on their test scores, who will strap on red or blue arm bands and hunt down the "enemy" to rip off their emblems. Outright brawls demonstrate a sign of strength; younger, weaker boys will summarily get pummeled and bloodied to a pulp. Ripped shirts, scraped knees, and broken noses are considered badges of honor. Boys who failed to measure up will be barred from reproducing. After all, in the immortal words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “[one] generation[s] of imbeciles are enough”.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 10:22 PM: “Egregious confiscatory taxes on two-income families, but none for those where the father works and the mother stays home with children. Deductions or lack thereof can also be appropriately applied.”

Socialist twit? NO! The desired course of action taken by the Christian libertarian intelligentsia is to "gently" remind whites of their "duty" to pop out kids like a Pez dispenser as a counter to niggers and spics breeding like rabbits, right?

We are mindful that the Roman emperor Augustus made adultery a public crime and established financial penalties for citizens who outright refused to marry and bear a certain number of children.

Can't afford them? Don't want them because rearing kids is not a priority? Tough, it's all a demographic thang!

“...the real problem, which is the anti-life philosophy that causes the youths of today to believe that children are a burden, both on them, as well as on the environment. This philosophy must be attacked and changed.”

“Inducing” women to birth and raise children. YES! We must put forth the following proposal in those areas which suffer from low birth rates--the passage of a law at most, or substantial social pressure at the bare minimum, for white men to marry and have their concubine, I mean wife, bear five children in eight years. For those coloreds, who contribute absolutely nothing to civilization sans pestilence and chaos, enacting legislation is most desirable, or at least through brute force, to ensure they have one child. Women in their prime ought to be compelled to forgo their own life in order to produce offspring. And the men, well, who gives a damn if they are more interested in the “pump and dump” strategies of such prominent Gamers like Roissy and less inclined to deal with whiny females who ruin everything--instant fatherhood it is! Regardless if couples have a steadfast belief they are not financially ready to have children, or have serious reservations to bring Bobby or Susie into a world of Cultural Marxism, they must be brought into submission, I mean gently convinced, of their grave mistake. After all, today's young people lack the intellectual capacity and political liberty to make their own decisions on this important matter.

Follow the Russian model (right Nate)! “Free stuff” in the form of housing and education, direct cash payments to women who pop out more chilluns (and even adjusting their work schedules to meet maternal demands!), and programs to dry out the Vodka swilling man-childs running amok.

It is worth pointing out that a society in which individuals are encouraged to have children by governmental intrusion is not a free society, unless you are a closet librul who advocates these forms of welfare and social engineering!
zen0 October 21, 2013 10:30 PM: Thomas Malthus proclaims:

It is worth pointing out that a society in which individuals are encouraged to have children by governmental intrusion is not a free society, unless you are a closet librul who advocates these forms of welfare and social engineering!

So a society which discourages having children because of government intrusion is a free society?
Carlotta October 21, 2013 10:39 PM: Ann you know there is one way you seem unaware of to have life long job security for a male boss who is uniquely interested in your well being. Do you know what it is?
Heh October 21, 2013 10:39 PM: Scoob will appreciate this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/10/17/what-was-auschwitz-i-dont-know/

Meet the products of the modern American University system. Never in history has ignorance been this expensive.

Questioner: What was the Holocaust?
American College Student: Um…I’m on the spot.
Questioner: Which country was Adolf Hitler the leader of?

American College Student: I think it’s Amsterdam?

Questioner: What was Auschwitz?

American College Student: I don’t know.

Questioner: What were the Nuremburg Trials?

American College Student: I don’t know.

The Juice have capitalized on sympathy for their past victimhood... but now people are increasingly ignorant of that victimhood, to the corresponding disadvantage of the Juice.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 10:42 PM: Any society that refuses to ensure that its citizenry consistently reproduces through carefully planned policies by a centralized authority is guilty of demographic genocide.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 10:49 PM: "We should encourage those who are most gifted to increase their genetics."

Encourage? Nay, DEMAND!
Carlotta October 21, 2013 10:50 PM: Thomas do you need more straw?
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 10:58 PM: Carlotta, "encouragement" is a passive approach doomed to failure.
The Russian model is on the right track.
Idle Spectator October 21, 2013 11:05 PM: The holocaust was how much holos cost, of course. And the Nuremberg Trials were the trials of Nuremberg v. United States.
Court Jew October 21, 2013 11:12 PM: So what is your solution VD?

Just a housekeeping issue.

To those who want to address the Lord of the Manor, let it be known that at this time of day/night, he is probably away somewhere backing up his hard drive.

Try again at 4 or 5 a.m. Eastern time.
Vic October 21, 2013 11:19 PM: Education is a factor in the collapsing demographics, but selfishness and big government are as much the problem I think. Raising children and doing it well is hard work, its not for the faint of heart.

One large incentive for having many children in old times was as a sort of retirement plan. Back in the day when people viewed the family as their ultimate source of refuge. More children meant that you would not be too much of a burden for the children you do have once you are too feeble to work.

Now days, we rely on the state as our ultimate source of refuge. Why endure the hardship and expense when you can shift the burden of your old age feebleness onto the children of others?

Besides, government taking close to 50% of your income leaves little extra to raise those little rugrats and also buy new cars, houses, and other toys too.

I often wonder how much the prevailing attitude of childlessness is pushed by the same Cretans who were behind the eugenics movement of the 20s. Why sterilize the worthless eaters when they are ignorant enough to convince them to sterilize themselves?

Convince the silly women that children are a ball & chain, that they don't really need a man to have a family. That they have always been cheated. The idea that procreation is our only observable purpose on this planet is a lie meant only to enslave.

The almighty state will step in if they do accidentally forget to abort the fruits of their whoredom, and force the gullible workers to finance the raising of their fatherless hellions. Spoiled brats we make sure grow up saturated in the hip gangsta culture.

Convince the fatherless brats to be gangsters and thugs who kill off even more of those worthless eaters while exterminating each other. They may even turn on and kill off the silly women that spawned them!
They be bitches n hos anyway!
Harsh October 21, 2013 11:21 PM: So what is your solution VD? Make it illegal for women to work? Allow only ugly or infertile women to obtain education? How are you going to fix this problem? Or if you think it can't be fixed what do you advise people do?

Strawman! Strawman! Strawman!

Good work, man. A veritable trifecta.
Jonathan October 21, 2013 11:30 PM: @ golf pro

The prudent way of managing both a family and a career is to have women starting a family in their late teens or early twenties, and then embarking on a career as their children approach puberty. To do this, we would have to eliminate the current nonsensical approach to accreditation we call "education".
Jonathan October 21, 2013 11:34 PM: I remember one longitudinal study that followed graduating high school seniors the firs four years out of high school. The students who worked full time had twice the rate of vocabulary compared to those who went to school full time, when controlling for variables like grades, test scores and socioeconomic status. A working vocabulary is a very good proxy for learning "stuff".

Most of what gets taught at university is useless garbage; I have a friend with a master's in engineering who works for a boeing subcontractor and almost everything he does he learned on the job.
Superbowl Nazi October 21, 2013 11:36 PM: Meanwhile, Freeman demonstrates he has a distinct lack of accuracy as a passer.

Vikings are screwed.

No Superbowl for them.
dh October 21, 2013 11:37 PM: The prudent way of managing both a family and a career is to have women starting a family in their late teens or early twenties, and then embarking on a career as their children approach puberty. To do this, we would have to eliminate the current nonsensical approach to accreditation we call "education".

First off, there is no reason why a woman's child bearing years should be limited to such a short period of time. With no advanced technology, there is no reason a fertile woman with good bones can't bear children for 20 years, and 30 years isn't out of the question. With a first child at 16, a well mannered woman could quite easily carry 20 children to term before her 40th birthday, and another five before she stops her cycle.

At which point she would be mothering children until her early sixties.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 11:39 PM: To Vic Tayback,

“Education is a factor in the collapsing demographics.”

Yes, parents need to be indoctrinated, I mean taught, that bearing and raising children, even if not in their demographic destiny in the immediate future or in the long-term, is a desired outcome, one in which the children will then be obligated, I mean have a duty, to be at the beck and call of their parents in their old age. The sweet smell of yesteryear permeates the noxious fumes of today!

“I often wonder how much the prevailing attitude of childlessness is pushed by the same Cretans who were behind the eugenics movement of the 20s.”  

Although one must be concerned about the gene pool needlessly being diluted by the undesired offspring of vibrants when they engage in coitus at a record pace.

“Convince the fatherless brats to be gangsters and thugs who kill off even more of those worthless eaters while exterminating each other.” 

Of course, there is no empirical evidence indicating that black babies are societally beneficial.
Noah B. October 21, 2013 11:42 PM: "colony collapse seems to be caused by insecticides used in agriculture"

It was a good article bob, I help keep a bee hive and have an interest in experimenting with some top bar hives, so this is of great interest to me. Still, I got a chuckle thinking about the jist of the article: scientists discover that insecticides have toxic effects on insects. Apparently on the molecular level.

And they wonder why we're skeptical of experts.
Thomas Malthus October 21, 2013 11:43 PM: Jonathan, your words are poetry in motion!

"The prudent way of managing both a family and a career is to have women starting a family in their late teens or early twenties, and then embarking on a career as their children approach puberty."

[Trumpets sound] Men, to arms. Let us embark on this journey together, buoyed by a spirit of male domination and female subjugation.

"To do this, we would have to eliminate the current nonsensical approach to accreditation we call "education"."

Brick by brick!
Jonathan October 21, 2013 11:50 PM: The problem of overabundance of women at university is simply a specific case of an overabundance of everybody at university. You teach children how to behave. You do not teach someone how to do most vocational things; either they have the talent, and learn by apprenticeship, or they lack the talent.

The entire mistaken notion of education is based on the blatantly false blank slate ideology (one to which I subcribed a very long time ago, btw).
Jill October 21, 2013 11:53 PM: To Thomas Malthus, who was wrong in the 18th C, and who still appears to suffer from wrongness in the 21st--influencing people to philosophically appreciate themselves, their futures, and the lives they could produce is hardly a philosophy of government force. Nor would I wish it to be. Nor would I recommend taking away the right of females to be educated. I happen to be an educated female; why would I desire to remove that right from others of my gender? I would be a terrible hypocrite.

But I also have a love for my own society and culture, despite its problems, and would like to see it continue. Why do you think it is that you are afraid of a pro-child philosophy? Philosophies come and go, and they captivate society for the better or worse. The current one, in which men and women are divided against each other and don't want to have children, is hardly going to benefit our society. Neither, of course, will the reactionary philosophies, such as the have-20-children-for-attention one as seen in the Duggar family. Both suffer from the fundamental error in feminism, which is to teach women that they aren't good enough as women and must become like men in order to be good enough or, conversely, that women aren't good enough and must have as many children as possible to prove their worth. Lies, lies, lies.

And what's all this nonsense of whiteness? When I forward a philosophy of loving life, I don't restrict this to the offspring of white men and their concubines (what?). And Roissy et al? I don't give a shit about Roissy--don't even know who he is and don't care. I have little interest in game. I've been married too long to give a damn. You have either confused me with somebody else who comments at this site, or have misconstrued my earlier comment.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:01 AM: No one's talking about 20 kids. Have 2 or 3 early and then get onto a career; hell, women being the "moral" sex, and all, can staff all the non profits that make liberal panties all creamy.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:02 AM: how do you plan to achieve this great plan?

Overthrow the ruling blank slate false ideology. More error comes from that ideology than from all other sources combined.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:07 AM: Heh. Jonathan. Well played all night. Count me amongst those who have a master's in engineering and have learned almost everything I do after I got hired.

Although I have no regrets. Scholarships made tuition almost free and the credential opened the door to my job. However, sans Duke v. Griggs I likely could have started in my same position right out of high school.
Harsh October 22, 2013 12:07 AM: Carlotta- women can have children AND have an education and a job.

:Problem is that women who choose to have both do neither particularly well. There's a reason jack-of-all-trades is not a compliment.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:07 AM: Or was it Griggs v. Duke? I always forget.
Marshall Nelson October 22, 2013 12:07 AM: Applicable to the original post:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:08 AM: Anonymous. Get a handle.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:08 AM: "Overthrow the ruling blank slate false ideology."

Jill's naiveté aside, Jonathan, your philosophy is making my loins burn with envy.
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:09 AM: Yes dh. And if she is pregnant, nursing and raising children for two to three decades isnt that enough frickin work?
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:10 AM: Golf Pro. Yeah, cause we are all having this discussion by passing notes around in class.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:14 AM: Harsh, "jack of all trades" means a person is skilled in a variety of ways. That is how I like my women folk--they can cook and bake well, dress modestly, open their mouths for something salty and stringy (fries, fellas, fries), appreciate the fruit of my bountiful labor, and homeschool the children in the Bible and the Constitution. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"!
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:16 AM: "And if she is pregnant, nursing and raising children for two to three decades isnt that enough frickin work?"

Work? Nay...bundles of joy!
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:19 AM: "It is that over time it destroys a culture for the one gender that can create life to waste their time doing what the other gender can do."

Exactly! I mean, women were made to make me my pudding.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:19 AM: Paul Ehrlich's sarcasm here is hilarious.
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:19 AM: Really. It has always been "Jack of all trades, Master of NONE".
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:20 AM: And yet the evidence is abundant that women can both have careers and raise children well. You're claim is without merit.

Where is this abundant evidence?
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:22 AM: This comment has been removed by the author.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:22 AM: "And how would you fix this accreditation problem?"

Ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and all they get are STD's. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:23 AM: GP, you realize that 2 children is below with replacement rate, right?

Also, what is your deal with wine?
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:24 AM: so long as they obtain permission from Father.

And now Paul Ehrlich is advocating incest.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:27 AM: All around you. There are millions of women that have both jobs and have raised fine children. You need to get out more.

And Golf Pro proves once again that he hasn't read the OP.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:30 AM: Carlotta, are you female? If yes, you really ought to know your place here. If you were homeschooled, your instructor did not properly teach you manners. If you went to public school and (gasp) college, I am afraid that the remnants of liberalism and feminism are visible. A concoction of honeysuckle, ginger, and dragonfruit (my grandmother's recipe) should do the trick.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:30 AM: What's your point? That has nothing to do with the claim that women can neither raise children well or do a good job in their career as was claimed.

The point is that if every woman had exactly two children civilization would implode. And then who cares how well she did in her career?

I guess you subscribe to Keynes' quote that in the long term we're all dead.
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:32 AM: So many boys vying for my attention. Whatever will I do? Who knew insomnia could have perks.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:33 AM: "I will be looking at the statistics showing the massive increases in stds, abortions, out of wedlock pregnancies, drug use, violence, suicides, bullying and more that just so happen to correalate with women entering the workforce."

Absolutely! I mean, we can trust the experts out there who conduct sociological studies that are peer reviewed, complete with rock-solid methodologies and unbiased conclusions.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:34 AM: Meanwhile, you've proven you can't follow a thread. Re-read. Maybe you'll figure it out. Or, just ask Carlotta to repeat her claim.

Cool. You know three women who have kids and work. I know three people that have done meth and are alive.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:34 AM: @ gp

That some can doesn't mean that most can; this is really the same phenomenon as most not being capable of utilizing lots of personal autonomy. I, personally, know some really who ended up not being able to both; in my experience, it takes a combination of both a good portion of talent in the right areas *and* the right personality traits.

Do you really think that a HR drone is self actualizing?
Golf Pro October 22, 2013 12:35 AM: "So many boys vying for my attention. Whatever will I do? Who knew insomnia could have perks."

As I thought. Nothing? No evidence? Ok....Until next time.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:37 AM: @ gp

And how would you fix this accreditation problem?

Apprenticeships, learning on the job and the end of disparate impact in employment law. Pretty simple.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:38 AM: As far as I can tell, Carlotta's original claim was that since only women can bear children we should encourage the best and brightest to have a bunch of them. I'm not sure where this is a poor suggestion.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:39 AM: the end of disparate impact in employment law.

Bingo.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:41 AM: The claim is that mos can't.

I think the claim is that enough won't.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:42 AM: @ gp

Your question is a fool's errand. It depends on the measures you use; first, we'd need to establish a metric.

the way that liberals decided to establish a metric involves employment that attempts to impose uniformity across all segments of the population. If there are an equal number of black and white engineers then that represents, to them, that everyone has an equal chance at self actualization of their talents. Ideology is a very powerful thing, and liberals clearly believe their own one.
harsh October 22, 2013 12:43 AM: This must be why men who choose to have jobs and children don't do their jobs very well, nor raise their children well.

Holy cow!

You fall into the trap every time, Golf Pro. I'll give you two tries to figure out why your "argument" is invalid. Go ahead, impress me.
Harsh October 22, 2013 12:44 AM: Name calling. Haven't you already been put on warning, Golf Pro? And so you're just going to resort to blatant ad hominem? Weak sauce, even for you.
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:44 AM: "Carlotta's original claim was that since only women can bear children we should encourage the best and brightest to have a bunch of them."

What is it with you people? Encouragement is passive. Actual policies, such as that enacted by Russia, will diffuse the demographic time bomb! Add prohibiting women from voting and attending public school and we have a sure-fire way to spur the birth of children (mind you, white babies are most desirable for reasons that are readily apparent even to the most ignorant).
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:45 AM: Eric, please. Logic has no place here. GP clearly cant even remember what he said. We cant expect him to also realize he is snowflaking.
Jonathan October 22, 2013 12:45 AM: If you believe that we are blank slates and use will to write our own destinies then equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are synonymous. Thus, different outcomes varying by demographic is a manifest demonstration that the current set of social institutions are not fostering equal freedom and self actualization for everyone.

Thus, different incomes by race and sex are ipso facto demonstrations that some segements in the population are being denied the opportunity to self actualize.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:46 AM: Encouragement is passive.

Paul Ehrlich seems to think that parental guidance and shaming are ineffective measures amongst humans.
Harsh October 22, 2013 12:46 AM: As I thought. Nothing? No evidence? Ok....Until next time.

Again, impress us, Golf Pro. You seem to think you have all the answers so enlighten us. Or are you, as I suspect, basically an empty shell with no intellect, life, or reason to live? Come on, we want to know.
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:47 AM: SHHH!
Just let him have the rope!
Thomas Malthus October 22, 2013 12:47 AM: Jonathan, don't leave us hanging by your every word! What are the metrics behind your proposal? I am salivating at the thought...
Harsh October 22, 2013 12:48 AM: What is it with you people? Encouragement is passive. Actual policies, such as that enacted by Russia, will diffuse the demographic time bomb! Add prohibiting women from voting and attending public school and we have a sure-fire way to spur the birth of children (mind you, white babies are most desirable for reasons that are readily apparent even to the most ignorant).

What the fuck are you rabbiting on about?
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:48 AM: Harsh, he cant hear you. He is running too fast.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:48 AM: Carlotta,

snowflaking

I shudder to think what links Markku could find with a search on that.
Carlotta October 22, 2013 12:49 AM: Dont give him ideas lol!
Harsh October 22, 2013 12:49 AM: Harsh, he cant hear you. He is running too fast.

You're probably right. I should just remember the old adage and don't feed the troll but sometimes it's too much idiocy to resist.
Eric Wilson October 22, 2013 12:50 AM: Heck, or what prose Vidad could come up with.

1 – 200 of 297 Newer› Newest»

Rod Walker	Nick Cole
Martin van Creveld	Jonathan Moeller
John C. Wright	Rolf Nelson
Mike Cernovich	David the Good
David VanDyke	B.V. Larson
Jerry Pournelle	Cheah Kai Wai
Peter Grant	Sarah Salviander
Ivan Throne	Steve Keen
Tara McCarthy	LawDog
C.R. Hallpike	Jon Del Arroz

Vox Popoli

CONTACT

VOXOLOGY

Voxiversity

PRINT & AUDIO EDITIONS

CRYPTOFASHION

CASTALIA BOOKLISTS

Topics

Interviews

Interviews of Me

SITES OF INTEREST

Voxonomica

Monday, October 21, 2013

The cost of educating women

297 Comments:

Post a Comment

DAY TRIPS

BOOKS AND COMICS

BOOK OF THE WEEK

CASTALIA AUTHORS

NON-FICTION DOWNLOADS

DOGGEREL

BOOK LIST 2017

ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS

Dread Ilk sites