Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it's all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn't that mean a man's job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that's it? If that's all there is and he's fulfilled his role, there's no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating. Why bother with society, hobbies, learning and growing? OP's "job" as a man is nothing more than to literally fuck off and die, mission complete.
Obviously I don't believe that, just taking his argument to its logical conclusion. I've heard people say that women are just for making babies so many times in my life, but I've never heard men's role put in the same terms.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We're all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it's all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn't that mean a man's job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that's it? If that's all there is and he's fulfilled his role, there's no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating.
Humans are not bees, you don't rip some lazy bum's dick off as a teen, use it to birth a town of sterile slaves that provide for your every need, and keep using that same sperm for years while birthing over a million babies throughout your life.
From an evolutionary perspective you're successful if you have more children, that have reached breeding age, than the average. Humans today have a pretty good chance of survival no matter if they have both parents of not, so the only factor in that equation is how many children you can make.
So if you actually flip the tables, the man's job in the developed world is to make as many babies, and if he makes less than 3 he's a failure. And they should feel lucky because the guys in Niger/Sudan need to make like 15 or 20 (8-12 is the average).
If you want an animal metaphor instead, think of those jungle birds that spend 99% of their waking time working on breeding (bowyer fe).
Why bother with society, hobbies, learning qand growing?
And following that logic: to make more children to a wide variety of women. Men will literally learn something about every band just so they can hit up women with band merch.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We're all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
It sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous for humans, but that exact process is why we're able to choose not to breed.
I don't like this logic. It implies that a person's value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it's pretty obvious that people who say shit like "women only exist to bare children" will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these two beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won't convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they then indeed failed in life?
The root implication of manversusbaby's reply is that child birth is not the only thing women can achieve. The purpose of using great examples like Marie Curie is to bury jaicilgin in the ground, not to impose greatness on everyone else.
The "less great" achievements, such as living with endometriosis, being funny, knowing a lot about birds, being able to knit a sweater, while being a woman are not forgotten, they're just not as punchy.
I'm one of those women and: Yes. What's he gonna do about it? I'm out here being a happy little failure, living rent free in the minds of alpha bros everyehere.
But all people aren't of equal worth. There isn't an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn't a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The "all men created equal" in the... US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
Edit: I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I didn't think the "created" part through, and meant that people aren't "destined" to be equal, their actions separate them. Sorry about that last part.
I don't understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don't really understand this paradigm.
I want to point out a stronger contention in your favor: Republicans in the US are murdering their own citizens right now. I don't think they are demonstrating much worth at the moment.
More fuel to add to the fire - compare a factory worker with a capitalist. The capitalist provides negative value to society, by actively stripping the value of others’ labour from them while contributing nothing themselves, whereas the factory worker creates value for those around them. I’d argue that the factory worker has more value than the capitalist.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I'm not saying that there aren't terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.
That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.
But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.
I am not sure where anything i said means quantitative evaluation. I despise capitalism, but people's actions do have impact and i am free to evaluate them on such. For example, my measurement could be the altruism and positive impact of their actions. You have jumped to some very negative conclusions and i am glad i don't have you in my circle.
Edit: in addition, i never said anything about "fundamentally" being worth different amounts. I very specifically said actions are a good way to determine their value. There is nothing fundamental or intrinsic about that.
Edit 2: Wait, I see it now, sorry. It's the all men created equal part. I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I'll make an amendment to the original comment. I didn't think the "created" part through, and meant that people aren't "destined" to be equal, their actions separate them.
I’d guess someone with that mentality started making crotch spawn at 16 or 17, perpetuating a genetic line that will continue to be about as useful to society as an indoor kite. The Stupid breed like rabbits.
Listen, power to women, and Vera Rubin's work was amazing and she deserves every praise.
But nobody has ever proven the existence of Dark Matter. What's proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity, under our current understanding, requiring a large amount of mass that we have not observed.
Does that make sense? It could be that our models or understandings are just wrong, or it could be that there is some magical unobservable matter, but we don't know. We haven't proven anything.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
Originally, banjos post read like the line about Vera Rubin was outright incorrect, rather than simply being a case of the OP in the image making a poor summary of her contributions.
It sounded like Banjo was challenging Vera's relevance in the list, rather than clarifying what she actually did
Broadly, what you said was "Power to her, but what’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe". The "but" in that statement is that issue, as it sounds like you're challenging her findings with a correction, but your correction was just to summarise her actual findings
Her achievment is proving the current mathematical models do not represent the universe and explaining why, where many men before her utterly failed.
Her achievment is not proving the existence of dark matter.
The "but" is very warranted and I honestly feel like the "dark matter is real" zealots are the ones besmirching her name by misrepresenting her accomplishments.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
Okay, Sabine, whatever you say. I'm sure bubble chambers and TPCs (I assume since you're targeting "chambers" that other experiments like DEAP are fine) for direct detection are a catastrophic money sink that you're totally not exaggerating even a little.
Edit: Wait, are you specifically targeting the funding for the search for WIMPs? Since you're just joining us from your 15-year coma, I'm afraid to inform you that problems have gotten much worse for science than bubble chamber and TPC costs.
The only matter you've proven to exist is your own consciousness, so that's not saying much.
Since you've defined matter to be everything that exists, you must believe that whatever is the explanation for dark matter is matter, since it exists.
This doesn't even make sense from a (pretty stupid) "you have to have children" point of view, what is stopping women to have kids later in life, when they've got an education, know what they want in life, and are financially and mentally stable enough to raise them?
Of course I know the answer starts with "m" and ends with "isogyny", but it's a very stupid take even in its own framework
But anyway, it's generally a good idea to have children earlier, because you'll get to spend more time with them and you won't be the weird old parent in the school. Also health reasons and whatnot.
As for misogyny, I think it's mostly from one generation to the next and also more often women to women. Most guys that I know would rather postpone having children as long as possible for the same reasons that you've stated.
Menopause doesn't hit before the 40s or so. Plenty of women have children in their 30s. At that point, they have had time to mature, get an education, and build stable circumstances to raise children. Yes, the consequences of the industrial revolution and so on, but those consequences also basically eradicated the child mortality we had before, for instance.
If someone knows they want a family early, good for them, but I don't blame anyone wanting to experience life before passing it on.
No doubt. I'm glad I had my 20s to roam around before getting kids, but I'm even more happy to still be young enough that I can travel the world and participate in physical activities with my kids as well. Having kids doesn't have to mean giving up on experiencing life. They're part of it, and they're the best people to share it with.
In hindsight, I probably could have cut my party years short by five years without missing a thing.
Having kids was the best thing in my life. It might not be for everybody.
I'm in the late 40s now, and I feel it's too late to have more by now. I know people who do in that age. Divorced couples going for the late common child or DINKs who finally made enough money. It looks really tough for them.
It's temporarily hard work for a couple of years. It's hard if you're young and don't have money, but it's also hard when you're old and less agile and physical on top.
Sometimes I do enjoy making conclusions from stupid and insane premises, can be a fun little thinking exercise. There seems to be a little devil's advocate in my head.
I mean, I can always decide to argue with someone who seems to disagree but is willing to stick to the rules as argue in good faith. Who knows, maybe one or both of us can learn something. Likewise, I can always decide that someone is so far gone that there's no point. But to categorically avoid any argument that sounds stupid is not helpful.
Those people are like that because a) they are genuinely bad people, b) they are fueling the fire on purpose, and c) nobody ever convinced them they are stupid.
To not let the a) and b) win, yes, we need to convince people that what they heard is wrong.
My female friend had a female doctor try to talk her out of a contraceptives prescription; that she was 28 and should be having babies...
It's not a misogyny thing, per se, rather just people that define their lives by the templates supplied by societal stereotypes. Never take advice from a person that doesn't think for themself.
Women are able to perpetuate misogyny. Your comment seems like you think misogyny can only happen to a women from a man. Not sure of your actual intent, but it comes off that way.
Doing something permanent at 28 could be shortsighted and I would agree with the doctor in that case but surely a prescription is just temporary? I don't see why the doctor would advice against it
Related: Gertrude Bell, mountain climber, archaeologist and overall badass british lady that helped shape the middle east post WW1. Despite being a woman, she managed to earn the respect of several nomad arab tribes, you know, those that see women as a man's property? Those. To the point that, when she died, they all came to her burial and ensured she was treated like a queen.
I think it’s good for people to have children. At least one and preferably no more than two.
If we contain population growth, the riches already created are for the taking for generations to come and the planet finally gets a rest.
It does require a reckoning with the capitalist elite that would like to produce anyway, but I feel that may be coming regardless of our feelings towards children.
Don't forget Noether! She discovered one of the most fundamental theorems of the universe: (paraphrasing) there is a 1:1 relationship between a conservation law (eg momentum) and symmetry (eg spacetime). This has shaped a lot of modern physics and helped explain otherwise unexplainable phenomena!
Hadn't heard of her before! The theorem sounds interesting, but the Wikipedia article is a bit dense - I got that "any system with symmetry will have conserved values", but I got lost on the implications. Would you mind expanding on her theorem?
Sure, the biggest implication is now we can look for symmetries in the universe and deduce a conservation law (with much difficulty by people way better at maths than me). This conservation law is not going to be broken by further refinements of our models, as it is inherent to the system. For example, you probably learnt about conservation of energy when learning Newtonian mechanics, but since this is a product of symmetry (in time iirc), then future refinements such as special or general relativity won't break conservation of energy. The only way it could is if the symmetry is not fully accurate, like in quantum, where fluctuations in energy are possible, but very minor (providing phenomena such as the Casimir effect).
Most of the details are beyond me, and the maths certainly is, so please don't take my interpretation of the literature as gospel!
McClintock did her Nobel-winning work in her 40s, and it went unappreciated for 30 years because nobody believed her. An inspiring story for sure, but not one of an elderly woman discovering new biology.
Hey I found a rusty steel rod! It's about 12" long, 9" girth and it comes with an actuator. I just need to test this biologically. Any clue where I might find a deserving biological receptor for this metallic sample?
Lol if anything if you wanna go there just doing your biological job sounds extremely uncreative, it's something I'd expect an animal to do, not a person. We are blessed by god or otherwise with the gift of reason, why must we not use it?
You should have kids if you want them and think you can provide a decent upbringing to them.
Sure; if you're too simple minded to do anything except follow the animalistic urge to fuck and shit out another unwilling life into this already overpopulated world. Logically, there is no reason to have kids right now. Those who believe it's the only thing that matters in life are basically biological puppets, unable or unwilling to recognize they are being driven by base level instincts and too selfish to care about the consequences. Just one step removed from monkeys fucking in trees and throwing poop at each other.
Even if you distilled the purpose of living things down to their most basic mathmatical objective, you would still be wrong. At it's very core the so called raison d'être of living things is to assist in the long term survival of their species. Even for something like a virus which doesn't even really meat all the basic criteria to be called "living", overwhelming and killing the host before the virus has a chance to spread is in every way a failure.
Even better is that this argument, the "most fundamental purpose", when applied to humanity actually means that the "aberrations" that fundamentalists hate most are actually an integral part of the system. LGBTQ+ and the neurodiverse (ADHD, autism, ect) all benefit the growth of the species. Having members that contribute to the strength of the species, who can fight, gather, and assist with the offspring of others without creating their own competitive offspring is a massive advantage when resources are limited. The fact that those same noncompetitive (offspring wise) members can breed if something disastrous happens to the rest of the breeding stock is such a brilliant design that it makes a lot more sense to use that as an argument for "intelligent design" rather than the other shit that is usually dragged out. As for the neurodivergent, having members that think differently and are driven to try things that would be considered outside of normal range is really the only option for growth once the "normal" resources reach capacity.
So, if your argument at this point is that humanity should have all transitioned to be LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent, then maybe you aren't doing it completely wrong, but I am still not sure that is really the answer either.
Imagine thinking that all the secondary stuff does nothing to improve or encourage life. But I guess expecting imagination or thinking from some people is too much to ask.
Jaicilgin: literally hasn't done shit
Based on this evidence, I'd counter that he has ONLY done shit.
That's his biological job
Blessed with glorious purpose.
No-one has any biological job. Live how you want.
Even if we had it, imagine how small your life is if you actually believe we are born to do a biological job.
I was put here to add carbon to the air and convert food into shit!
My job is to increase the entropy of the universe faster.
Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it's all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn't that mean a man's job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that's it? If that's all there is and he's fulfilled his role, there's no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating. Why bother with society, hobbies, learning and growing? OP's "job" as a man is nothing more than to literally fuck off and die, mission complete.
Obviously I don't believe that, just taking his argument to its logical conclusion. I've heard people say that women are just for making babies so many times in my life, but I've never heard men's role put in the same terms.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We're all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
Unfortunately they'll probably just say they are meant to be the masters of a harem and kill any potential rival males. Literally troglodyte shit
Then they should be starting a fight to the death with every man they encounter.
Best to make sure you're armed and they are not when you reveal this to them.
I like that reasoning. If I had any toxic male friends saying shit like this I might use it, thanks!
Humans are not bees, you don't rip some lazy bum's dick off as a teen, use it to birth a town of sterile slaves that provide for your every need, and keep using that same sperm for years while birthing over a million babies throughout your life.
From an evolutionary perspective you're successful if you have more children, that have reached breeding age, than the average. Humans today have a pretty good chance of survival no matter if they have both parents of not, so the only factor in that equation is how many children you can make.
So if you actually flip the tables, the man's job in the developed world is to make as many babies, and if he makes less than 3 he's a failure. And they should feel lucky because the guys in Niger/Sudan need to make like 15 or 20 (8-12 is the average).
If you want an animal metaphor instead, think of those jungle birds that spend 99% of their waking time working on breeding (bowyer fe).
And following that logic: to make more children to a wide variety of women. Men will literally learn something about every band just so they can hit up women with band merch.
It sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous for humans, but that exact process is why we're able to choose not to breed.
I disagree.
I have a biological imperative to turn garbage food into poop.
I mean, it's a job, you can quit any time you want.
it's not a good idea to quit....
Unless of course you're a biologist
I don't like this logic. It implies that a person's value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
Synthesis: All man is created equal, except those who give money to the richest man in the world for a louder voice on a nazi forum.
I thought that was Threads.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it's pretty obvious that people who say shit like "women only exist to bare children" will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these two beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won't convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they then indeed failed in life?
The root implication of manversusbaby's reply is that child birth is not the only thing women can achieve. The purpose of using great examples like Marie Curie is to bury jaicilgin in the ground, not to impose greatness on everyone else.
The "less great" achievements, such as living with endometriosis, being funny, knowing a lot about birds, being able to knit a sweater, while being a woman are not forgotten, they're just not as punchy.
I'm one of those women and: Yes. What's he gonna do about it? I'm out here being a happy little failure, living rent free in the minds of alpha bros everyehere.
In capitalism you must breed or make profit, nothing else is worthwhile.
Agreed. Don't try logic. Tell them to "shut the fuck up, you turd"
but there are people of different values.
for example, people who think others are not worth much are themselves worthless.
Karl popper just started spinning in his grave
But all people aren't of equal worth. There isn't an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn't a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The "all men created equal" in the... US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
Edit: I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I didn't think the "created" part through, and meant that people aren't "destined" to be equal, their actions separate them. Sorry about that last part.
Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.
I don't understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don't really understand this paradigm.
I want to point out a stronger contention in your favor: Republicans in the US are murdering their own citizens right now. I don't think they are demonstrating much worth at the moment.
More fuel to add to the fire - compare a factory worker with a capitalist. The capitalist provides negative value to society, by actively stripping the value of others’ labour from them while contributing nothing themselves, whereas the factory worker creates value for those around them. I’d argue that the factory worker has more value than the capitalist.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I'm not saying that there aren't terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.
That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.
But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.
I am not sure where anything i said means quantitative evaluation. I despise capitalism, but people's actions do have impact and i am free to evaluate them on such. For example, my measurement could be the altruism and positive impact of their actions. You have jumped to some very negative conclusions and i am glad i don't have you in my circle.
Edit: in addition, i never said anything about "fundamentally" being worth different amounts. I very specifically said actions are a good way to determine their value. There is nothing fundamental or intrinsic about that.
Edit 2: Wait, I see it now, sorry. It's the all men created equal part. I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I'll make an amendment to the original comment. I didn't think the "created" part through, and meant that people aren't "destined" to be equal, their actions separate them.
Dude about to discover the “Male Loneliness epidemic”
And these same people who are MGTOW, or "men going their own way", are obsessed talking shit about women.
it's "look at me !! ..I don't need you ! .. ... look at meeeeee"
Right? If you have to tell people you're alpha, you ain't. Much less if you make it the only aspect of your personality.
Dude's just trying to coerce 18*-24 year-olds into having sex with him.
It's not very effective.
* Lets give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just throwing it out there, that scientific discoveries can be done by married mothers as well
Also, if you're not married with kid at 24 as a dude, you failed.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume 'Jaicilgin' failed.
Man, I hope he failed.
I hope he never stopped failing
I’d guess someone with that mentality started making crotch spawn at 16 or 17, perpetuating a genetic line that will continue to be about as useful to society as an indoor kite. The Stupid breed like rabbits.
Listen, power to women, and Vera Rubin's work was amazing and she deserves every praise.
But nobody has ever proven the existence of Dark Matter. What's proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity, under our current understanding, requiring a large amount of mass that we have not observed.
Does that make sense? It could be that our models or understandings are just wrong, or it could be that there is some magical unobservable matter, but we don't know. We haven't proven anything.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
This is actually the bit that Vera Rubin discovered. The summary of her discovery in the quote is the issue :)
That's.... What finitebanjo said?
Originally, banjos post read like the line about Vera Rubin was outright incorrect, rather than simply being a case of the OP in the image making a poor summary of her contributions.
It sounded like Banjo was challenging Vera's relevance in the list, rather than clarifying what she actually did
I would not make praising her the opening statement of my comment if I were challenging her contributions.
Broadly, what you said was "Power to her, but what’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe". The "but" in that statement is that issue, as it sounds like you're challenging her findings with a correction, but your correction was just to summarise her actual findings
Her achievment is proving the current mathematical models do not represent the universe and explaining why, where many men before her utterly failed.
Her achievment is not proving the existence of dark matter.
The "but" is very warranted and I honestly feel like the "dark matter is real" zealots are the ones besmirching her name by misrepresenting her accomplishments.
What I'm getting at is that your "but" made it sound like you were challenging her findings, rather than images incorrect summary of her findings.
Nope.
Yes, it was.
Okay, Sabine, whatever you say. I'm sure bubble chambers and TPCs (I assume since you're targeting "chambers" that other experiments like DEAP are fine) for direct detection are a catastrophic money sink that you're totally not exaggerating even a little.
Edit: Wait, are you specifically targeting the funding for the search for WIMPs? Since you're just joining us from your 15-year coma, I'm afraid to inform you that problems have gotten much worse for science than bubble chamber and TPC costs.
How would you go about proving the existence of regular matter?
I think therefor I am, I guess.
How do you know you're made of matter?
Matter describes what exists.
So, dark matter is matter?
Dark matter has never been proven to exist.
The only matter you've proven to exist is your own consciousness, so that's not saying much.
Since you've defined matter to be everything that exists, you must believe that whatever is the explanation for dark matter is matter, since it exists.
Tired of these see what the moron said reposts. All they do is promoting the moron.
Don't feed the trolls aka don't take the engagement bait.
This doesn't even make sense from a (pretty stupid) "you have to have children" point of view, what is stopping women to have kids later in life, when they've got an education, know what they want in life, and are financially and mentally stable enough to raise them?
Of course I know the answer starts with "m" and ends with "isogyny", but it's a very stupid take even in its own framework
Well.
You see. J-douche up there? He likes ‘em young and thinks every guy does, too.
Menopause.
But anyway, it's generally a good idea to have children earlier, because you'll get to spend more time with them and you won't be the weird old parent in the school. Also health reasons and whatnot.
As for misogyny, I think it's mostly from one generation to the next and also more often women to women. Most guys that I know would rather postpone having children as long as possible for the same reasons that you've stated.
Menopause doesn't hit before the 40s or so. Plenty of women have children in their 30s. At that point, they have had time to mature, get an education, and build stable circumstances to raise children. Yes, the consequences of the industrial revolution and so on, but those consequences also basically eradicated the child mortality we had before, for instance.
If someone knows they want a family early, good for them, but I don't blame anyone wanting to experience life before passing it on.
No doubt. I'm glad I had my 20s to roam around before getting kids, but I'm even more happy to still be young enough that I can travel the world and participate in physical activities with my kids as well. Having kids doesn't have to mean giving up on experiencing life. They're part of it, and they're the best people to share it with. In hindsight, I probably could have cut my party years short by five years without missing a thing. Having kids was the best thing in my life. It might not be for everybody.
I'm in the late 40s now, and I feel it's too late to have more by now. I know people who do in that age. Divorced couples going for the late common child or DINKs who finally made enough money. It looks really tough for them. It's temporarily hard work for a couple of years. It's hard if you're young and don't have money, but it's also hard when you're old and less agile and physical on top.
Ok, now listen to me. Please, PLEASE, never again say something like
You never know who's reading this and I guarantee you that there is always someone ready to take that as a personal challenge.
Sometimes I do enjoy making conclusions from stupid and insane premises, can be a fun little thinking exercise. There seems to be a little devil's advocate in my head.
I mean, I can always decide to argue with someone who seems to disagree but is willing to stick to the rules as argue in good faith. Who knows, maybe one or both of us can learn something. Likewise, I can always decide that someone is so far gone that there's no point. But to categorically avoid any argument that sounds stupid is not helpful.
Those people are like that because a) they are genuinely bad people, b) they are fueling the fire on purpose, and c) nobody ever convinced them they are stupid.
To not let the a) and b) win, yes, we need to convince people that what they heard is wrong.
People grow, contribute, and succeed on their own timelines. There’s no single deadline for a meaningful life.
Well no... There is a deadline, it's called death.
Basically anytime before that is preferable really.
Guarantee you he still thinks they are failures. His dick goes limp the moment he sees a woman with a job.
Natural selection. I hope he enjoys his self made “male loneliness” epidemic
I know first hand that it is broken. Well ... Half a hand I guess
My female friend had a female doctor try to talk her out of a contraceptives prescription; that she was 28 and should be having babies...
It's not a misogyny thing, per se, rather just people that define their lives by the templates supplied by societal stereotypes. Never take advice from a person that doesn't think for themself.
This is literally institutional misogyny.
It is many things. Institutional misogyny can be a cause for some.
Oh, for sure. I meant that in this specific example
are called institutional misogyny.
Women are able to perpetuate misogyny. Your comment seems like you think misogyny can only happen to a women from a man. Not sure of your actual intent, but it comes off that way.
Doing something permanent at 28 could be shortsighted and I would agree with the doctor in that case but surely a prescription is just temporary? I don't see why the doctor would advice against it
Because the doctor is stuck in the mindset that women are baby factories and they should be that above whatever else they want to do in life.
"Boomer isn't just an age group, it's a state of mind." -some rando on the internet
I had my son at 28, not by 24. Speedrun: FAILED.
Oh, and wrote my first novel at 50. Also FAILED, apparently.
A novelist?? What a disappointment! /s
(But seriously, congrats, that's no easy feat!)
My ancestors are ashamed.
(And thanks. :) )
Related: Gertrude Bell, mountain climber, archaeologist and overall badass british lady that helped shape the middle east post WW1. Despite being a woman, she managed to earn the respect of several nomad arab tribes, you know, those that see women as a man's property? Those. To the point that, when she died, they all came to her burial and ensured she was treated like a queen.
A very good, 3h17m doc on her life - https://youtu.be/anjha4JNAWg
Why does he want women to marry several kids?
I think it’s good for people to have children. At least one and preferably no more than two.
If we contain population growth, the riches already created are for the taking for generations to come and the planet finally gets a rest.
It does require a reckoning with the capitalist elite that would like to produce anyway, but I feel that may be coming regardless of our feelings towards children.
The types of people who believe a woman's only "biological job" is to shit out kids are the same fuckers who haven't achieved shit in their lives.
Don't forget Noether! She discovered one of the most fundamental theorems of the universe: (paraphrasing) there is a 1:1 relationship between a conservation law (eg momentum) and symmetry (eg spacetime). This has shaped a lot of modern physics and helped explain otherwise unexplainable phenomena!
Hadn't heard of her before! The theorem sounds interesting, but the Wikipedia article is a bit dense - I got that "any system with symmetry will have conserved values", but I got lost on the implications. Would you mind expanding on her theorem?
Sure, the biggest implication is now we can look for symmetries in the universe and deduce a conservation law (with much difficulty by people way better at maths than me). This conservation law is not going to be broken by further refinements of our models, as it is inherent to the system. For example, you probably learnt about conservation of energy when learning Newtonian mechanics, but since this is a product of symmetry (in time iirc), then future refinements such as special or general relativity won't break conservation of energy. The only way it could is if the symmetry is not fully accurate, like in quantum, where fluctuations in energy are possible, but very minor (providing phenomena such as the Casimir effect).
Most of the details are beyond me, and the maths certainly is, so please don't take my interpretation of the literature as gospel!
So it lets us work out certain laws inherent in our universe? Wow, I did miss that implication...
McClintock did her Nobel-winning work in her 40s, and it went unappreciated for 30 years because nobody believed her. An inspiring story for sure, but not one of an elderly woman discovering new biology.
Welp. Seems I've already failed at life. Can't go any lower than that. Guess I'll just go live how I want now.
Lol. Lucky you.
I try hard to put myself into other people's shoes but I find it impossible to imagine being as fuckin' stupid as this.
Edit: I wonder if he applies the same logic to men. He looks over 24 to me.
Nah, he thinks men peak in their 40s and should be the ones hooking up with those 24-year-olds.
In reality he peaked in middle school.
Kindergarten
*shudder*
Looked up this fool on social and you guessed it! He's super cringe with his wannabe lifestyle posts.
That list does not affect him because he doesn't consider those things to be achievements.
Should've just told him his dick is small and he's a virgin. He would've cried himself to sleep over that
To be fair, they did say “biological job”
So I’d go with Rosalind Franklin who was 30ish when she did the X-ray diffusion thing and found dna was molecular.
Or Barbara McClintock, 46, for her work on “jumping genes”.
;)
Marriage isn't biological
This just reeks of ragebait/engagement farming.
You don't love a pointlessly gendered meme debate while the world is burning due to class warfare?
Gender has always been part of the class war.
"Dopey tit" is hilarious
Margaret Hamilton: Discovered chaos theory and then wrote the software landing the first people on the moon
And lately we have preserved a lot of different versions of the compiled/weaved AGU code.
Rage bait…
At least he wears his red flags on his sleeve.
Even if that was true, no-one's going to want to do it with jaicilgin.
Fascist dickheads don't deserve good answers, it's hate that drives them not logic
Hey I found a rusty steel rod! It's about 12" long, 9" girth and it comes with an actuator. I just need to test this biologically. Any clue where I might find a deserving biological receptor for this metallic sample?
Its for a science friend.
Lol if anything if you wanna go there just doing your biological job sounds extremely uncreative, it's something I'd expect an animal to do, not a person. We are blessed by god or otherwise with the gift of reason, why must we not use it?
You should have kids if you want them and think you can provide a decent upbringing to them.
I can explain nuclear fission and I’m only in my forty’s!
All of those examples are just secondary achievements. The true purpose of us humans is to live and make life.
Everything else is just a bonus
What dictates "true purpose" here? What need does making more life fulfill?
Your argument is either based on religious indoctrination, or a poor understanding of biology and evolution.
My argument is based on whatever chatgpt spits out
I guess I'll mark that down as religious indoctrination.
Blessed be the machine god
Sure; if you're too simple minded to do anything except follow the animalistic urge to fuck and shit out another unwilling life into this already overpopulated world. Logically, there is no reason to have kids right now. Those who believe it's the only thing that matters in life are basically biological puppets, unable or unwilling to recognize they are being driven by base level instincts and too selfish to care about the consequences. Just one step removed from monkeys fucking in trees and throwing poop at each other.
Logic is for vulcans. We are humans
Even if you distilled the purpose of living things down to their most basic mathmatical objective, you would still be wrong. At it's very core the so called raison d'être of living things is to assist in the long term survival of their species. Even for something like a virus which doesn't even really meat all the basic criteria to be called "living", overwhelming and killing the host before the virus has a chance to spread is in every way a failure.
Even better is that this argument, the "most fundamental purpose", when applied to humanity actually means that the "aberrations" that fundamentalists hate most are actually an integral part of the system. LGBTQ+ and the neurodiverse (ADHD, autism, ect) all benefit the growth of the species. Having members that contribute to the strength of the species, who can fight, gather, and assist with the offspring of others without creating their own competitive offspring is a massive advantage when resources are limited. The fact that those same noncompetitive (offspring wise) members can breed if something disastrous happens to the rest of the breeding stock is such a brilliant design that it makes a lot more sense to use that as an argument for "intelligent design" rather than the other shit that is usually dragged out. As for the neurodivergent, having members that think differently and are driven to try things that would be considered outside of normal range is really the only option for growth once the "normal" resources reach capacity.
So, if your argument at this point is that humanity should have all transitioned to be LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent, then maybe you aren't doing it completely wrong, but I am still not sure that is really the answer either.
Why use raison d'être when you could say reason of being or something in English?
Imagine thinking that all the secondary stuff does nothing to improve or encourage life. But I guess expecting imagination or thinking from some people is too much to ask.