MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
What would teach the next generation so men don't need to go their own way?
You'd have to trick men into thinking they are getting some benefit from society and matrimonial arrangements.
You'd have to condition men to act against their own best interests -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »2stepz_ahead wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »There are dozens of philosophies in mgtow in accordance to the different types of mgtow.
There are some men who are only mgtow because they see that traditionalism is shunned, and that females have more power without responsibility. So they want a return to a common sense social contract. That's all traditionalism and gender roles are is a social contract between the sexes.
Traditionalism is a social contract that works only because men are the 100% source of the substances that females desire: food shelter clothing protection. Men were smart enough to decide that those who provide such amenities should be the ones in charge.
This set up works until civilization is advanced enough that females feel entitled to the system protecting them and forget that men imbue the system, without the men their is no system only a void. There's nothing that stands between a woman and her fear of everything that she thinks can happen.
Lol
Due to technology advances the economy is becoming more knowledge base...meaning more jobs that don't require physical strength...more jobs for women...less jobs of the past
Not to mention globalization
So considering women now can provide these things for themselves, why is traditionalism even necessary for anyone or attractive considering the constraints
Even, like I said, u argue traditional gender roles its more "efficient" ? is oppression
In a free society a man or woman should be able to choice to be a provider and or provided for...a home maker...stay at parent
Anything less is the opposite of freedom
Talk ? about modern feminism, I'll join you...but a lot of things u ? advocate is no better
WELL I do advocate for traditionalism. It's either traditionalism or mgtow and the long term results of mgtow will either force women back into traditionalism or cause the collapse of western society.
and yes the economy is more knowledge based but the vast majority of women don't have the temperament or desire to stick to many of those stem careers. Traditionalism is not just about men providing for women because women cannot do so for themselves..... it is largely about protecting women from the bad impulses of men and protecting them from THE MEN of other societies this giving the protectors a feeling of responsibility/ownership over those women.
This made the men of any particular society care about the women in that society as it is now MEN HAVE STARTED TO not give a ? about women.
social constraints are a good and needed without them men tend to not don't give a ? about their offspring. There are a lot of black men like this right now. freedom is not free is comes with conditions that must be met. what you feminist want in many cases resembles libertinism not liberty. YOU want to do whatever you want but you want society/men to pay for it.
What???
Men tend to not don't give a ? about their offspring???
Where do I begin...
This is not the stone age or medieval times for one
We pay ppl via taxes and other means to do the protecting and enforce order
Men and women have a role to play but its possible to structure a soceity whereas it does not come at the expense of the greater good and cost us a great deal of our personal freedoms...
I for example don't like how cs is calculated and enforced
And having been given the opportunity women have made gains in STEM industry so the desire is there...and while both genders have their strength and weaknesses, women have shown to be just as capable as men in most areas
So yes traditonalism is becoming obosolete... and I really don't see how u would actually get enough ppl to comply outside of physical force and government coercion
WITHOUT social constraints men tend not to give a ? about their children..... back in the day a man would be considered less than garbage for not taking care of his lawful children today having bastard children has become almost normalized and just paying CHILD SUPPORT is not taking care of your child
MEN PAY TAXES AND MEN ENFORCE ORDER because they care about the safety of their property, we feel invested in society because we have wives children and property to protect without the wife and the children all that remains is selfish interest which means at the point men will no longer have any interest in protecting women or constraining our sexual behavior towards women.
PART of being an adult especially being a man is recognizing that personal freedoms must be sacrificed for the greater good, men have always accepted this as a natural part of being an adult man. Women however had to be forced to accept this and they resented this because of that women rebelled and created feminism to "free" them.
Now men in a sense have stated to rebel, so we have MGTOW. MEN AND WOMEN have to be united to sustains a cohesive society but today the genders are splitting apart.... which means things are collapsing at which point women will come crawling back to men because they won't be able to compete against more aggressive men who truly don't give a ? about their feelings or notions of equality.... this has already begun many young women today have started to turn against feminism.
Most women hate stem they cannot sustain themselves in stem careers for very long they leave stem jobs after a few years. My argument is not that women are incapable of doing stem just that they don't like it because stem jobs come with a certain culture that feels very unnatural to the moods of women.
ahhhhh nah.
i know alot of black women in stem. they are doing very well for themselves.
now with that said.....alot of them cant be told ? either. they want the earning potential but thats ubntil a dude can come an "free" them of the burden of work.
i refuse to let my lady retire..because we can use her resources for our gain towards our retirement. her freinds call her weak for that. but none of them ? happy either.
The statistics and numbers don't agree with you because women are vastly under represented in stem..... and the harder and more unforgivable the particular scientific field is less women you will find in it. In addition less than 10% of women graduate with stem degrees.
not sure what numbers or stats you got but i work around nothing but stem......it is a whole bunch of white chicks and i am seeing more black chicks getting into it...
an my niece is in it...an nothing but lil girls in her class.
women are going to it cause the pay is good as fukk.
i believe @kai is in the stem industry as well
nah
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem#footnote52_8s1mpe7
and black women are especially underrepresented.
bruh......
i have worked with every major pharma company on the planet except like 3 or 4.
they all have more women in the labs then men. the men tend to be in the offices or in management.
but there has not been a pharma co i have been to that has equal or more men in the labs.
i seen this with my own eyes bruh.
an in puerto rico.....men are damn near non-existent in the labs...they all fix ? -
What would teach the next generation so men don't need to go their own way?
raise out daughters right and have our sons understand whats at stake.
but that has to come from a man....sorry to say -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »
You can't raise your daughter to not act upon hundreds of thousands of years of behavior.
You don't even understand the core of behavior so what does raising your daughter or son right look like? -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »
You can't raise your daughter to not act upon hundreds of thousands of years of behavior.
You don't even understand the core of behavior so what does raising your daughter or son right look like?
most women dont have men who put their foot down with them in their life. most of princessed to death. they are sold a dream from birth. only a man can show her what not to do to or with a man.
a son needs to know how to throw his ? on the table an demand his house be a certain way.
not worried about a thousand years....you can only start with your own you you created -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Sorry, I missed this. I wasn't just ignoring you.
Companies already give holidays, vacation days, and in many cases sick days. So doling out money to absentee employees is part of the system. Procreation is necessary for the continuation of our species, so boiling it down to "a personal decision" and acting like it benefits society to punish people for doing that is silly. If you get called in to jury duty, your job pays you for that. If you are in the reserves for the military I believe you can miss time at work and still get paid for it. Those things have nothing to do with the jobs at hand either, but allowances are made because people understand some things are necessary for our civilization to continue as desired.
And as I said before, I think men should get paternity leave too. -
@2stepz_ahead
dog I am not saying there are NO WOMEN in stem. of course there will be a certain % but what i am telling you is that the % is much lower than it should be if men and women are equally interested in the same fields. WHAT YOU see with your own eyes is irrelevant because you don't see everywhere. We have stats because they give a better picture of the whole. you cannot just judge by your personal experience stem is much bigger than you little corner of it -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Actually private companies don't have to pay for maternity leave. They just can't fire you for it. My wife's maternity leave was unpaid when she had our son because she worked for a private company in MD -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »@Madame_CJSkywalker
women really don't play much of a role in protecting society at all, the military protects us from outside forces and the police forces usually* protect us from internal harm. both the military and police forces are majority male.
MY reasoning behind saying women hate stem comes from the fact even when they graduate with a stem degree they don't stay in it very long and this suggest that women don't have the needed commitment to a job in stem.
No. by stem culture I was referring the work place culture of many professions. LOOK construction workers have a way of speaking and interacting with each other that differs from people working on wall street, each profession has a different work place culture the fact that women are dropping out of stem even after having used thousands of tax payer dollars to get educated suggest that many of these women either cannot hack it or cannot fit into the culture.
IF A black man is racially abused in one job he may leave it but leaving the whole industry??? nah most black men won't do that we will just look for a job elsewhere in the same industry women however seem to be leaving the industry.
there may have been some men who got away with the fuckery you just described but compare the numbers of bastard children with no dad living in the home from 60 years ago with what we have today??? today is much worse. so yeah people like you managed to punish some men but as a result of some of the other changes you made things got worse. So when it comes to sexuality we live in a much more amoral time. Mothers and wives are partners but they can never be equal..... real EQUALITY is a fantasy that we shall never attain.
Sigh...
Sure
Women are lesser... Can't hack it in STEM
Nevermind there being a culture of sexual harrasment
Deal with it
And back in the day everything was sweet
Ok...cool
Gotcha
I don't think @sunlord 's referring to sexual harassment when he's talking about STEM culture.
It's more about how the way people socialize in that field is different than how people socialize in other work environments.
Basically, a lot of women........not all..........like being in an environment that's conducive to cattiness, office gossip, talking about their personal lives, etc.
Therefore, since STEM is not conducive to that type of socializing........a lot of women leave those fields.
yea
i just don't think a lot of women are seriously leaving these jobs because they don't have ppl to gossip with -
@2stepz_ahead
dog I am not saying there are NO WOMEN in stem. of course there will be a certain % but what i am telling you is that the % is much lower than it should be if men and women are equally interested in the same fields. WHAT YOU see with your own eyes is irrelevant because you don't see everywhere. We have stats because they give a better picture of the whole. you cannot just judge by your personal experience stem is much bigger than you little corner of it
so you calling me a ? ? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Sorry, I missed this. I wasn't just ignoring you.
Companies already give holidays, vacation days, and in many cases sick days. So doling out money to absentee employees is part of the system. Procreation is necessary for the continuation of our species, so boiling it down to "a personal decision" and acting like it benefits society to punish people for doing that is silly. If you get called in to jury duty, your job pays you for that. If you are in the reserves for the military I believe you can miss time at work and still get paid for it. Those things have nothing to do with the jobs at hand either, but allowances are made because people understand some things are necessary for our civilization to continue as desired.
And as I said before, I think men should get paternity leave too.
You pay into pto and sick leave. Federal holidays there is no business being conducted.
How many reservists get called up for month long or even longer stints of active duty.
There are 7+ billion people on the planet and we are moving into an era where mass procreation is no longer an asset but a liability.
So women's sole role as incubator is not a premium any longer. If a single or even a million women in the workplace forgo motherhood it is not detrimental to society. So if the crux of your argument hangs on that white knight ledge then it's weak ground. Reason from a bygone era. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Actually private companies don't have to pay for maternity leave. They just can't fire you for it. My wife's maternity leave was unpaid when she had our son because she worked for a private company in MD
Fire that hoe. Taking up a position from someone who needs a job. Apparently your wife needs to have kids. -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »2stepz_ahead wrote: »
You can't raise your daughter to not act upon hundreds of thousands of years of behavior.
You don't even understand the core of behavior so what does raising your daughter or son right look like?
most women dont have men who put their foot down with them in their life. most of princessed to death. they are sold a dream from birth. only a man can show her what not to do to or with a man.
a son needs to know how to throw his ? on the table an demand his house be a certain way.
not worried about a thousand years....you can only start with your own you you created
You're not understanding. There are specific parts of male and female nature that you cannot "discipline" out of children.
The female will always look at males as a tool to be utilized according to her desires. She will not love a man simply seek to have access to his resources. That's something she can't control.
The male will strive to prove his worth through actions, will desire to take on the role of a provider and protector. He will also transpose the love he feels for his mother onto other women who if interested will mirror back what he needs.
The only way it can change is by recognizing where male romantic feelings for women originate teaching it to boys and helping them mitigate it so they can understand their feelings. -
This is pure speculation but i bet that a significant percentage of men who ? torture abuse or ? women are men who have unresolved mother issues. So if they get rejected by a woman in a club or see a woman who resembles something from a traumatic time they are triggered into antisocial behavior.
Not excusing or justifying but if my theory is even halfway true then it's important to male development to make them understand why he is attracted to women beyond physical ? . -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Sorry, I missed this. I wasn't just ignoring you.
Companies already give holidays, vacation days, and in many cases sick days. So doling out money to absentee employees is part of the system. Procreation is necessary for the continuation of our species, so boiling it down to "a personal decision" and acting like it benefits society to punish people for doing that is silly. If you get called in to jury duty, your job pays you for that. If you are in the reserves for the military I believe you can miss time at work and still get paid for it. Those things have nothing to do with the jobs at hand either, but allowances are made because people understand some things are necessary for our civilization to continue as desired.
And as I said before, I think men should get paternity leave too.
You pay into pto and sick leave.Federal holidays there is no business being conducted.
How many reservists get called up for month long or even longer stints of active duty.
There are 7+ billion people on the planet and we are moving into an era where mass procreation is no longer an asset but a liability.
So women's sole role as incubator is not a premium any longer. If a single or even a million women in the workplace forgo motherhood it is not detrimental to society. So if the crux of your argument hangs on that white knight ledge then it's weak ground. Reason from a bygone era.
Not every company works on the PTO and sick leave systems you're thinking off. Some companies just give a flat number of vacation days every year. They are just a benefit. The company I work gives unlimited sick days, so it's certainly nothing you pay for. The Federal government doesn't conduct business on Federal holiday, plenty of other businesses could continue to do that, but instead choose to give their employees off. The number of reservists that get called up is irrelevant, the point is that they are paid even though their military work typically has nothing to do with their primary jobs.
Plenty of women do choose to forego or defer motherhood. But society doesn't benefit from that. In fact, that would be stupid because the kinds of women that do high level work are the ones that you'd want to pass on their genes. In other words, from a societal standpoint, the needs of the species and the needs of businesses are at odds, but responsible employers understand that the needs of the species are more important. And by the way I'm a fan of population reduction for humanity, so I'm certainly not someone that would argue that we would hurt from a lowering of the birthrate. However, that lowering would probably be best done by fewer do nothing women having tons of kids than fewer hard working productive women having kids at all.
And lol @ white knight ledge. I'm the one being condescending, but you're the one whose best attempt at defeating my arguments are applying some braindead attempt at an insult rather than anything of real substance. -
https://youtu.be/gwI7ShmWkf4
Y'all ever peep this chick?... She goes in. LMAO.
MGTOW has some premise to it, but I just think we need strong men and women to lead each generation. It isn't for leaders of society. Leaders need to have strong families. Most strong families are built by strong husbands and wives who foster the upbringing of good children. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Actually private companies don't have to pay for maternity leave. They just can't fire you for it. My wife's maternity leave was unpaid when she had our son because she worked for a private company in MD
Fire that hoe. Taking up a position from someone who needs a job. Apparently your wife needs to have kids.
You clearly have no idea how businesses are run and why laws prevent someone for being fired for having a child. Your ignorance has surpassed levels I've never seen on the IC and there's been plenty stupid ? to post here -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
some employees are not worth the 6 weeks especially if I have to replace them.
While they are gone ON leave if the new person does a better job I won't want the original person back but I will have no choice but to hire back an inferior worker just because she had a baby.
That's actually an understandable gripe. That said, if you were fine with that worker before she left maternity leave, you shouldn't be so gung ? to get rid of her after she comes back. If her work was really so bad that you want to get rid of her, you should have just cause to do so regardless of her maternity status. There really ain't that many regulations guiding private business and their firing standards. If someone comes back from leave and you can demonstrated that that led to a reduction in productivity, you can fire them for sure. The only sector where that probably won't work is the Federal government.
It's not about whether an employee is inferior or adequate.
That's not the argument.
The position is why should a private company dole out money to an absent employee?
Why is a company subsidizing a personal decision?
The only way a ? can disappear from the job and still get paid is if he got injured, on the job.
If a ? gets hurt on his personal time, he gets to use his sick time and pto. You sick longer than that you most likely don't have a job coming back.
Did a ? get pregnant on the job, was she working at a sperm bank and tripped butt naked in the supply closet?
Does her position requirements include her getting pregnant or expose her to the risk of getting pregnant?
No.
Ok then.
Sorry, I missed this. I wasn't just ignoring you.
Companies already give holidays, vacation days, and in many cases sick days. So doling out money to absentee employees is part of the system. Procreation is necessary for the continuation of our species, so boiling it down to "a personal decision" and acting like it benefits society to punish people for doing that is silly. If you get called in to jury duty, your job pays you for that. If you are in the reserves for the military I believe you can miss time at work and still get paid for it. Those things have nothing to do with the jobs at hand either, but allowances are made because people understand some things are necessary for our civilization to continue as desired.
And as I said before, I think men should get paternity leave too.
You pay into pto and sick leave.Federal holidays there is no business being conducted.
How many reservists get called up for month long or even longer stints of active duty.
There are 7+ billion people on the planet and we are moving into an era where mass procreation is no longer an asset but a liability.
So women's sole role as incubator is not a premium any longer. If a single or even a million women in the workplace forgo motherhood it is not detrimental to society. So if the crux of your argument hangs on that white knight ledge then it's weak ground. Reason from a bygone era.
Not every company works on the PTO and sick leave systems you're thinking off. Some companies just give a flat number of vacation days every year. They are just a benefit. The company I work gives unlimited sick days, so it's certainly nothing you pay for. The Federal government doesn't conduct business on Federal holiday, plenty of other businesses could continue to do that, but instead choose to give their employees off. The number of reservists that get called up is irrelevant, the point is that they are paid even though their military work typically has nothing to do with their primary jobs.
Plenty of women do choose to forego or defer motherhood. But society doesn't benefit from that. In fact, that would be stupid because the kinds of women that do high level work are the ones that you'd want to pass on their genes. In other words, from a societal standpoint, the needs of the species and the needs of businesses are at odds, but responsible employers understand that the needs of the species are more important. And by the way I'm a fan of population reduction for humanity, so I'm certainly not someone that would argue that we would hurt from a lowering of the birthrate. However, that lowering would probably be best done by fewer do nothing women having tons of kids than fewer hard working productive women having kids at all.
And lol @ white knight ledge. I'm the one being condescending, but you're the one whose best attempt at defeating my arguments are applying some braindead attempt at an insult rather than anything of real substance.
So your premise is' responsible employers care about the needs of the species.
Where or when has that ever been a thing? A company's first priority is to it's stock holders, by law. The company must do what is in it's best interest to generate revenue. Paying for a woman to play mommy for six weeks is not beneficial to that company.
Going into genes and career women is a non starter. Weak correlation between position and iq and iq and genetics.
If a mother were concerned with the mental development of her progeny she'd stay home to see to it herself, especially if were a right outlier on the iq scale. -
So your premise is' responsible employers care about the needs of the species.
Where or when has that ever been a thing? A company's first priority is to it's stock holders, by law. The company must do what is in it's best interest to generate revenue. Paying for a woman to play mommy for six weeks is not beneficial to that company.
Going into genes and career women is a non starter. Weak correlation between position and iq and iq and genetics.
If a mother were concerned with the mental development of her progeny she'd stay home to see to it herself, especially if were a right outlier on the iq scale.
True. Maybe it's a bit much to suggest that company heads give a ? about our species. It's probably more accurate to say that these companies seek to follow laws and industry standards. Those laws and industry standards were created for the betterment of society because having them in place was better than the worker unrest that we've seen over the years. Let's be real, if these company heads didn't see some benefit in maternity leave, it wouldn't exist. They have the money to lobby it out of existence. So either they see merit in it or don't believe it does enough damage to go to war with the practice.
I'm pretty sure the correlations between iq, genetics, and relatively decent environment/socio-economic status (which is more likely in a two income household) is not weak at all. But if you got the numbers to prove that claim, I'd be happy to look.
I fail to see how a mother staying at home is better for the mental development of her children. Not ever woman is even good at playing that kinda role. I'm sure there are plenty of households where children benefit more from going to early childhood learning centers than they would being kept at home by a housewife. That's just my guess though. -
You introduced the argument of high position women needing to breed so you produce the numbers to back up your assertion.
-
So a mother can ? some kids out her ? but asking her to personally see to the development of her children is doing too much? Whose responsibility is it then? The state? Because they do such a good job now?
If she isn't fit to teach her own children then she probably shouldn't have them. Honestly we demand more responsibility from dog owners. -
The benefits of maternity leave are attributes of a dying era, the industrial age. We are no longer in it. Productivity is not causality of human labor any longer
In addition to the overpopulation of the human species, a woman having a child is no longer a benefit to society. In fact it is more probable that her spawn will be a further drain on the system. Her decision to breed is personal and self serving and it should not come at the cost of company productivity. -
Maternity leave is a dead issue It's more of an mra issue than a mgtow talking point. It's only discussed to point out how females are a drain on the entire system, taking more than they give
-
You introduced the argument of high position women needing to breed so you produce the numbers to back up your assertion.
I only suggested that successful people seemed like a better choice for the gene pool. You're the one that claimed a weak correlation. That's a statistical argument, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.So a mother can ? some kids out her ? but asking her to personally see to the development of her children is doing too much? Whose responsibility is it then? The state? Because they do such a good job now?
If she isn't fit to teach her own children then she probably shouldn't have them. Honestly we demand more responsibility from dog owners.
That's a stupid argument. If that's the case, why do we even have schools. Why don't parents just teach their kids everything at home? As a parent, you do have a part to play in your child's educational development no matter where you send them. Please explain to me how a parent earning the money to send their child to an early learning center is less responsible than trying to teach themselves.The benefits of maternity leave are attributes of a dying era, the industrial age. We are no longer in it. Productivity is not causality of human labor any longer
In addition to the overpopulation of the human species, a woman having a child is no longer a benefit to society. In fact it is more probable that her spawn will be a further drain on the system. Her decision to breed is personal and self serving and it should not come at the cost of company productivity.
This is a stupider argument. If everyone thought this way, the species would die out in a generation. Overpopulation is one thing, but to suggest that having children in general is not a benefit to society is...I don't even know man. You're getting pretty far gone with this ? . -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »You introduced the argument of high position women needing to breed so you produce the numbers to back up your assertion.
I only suggested that successful people seemed like a better choice for the gene pool. You're the one that claimed a weak correlation. That's a statistical argument, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.So a mother can ? some kids out her ? but asking her to personally see to the development of her children is doing too much? Whose responsibility is it then? The state? Because they do such a good job now?
If she isn't fit to teach her own children then she probably shouldn't have them. Honestly we demand more responsibility from dog owners.
That's a stupid argument. If that's the case, why do we even have schools. Why don't parents just teach their kids everything at home? As a parent, you do have a part to play in your child's educational development no matter where you send them. Please explain to me how a parent earning the money to send their child to an early learning center is less responsible than trying to teach themselves.The benefits of maternity leave are attributes of a dying era, the industrial age. We are no longer in it. Productivity is not causality of human labor any longer
In addition to the overpopulation of the human species, a woman having a child is no longer a benefit to society. In fact it is more probable that her spawn will be a further drain on the system. Her decision to breed is personal and self serving and it should not come at the cost of company productivity.
This is a stupider argument. If everyone thought this way, the species would die out in a generation. Overpopulation is one thing, but to suggest that having children in general is not a benefit to society is...I don't even know man. You're getting pretty far gone with this ? .
Perhaps you are too sentimental and not pragmatic enough for a conversation at this level. So we'll discontinue it to cease your mental distress.
