Post: #1

It's a sign of a sick society when a women is looked down upon for having kids when nature tells her is the optimal time to have them.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...ision.html

Quote:When I found out I was pregnant, I didn’t really want to tell my friends. We’d talked about babies, over wine and second draft feature articles at a nonfiction writers’ group, and everyone agreed that if you’re smart, you wait until you’re 35. “There’s too much to do before then!” said one of the women. I was 26 when I got pregnant, which meant I’d jumped the gun by almost a decade.

Quote:Glamorous, perfectly made-up Mara: “My mom is a nurse. She says it’s a myth that women are less fertile in their mid-30s.”

(We all nod sagely.)

Quote:My friends were career-oriented and driven, and for all of us, being a young woman was about proving ourselves in a competitive world. Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton were urging us forward, reminding us of our endless potential. And it was clear that having a baby before fully establishing yourself professionally was exactly the same as giving up on your potential. Having a baby was the kind of thing that my friends’ less ambitious sisters sometimes did, much to everyone’s long-distance concern.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...cy_so.html

A controversial ad campaign in Britain to spread awareness that fertility declines with age. Many women are convinced that they are as fertile in their 30s as their 20s.

Seriously, that's the last straw. I'm DONE with Western women.

Post: #2

My mom's an astronaut, she says it's a myth that tits sag with age!

Post: #3

I don't understand why anyone would want to pop out a kid at 35. To me it just doesn't make sense money wise.

They spend their 20s lavishly not saving much and by the time they've maybe gotten a solid paying Job they interrupt that to have a kid. They let someone else raise their kid so they can keep their "career" and their kid doesn't leave home till they're well into their 50s. Then it's time to retire and they have no fuckin money.

Then again I don't know shit about being old.

Post: #4

If a chick gets pregnant in her early to mid twenties then I think that does affect her future earning potential as she would stay out of the workforce til the kids go to school. Unless her husband, likely in his midtwenties as well, is already settled in his career and can afford to support a family. How many guys you know can support a young family in his twenties? I sure as hell couldn't.
In this day and age, with delayed adolescence and a shitty economy that requires overcredentialism, not many can support a family. Also, even if he supports her, a lot of chicks, despite what the manosphere says, don't want to be completely dependent on a husband's salary in case of divorce, accident, injury or death.
The women who have kids in their 20s are either religious or from a lower socioeconomic class and more often than not, tend to be a mess.
As unpopular as it is, most of the successful marriages that I've seen tend to be upper-socioeconomic ones where the couple are both well educated and in their 30s when they got hitched. I haven't seen many birth defects in this cohort group altough I acknowledge the risks associated with older mothers.

Post: #5

(05-29-2013 10:17 PM)Vronsky Wrote:  As unpopular as it is, most of the successful marriages that I've seen tend to be upper-socioeconomic ones where the couple are both well educated and in their 30s when they got hitched. I haven't seen many birth defects in this cohort group altough I acknowledge the risks associated with older mothers.

Sounds like NAWALT thinking.

I don't feel like looking up the statistics, but on what I've seen it's the exact opposite.

People who married early are still together. Guys who married chicks that were in their 30's... almost all those marriages are kaput. And nearly all dissolved by the woman.

But I know that matters little, because -- at most -- I know of a couple hundred couples. Not a big sample size.

Post: #6

(05-29-2013 11:53 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  Sounds like NAWALT thinking.

I don't feel like looking up the statistics, but on what I've seen it's the exact opposite.

People who married early are still together. Guys who married chicks that were in their 30's... almost all those marriages are kaput. And nearly all dissolved by the woman.

But I know that matters little, because -- at most -- I know of a couple hundred couples. Not a big sample size.

American couples who marry young have the highest rates of divorce, about 60% when married under the age of 25. You're correct that women do file for divorce 70%-75% of the time, and the likelihood of divorce probably correlates to her age due to her ability to remarry. This is female hypergamy in action. She is trying to "trade up" in status while she's young. Usually it seems they either get divorced and become bitter and lonely or they stay married and become bitter over how they didn't trade up at a younger age.

Post: #7

(05-29-2013 10:01 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  I don't understand why anyone would want to pop out a kid at 35. To me it just doesn't make sense money wise.

They spend their 20s lavishly not saving much and by the time they've maybe gotten a solid paying Job they interrupt that to have a kid. They let someone else raise their kid so they can keep their "career" and their kid doesn't leave home till they're well into their 50s. Then it's time to retire and they have no fuckin money.

Then again I don't know shit about being old.

But when on the subject of having kids in your 20's, financially doesn't it sound like a better idea to wait until you're at least in your 30's? I know people who've had kids young, and none of the ones I do know are doing well financially.

Post: #8

(05-30-2013 12:01 AM)Atilla Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 11:53 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  Sounds like NAWALT thinking.

I don't feel like looking up the statistics, but on what I've seen it's the exact opposite.

People who married early are still together. Guys who married chicks that were in their 30's... almost all those marriages are kaput. And nearly all dissolved by the woman.

But I know that matters little, because -- at most -- I know of a couple hundred couples. Not a big sample size.

American couples who marry young have the highest rates of divorce, about 60% when married under the age of 25. You're correct that women do file for divorce 70%-75% of the time, and the likelihood of divorce probably correlates to her age due to her ability to remarry. This is female hypergamy in action. She is trying to "trade up" in status while she's young. Usually it seems they either get divorced and become bitter and lonely or they stay married and become bitter over how they didn't trade up at a younger age.

Thanks for the info.

Post: #9

(05-30-2013 12:02 AM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  But when on the subject of having kids in your 20's, financially doesn't it sound like a better idea to wait until you're at least in your 30's? I know people who've had kids young, and none of the ones I do know are doing well financially.

What makes perfect sense to me is a man stacking cash well into his 30s and sowing his wild oats before traveling abroad to find chaste girls in countries with low divorce rates.

Post: #10

(05-30-2013 12:07 AM)Atilla Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 12:02 AM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  But when on the subject of having kids in your 20's, financially doesn't it sound like a better idea to wait until you're at least in your 30's? I know people who've had kids young, and none of the ones I do know are doing well financially.

What makes perfect sense to me is a man stacking cash well into his 30s and sowing his wild oats before traveling abroad to find chaste girls in countries with low divorce rates.

I agree with this.

Post: #11

Women are smart to pop them out quit then jump into the meat grinder. Vronsky's post is off base and kinda smells fem-ish.

Women whom are young and got thier game together will settle with an established man whom is older and can take on a heavier load. Yes it hard to raise a family on a single income but that's because couples in thier 30's have wild expectations.

In generations past a bachelor pad, and a small apartment meant something. You started off your family in a two bedroom (even one while the child is still in a crib) and upgraded from there in steps. Back in the day you couldn't eat debt and expect a acreage with your first child like today. Parents want to much, too soon. The lady wants it all, and the dude dosnt want to step on toes or look 2nd rate to his peers -- that's why families are falling behind and being swarmed with expenses and debt.

Wtf does it matter to take your kid to Bali when it's 2 years old and won't remember shit. Parents will drop 5 stacks on that kind of trip then start stressing when the bills come.

My pops locked down my mom with a 20 year age diffrence. He hustled and did not get a house till his 4th kid (little brother) was born. Prior it was apartments and me sharing rooms. Even in our first house I had to share a room till I was about 8. This was typical of many old school families if they did not live on a farm of some sort, and never had any stigma. Parents have just lost touch.

To the topic this all screams of a stunt. You would think the establishment would want kids to encourage spending but you can see obviously they see more value in women simply just being egg barren, infertile and slaved consumers. Women never seem to get this hint, most men know they are getting ran through the meat grinder, but women are completely oblivious to it all!

Post: #12

Because it's like that in poor countries.

As the country is more developed, people get married later, low birth rate, higher education for women and they choose to work instead of becoming a mom.

Look at poor countries, what's happening there?

Here is a future problem. Since developed countries can't support themselves with current birth rate, they need to import people from poor countries. it can create lots of problems.

Post: #13

The thing is, in America, most girls I know who have kids in their 20's end up being struggling single mothers. In my opinion it's better to wait if that's going to be the case. I'm all for it if you're going to settle down with a man in your 20's and have kids, but when you're having a kid at 21 and the baby daddy wants nothing to do with it or you're a little skeezer and don't want to settle down, that puts you in a shitty position on many levels...

1) First you have to find someone to watch the kid while you're working
2) It's hard to save money because you have to spend a lot of it on the kid
3) You already have a kid, a lot of desirable men won't want to date you
4) Having kids can seriously fuck up your body, that would be a bummer at such a young age
5) Tough to have a social life because you have to watch the kid while your friends are all out having fun

I mean I'm sure there are many many other factors here, those are just a few off the top of my head. Like I said, I'm all for it if you want to settle down young and make an attempt at having a family. But to have a kid at a young age and raise it as a single mother doesn't seem fair to yourself or the kid. In Brazil, the girls I know who've had kids at young ages are still with the babies daddies, almost all of them. In the states, I know way more young women with kids, and far less are still with their babies daddies. American girls minds are too warped to pull it off successfully for the most part. It seems as though with most girls in America, you are expected to wait for them to be used and abused and passed around town before they want to settle down and have a family.

Post: #14

Damn, Kosko, your posts are consistently top-notch. You are right women don't understand they are being fed through a meat-grinder

Good find, speakeasy.

Vronsky - you are confusing some issues here. Let's go ahead and break your post down.

First off, anecdotal evidence is relevant insofar as it helps you explain main points. Don't use it as evidence for truths.

Second, you ignore beta males. Women don't want to be dependent on a man's income? Does it matter? Most women control their man.

Third, your comment about younger mothers being a mess is off point. Our society shames younger mothers - especially younger married mothers. Many young women who have nothing going on for them often have kids as insurance policy for govt' $ and social support. Think about it - you are putting the cart before the horse. Messy women will be more likely to cough up bastards than balanced women. Also, as much as shaming happens, nobody really lets a mother and her kid(s) soak out in the rain. As far as Christians, they have their issues, but they have stable marriages and good incomes. Their churches are good support networks they funnel charity towards poorer families and provide child support. I get the hate from an ideological level, but from a practical level, Christians do a lot to aid their communities and fellow Christians.

Think the black community. Sometimes the only real glue is a strong church. I knew a pastor in a poor community who is the real deal. He personally knows everybody in his parish and will help everybody freely - regardless of religious status. Without his tireless and selfless work the black community there will be so much worse off. He inspires youth and has caused many youth to get their act together and achieve. His dogged insistence on moral standards has bettered his community. Say what you will about Christianity or this man, but know that if you show up to his house, at any hour of the night, and claim to need 20 bucks he will give it to you with no question. He gave 20 bucks to a local crackhead at 2 AM - knowing he was one - and when questioned about it later he simply replied we are all God's children and we all have our crosses to bear. If there is a Heaven, he is a first-ballot dude.

Finally, let's discuss female wages and male inability to support a family financially. Wages in America began to stagnate in the 1970's. Why? Women began to take jobs that belonged to men who supported their families with those wages. It forced more women into the workforce to support their families.

Why should I give two shits as to a female's ability to get higher wages? If it is to support her family, then by all means do it. However, it is usually a reflection of our country's insistence on having a dual-income family. Further, why does total wealth matter? What if I told you could have a life-long fantastic relationship with a female at middle class v. having a middling relationship with a female at the upper class - which would you pick?

Despite your concessions, the fundamental flaw I see here is your inability to understand the bullshit of the current social structure. Maybe you haven't completely swallowed the red-pill, maybe you are just young and naive. Understand, though, that your analysis is flawed and you need to approach life with more honesty and clear-thinking. Read RVF more often. We can clarify your thinking.

Post: #15

(05-29-2013 10:01 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  I don't understand why anyone would want to pop out a kid at 35. To me it just doesn't make sense money wise.

They spend their 20s lavishly not saving much and by the time they've maybe gotten a solid paying Job they interrupt that to have a kid. They let someone else raise their kid so they can keep their "career" and their kid doesn't leave home till they're well into their 50s. Then it's time to retire and they have no fuckin money.

Then again I don't know shit about being old.

this could work for dudes, have a successful 35 yr old women pop out your kid dump her and co parent the more educated types will have money that can then be spent on your kid

Post: #16

(05-30-2013 12:02 AM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 10:01 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  I don't understand why anyone would want to pop out a kid at 35. To me it just doesn't make sense money wise.

They spend their 20s lavishly not saving much and by the time they've maybe gotten a solid paying Job they interrupt that to have a kid. They let someone else raise their kid so they can keep their "career" and their kid doesn't leave home till they're well into their 50s. Then it's time to retire and they have no fuckin money.

Then again I don't know shit about being old.

But when on the subject of having kids in your 20's, financially doesn't it sound like a better idea to wait until you're at least in your 30's? I know people who've had kids young, and none of the ones I do know are doing well financially.

Yeah that makes sense.

I think I was trying to say that it seems kind of dumb to do the whole "im a career woman route" and have to quit your career just as you start making the big bucks. But like I said, I'm 21 and I've yet to really be in the real world, ha.

Post: #17

33 yo old 8.5 chick , very very healthy, i knew her-- she waited til the big bux were coming in, paid 15k out of pocket for IVF (nothing else got her pregnant) which is 2 major full sedation operations, and had a horrible birth and post-partum depression. not natural to wait that long.

Post: #18

(05-29-2013 10:17 PM)Vronsky Wrote:  If a chick gets pregnant in her early to mid twenties then I think that does affect her future earning potential as she would stay out of the workforce til the kids go to school. Unless her husband, likely in his midtwenties as well, is already settled in his career and can afford to support a family. How many guys you know can support a young family in his twenties? I sure as hell couldn't.

I won't bother breaking down the entirety of your post as other in here have already done so well, but I can address this bit. The answer here is for those women in their early/mid twenties to meet and marry men in the late twenties/early-mid thirties. In other words, they can start a family with someone who is more likely to be settled in his career and able to afford to support that family.

This is by far the most effective answer to the issue of timely family formation for women-it allows them to start families at younger ages without nearly as many compromises as they'd otherwise deal with. An older, established husband is better able to handle the costs a woman in her mid-twenties would have to pay to start a family at that age. He can cover her while she stays home/works part time, help with college debts, cover day care, help her go back to school to re-establish career after babies are born, and much more.

With so many of the financial pitfalls handled, it would be much easier for a younger woman married to such a man to have her desired number of kids (usually 2 or 3) and then get back to work by her early-thirties or late twenties with her partner's help, devoting the rest of her life to a career as the children get older. She could afford to wait and establish her career later instead of putting family formation off until the last seconds of her biological clock are ticking away and her chances of conceiving become more limited.

The consistent age-gap shaming in this society actually makes family formation more difficult than it needs to be. If women in their early/mid-twenties could reliably consider men a decade or more their elder without consistent shaming, they wouldn't have as many hard decisions to make. At the very least, they'd have these choices:

1. Wait and establish a career before starting a family.
2. Start a family, take some time to get it set up and then move to establish a career as you and your children get older.
3. Start a family early, and risk giving up chance to establish a career.

Right now, with limited age-gaps, women are generally forced into option 1 or 3 since they usually don't have the means to finance option 2. An acceptance of wider age-gaps could change that.

Post: #19

It is indeed a sick society, apparently even asking women if they want kids is "casual sexism". Yes, that's right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/s...ies-sexism

Then again, the Guardian is THE most leftist, feminist paper in the world. The comments section is RIDICULOUS - Full of women claiming that women in their 40's are as fertile as in their 20's. One comment even says (in regards to the 'window' of fertility) "How about my own window".

Post: #20

Seeing a happy guy watching his hot (and slim) young wife look after their kids always improves my mood.

I wish they were society's chosen role model for success.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #21

If I ever get married and have kids with a 20-25 year old woman and someone comments on how she should have waited, I'll feel a serious urge to punch that person.

Quote:Seriously, that's the last straw. I'm DONE with Western women.

I applaud your decision.

Post: #22

Not only does society look down on girls having kids in their 20s, the girls themselves proudly proclaim to hate children.

Most men are sheep but (almost) all women are sheep. Women want and crave to be told what to do and society tells them this so they follow without question like good cattle, well that is until the maternal instinct becomes overwhelming and their biological clock is down to its last moments. Then they go berserk looking for a provider dupe and his (or someone else's) sperm at age 35.

Post: #23

Yet another example of how feminism represents nothing less than the slow-motion suicide of Western culture.

Post: #24

(05-30-2013 03:00 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  33 yo old 8.5 chick , very very healthy, i knew her-- she waited til the big bux were coming in, paid 15k out of pocket for IVF (nothing else got her pregnant) which is 2 major full sedation operations, and had a horrible birth and post-partum depression. not natural to wait that long.

I guess she fell hook, line and sinker for the Feminist BS mantra that she can have it all -a great career, kids and a great husband to boot (around her age level too, because well if the guys' more than 5 years older that's just not natural) which ends up being absolute garbage. Doesn't take a genius to see that there are of course tradeoffs (for men too).

She probably took the pill for years as well, which screwed her up plenty too I'd guess. G*d knows what sort of antibiotics, hormones and other drugs they give you during the IVF process and procedure. Nature was clearly telling her that she was pretty much unfit to have a baby. Not saying it can't happen, but the reality is that women in their late teens and 20s should be having kids for the most part, that's natural, not women in their 30s and 40s.

American and Western society are almost unsalvagable at this point. While our economies and societies are sputtering and literally imploding in some sectors, the powers that be are pushing women to have kids later and later on in life, focusing on superflous issues like gay marriage and other more ridiculous sh*t like the new restaurant olive oil regulations in the EU. Nero fiddles while Rome burns....bastards!!!!

Post: #25

well, I am pretty sure that's when you are well over 30 years old.

what if you were 27 and your wife was 25. would you still want the kid?

(05-30-2013 07:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  If I ever get married and have kids with a 20-25 year old woman and someone comments on how she should have waited, I'll feel a serious urge to punch that person.

Quote:Seriously, that's the last straw. I'm DONE with Western women.

I applaud your decision.