Post: #1

Some feminazi acquiantances of mine shared this on Facebook, with the expected hysteria and outrage. Finally some excellent advice for women in the MSM - although it's casting pearls before swine.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/...baby-by-27

Quote:Self-avowed "passionate feminist" Kirstie Allsopp has urged young women to get a flat, a boyfriend, and have babies before embarking on a career.

The woman who fronts Location, Location, Location with Phil Spencer has told the Telegraph that if she had a daughter, her advice would be: "Darling, do you know what? Don't go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I'll help you, let's get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."

Allsopp explains that this advice is based on the biological clock, although she does not use that phrase.

"Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you're 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you're young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward. At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home, and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue."

Allsopp says fertility is the one thing that cannot change.

"Some of the greatest pain that I have seen among friends is the struggle to have a child. It wasn't all people who couldn't start early enough because they hadn't met the right person," she said.

"But there is a huge inequality, which is that women have this time pressure that men don't have. And I think if you're a man of 25 and you're with a woman of 25, and you really love her, then you have a responsibility to say: 'Let's do it now.' I was lucky with Ben that he absolutely wanted more children immediately and he was very committed to that."

Ben Andersen is Allsopp's partner, 10 years her senior and divorced from his wife, with whom he had two sons. They are not married as Allsopp is dubious about marriage. Asked whether she wants to get married, she replied: "No, not now. I think we probably will end up getting married, as it is the world's greatest tax dodge, but I have just been to too many weddings and seen too many women lose the plot … I have many friends who are divorced. I've been to family weddings that haven't been much fun."

Allsopp concedes that it may be unrealistic to put children before career, but argues that having them early will allow couples to concentrate on careers and education afterwards.

"We have all this time at the end. You can do your career afterwards. We have to readjust. And men can have fun after they have kids. If everyone started having children when they were 20, they'd be free as a bird by the time they were 45. But how many 45-year-olds do you know who are bogged down?

"I don't want the next generation of women to go through the heartache that my generation has. At the moment we are changing the natural order of things, with grandparents being much older and everyone squeezed in the middle. Don't think 'my youth should be longer'. Don't go to university because it's an 'experience'. No, it's where you're supposed to learn something! Do it when you're 50!"

As responses poured in on Twitter, Allsopp tweeted: I am NOT questioning anyone's choices, all I'm saying is women must have this debate & include young men in it, nature is not a feminist.

I never thought I'd say this, but: Well said, Guardian. Well said.

Post: #2

WNB

Post: #3

Remember: they're only publishing it because a woman said it.

Post: #4

Too little, too late

Post: #5

Here's a video of her debating it on Newsnight (where Jeremy Paxman seems very supportive of the idea, repeatedly saying 'that's an unarguable fact!', 'that's a biological fact!', causing her to almost go back on herself at times): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27674984

'Nature is not a feminist'.

Post: #6

WB as a thank you gesture for writing that nice article.

A true feminist (as the word should be defined) would want to help women see the lies they've been fed and help them avoid heartache and regret instead I'd trying to have more women turn into man hating short haired cat ladies like themselves.

My generation is going to suffer so much angst for being childless and alone.

Post: #7

I wonder if she has read, 'Why Women Lose the Dating Game.'

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/s...1xdn0.html

Post: #8

(06-02-2014 06:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Too little, too late

Probably. British women's fertility fell below replacement level at the beginning of the permissive society and it has not recovered. The recent surge of fertility is partly due to older mothers waking up to the lies they were told when young and foreign-born women. In 2011, 25% of babies came from foreign-born women.

It is hard not to see feminism as a nihilistic past-time during a civilisation's decline phase.

Post: #9

(06-02-2014 06:22 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

WNB

Nor would I, but I'm guessing she's speaking from experience. In that case, that picture should speak volumes.

Post: #10

She was probably "cute" @ 18-22 years old. Most girls who aren't fat are.

Post: #11

Good points but still

Post: #12

Sometimes I think we should just make all our forums private, stop publishing blog articles ourselves, and just start a charitable fund where we hire women to write red pill articles in major publications.

It seems like having a woman state a red pill truth is the only way to have that truth taken seriously without being shouted down and the speaker shamed into oblivion.

Post: #13

Quote:"But there is a huge inequality, which is that women have this time pressure that men don't have. And I think if you're a man of 25 and you're with a woman of 25, and you really love her, then you have a responsibility to say: 'Let's do it now.' I was lucky with Ben that he absolutely wanted more children immediately and he was very committed to that."

"Responsibility"

Post: #14

There's a feminist row in the UK brewing, because famous tv presenter Kirstie Allsopp came out telling women some inconvenient truths.

women;
A) have a fertility window and
B) shouldn't wait too long, if they want children so
C) put off higher education and career.

You can guess what happened... Here, here, here

My personal favorite is a debate with the editor of "Vagenda Magazine". (That's no joke, guys. It's a mag, I checked.)

What keeps surprising me is that you have intelligent, well-educated people (yes, not all of Allsopp's attackers are women) arguing against nature. They're not saying; "well, some women don't want children" or "with modern tech you can freeze eggs", no they tend to deny a thing like the fertility window exists or matters. Anyway, it's a self-selecting process. If you struggle against nature, Darwinist mechanisms will take care of that.

The only criticism of Allsopp I didn't see, but one that would actually make sense is to point out that Ms. Allsopp isn't your everyday British working-class lady; Allsopp comes from an affluent upperclass family. That last part is what made it possible for her and her own children -- marry an alpha, have children young and still manage a great career -- to do the exact thing what all these feminists keep telling working and middle class women to do, but can't, because these women start out with nothing to very little. They lack the resources to have their cake (kids) and eat it (career).

(Bonus: here's she's telling the world she likes doing household chores. Always a good troll.)

Post: #15

(06-03-2014 03:34 PM)Maciano Wrote:  They lack the resources to have their cake (kids) and eat it (career).

Working class women can have it all, too. How? Quoting a post I wrote on May 20:

(05-20-2014 01:08 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Women can indeed have it all: great education, job, family. However, they will have to sacrifice alpha fucks and go for beta bucks in her late teens, instead of her late 20s.

Here's what them "stoopid womynz" must do:

1) Get married at 18. Give birth at 19, 22, and 25.

2) Go to college at age 28, when her youngest child is 3, and her eldest is 9. This may be her chance to get some alpha fucks if the Lacrosse Team members are into MILFs.

3) Graduate at 32, start her career.

By the time she's 40, she will have three kids, two of them in college.

One of my buddies in Poland got married at 26 to a woman aged 22. She was a mother at 23 (right after graduation) and 25. She started her career at 27, and her employers were happy to know that she had already been a mother and was not planning on having more children. She will soon be 30, and she has a 3-year-long career, two boys, and a financially secure husband in his mid-30s. She's infinitely smarter than these idiotic career women in the U.S. and Western Europe who wait till they are 30 to find beta bucks.

A career can wait. Fertility can not. If we lived in a sane society, women would be told this early on. But we live in a sick, demented society in which the media are controlled by faggots, manginas, and childless women.

Post: #16

(06-02-2014 07:10 PM)Bey Wrote:  Here's a video of her debating it on Newsnight (where Jeremy Paxman seems very supportive of the idea, repeatedly saying 'that's an unarguable fact!', 'that's a biological fact!', causing her to almost go back on herself at times): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27674984

'Nature is not a feminist'.

The other feminist in this video pretty much sums up feminism straight away, with the first thing she says:

"What's sad about it [the advice] is that you have this hyptothetical daughter, and she's growing up in a society that really makes it difficult for her to be a mother and have a career, and do University and things, and so I would have to ask her to change her life around. And what I find really depressing about that is that I really want society to change, I really want us to campaign for things like paternity leave to be extended, and flexible working hours. I don't want women's lives to have to change."

For a start, 'society' isn't making it difficult for a woman to attempt to essentially impersonate a man - biology is. Not satisfied with this, she wants to turn biology on its head (note the appeal for increased male caregiving)
so that women can go on living their unique lives unaffected by the realities of their situation.

If a man wrote about how society makes it difficult for him to get laid and the solution is for all of society to change so that he doesn't have to, there would be an endless negative reac- Oh wait...

Except even when men write about how society can make it difficult to get laid (by telling you to being yourself/'nice guy'/blue pill), and the solution proposed is to improve yourself so as to improve your odds of success, the reaction is still mostly negative.

Just can't win.

Post: #17

(06-03-2014 07:47 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  For a start, 'society' isn't making it difficult for a woman to attempt to essentially impersonate a man - biology is.

Both society and biology are working against women.

A woman who gets married at age 18, becomes a mother at 19, 22, and 25, and decides to go to college at age 28 may have some trouble getting admitted to college, since the admissions committee may think she's some sort of religious "extremist". In any case, suppose she is admitted to college and graduates at 32. Then it's time to apply for jobs... which means she has to go through HR, which consists mostly of demonic childless sluts on a power trip.

In the end it's not society as a whole holding women back. It's other women.

Unfortunately, women seem to be wired to pay attention to what the majority of women believe it's right. You essentially need to sacrifice a couple of generations of childless sluts, so that religious families (e.g., Mormons) who live according to tradition win the demographic war and become the majority. The amount of pain inflicted on millions of post-wall childless spinsters will be considerable.

Post: #18

"Nature is not a feminist."

Post: #19

She's not telling girls to ditch college. She's telling them to postpone college until after family, when it will be easier and the woman will have a better understanding of what she wants careerwise. I haven't seen a single feminist reply that manages to understand this distinction.

Post: #20

A world where young men (18-21) and older mothers (27-30) went to college would really be great.

The younger guys wouldn't waste their time partying all the time because there would not be any young sluts to tempt them.

The older mothers may decide to fool around their husband's back, giving lots of young virginal men experience for their future wives. However they would never feel tempted to leave their husbands for a young man either as they would know it would be social suicide.

It would be near-perfect for society's well-being.

Post: #21

(06-03-2014 10:11 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A world where young men (18-21) and older mothers (27-30) went to college would really be great.

The younger guys wouldn't waste their time partying all the time because there would not be any young sluts to tempt them.

The older mothers may decide to fool around their husband's back, giving lots of young virginal men experience for their future wives. However they would never feel tempted to leave their husbands for a young man either as they would know it would be social suicide.

It would be near-perfect for society's well-being.

I think even more ideally, is where women dont even go to college at all. Well, as I am a libertarian, chicks can do w/e they want(no sharia law or honor killings or any bs like that), but I dont think its natural for them to want to work. I think in the 50s chicks just stayed home and looked after the children.

I dont even know whats the incentive for chicks to work. Sure more workers mean higher productivity per worker but in general chicks dont contribute much, and a parent looking after their children is really important. It seems easy enough for a chick to just lock down a beta especially given how thirsty guys are nowadays.

Post: #22

@Icarus

Actually, what you write there is a very good observation and recommendation. If you’d argue a little more polite and leave out unnecessary points, like how the media is controlled by so-and-so, I’m sure some women will be converted to your PoV. I really do.

Sadly, in our culture this kind of logic is ‘not done’. The reason, I think, is that Western women believe they have a right to party in their 20s – I’m not saying they do or don’t, just stating a maladaptive attitude leading to disappointments later in life, such as missing out on a family life. As the woman of Vagenda Magazine argued, she states it’s unfair that the fertility window implications fall solely on women. The attitude here is just so ridiculous; we can endlessly discuss whether something is fair or not, but in the end you’re struggling against nature. It’s not society’s (or men’s) fault how humans sexes got designed by evolutionary forces.

The only rational argument enlightened feminists could make is that society should give women a break when they’ve had children young and want to re-enter the labor market after starting college later in life.

Post: #23

One of my childhood friends knocked up his girlfriend when she was a teenager. They chose to get married, and now have a stable family. The young mother has gone on to university in her late 20s, now has a good job, and overall the family is moving up into the middle class.

So overall I think this is a very solid plan for women, and I hope it gets a lot more cultural traction.