Perhaps a man should seek a sister of a male friend. Perhaps few women want to face an angry brother.
Yes, it is a problem.
It might be made worse by all this insisting on a woman with some college. A good high school education, good language, good habits, and a curious mind, might be better. Even better if she has seen what the job prospects really are, in real life, of non-STEM college and grad school women.
A home-maker life might be better, she might reason. And nobody says she can't read and study just because it makes life interesting.
But the men want that salary. Hers. Some of them want prestige from her education. Some of them want her to be so thin and cute that ... she can have anybody and, uh, does.
A not-so-educated, not-gorgeous, honest type with some personal energy, curiosity, goodness, patience, and at least one brother her husband knows a long time, might be a candidate.
I know a woman in Austin. A gang member came into her home assaulted her and stole from her. She felt sorry for him. Those sort of people wont turn red.
Have some kids is good advice but not a solution. The demographic time bomb of 0-17 year olds is already here, and even if every republican managed to crank out 5 kids by 40 we'd still be losing the demographic war to the third worlders.
Yes having kids is awesome, but our future on the r/K scale is 100% on the K plan.
But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.
If they stay together.
If they stay together.
Now that education is being restructured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was... you don't have to limit childbearing to the number of college educations you can provide.
Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.
I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.
The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary, to make life more comfortable.
R maybe be beating the snot out of K.
R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male. And the other half help with the younger children, so he's good all the way around. He can't lose.
Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.
There is only one source of numerous humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.
In humans, it has come to mean, do you want eight children who live lean and start life lean, share clothes and toys, may not go to college, because we can't afford it?
Or, do you want one or two children who have life's advantages, have fun, and don't have those pressures of having to share, and who do go to college?
K has been the way of the Western world since the end of WW II. It seemed to work nicely for several generations, but it has produced problems too.
R has been the way of the East and the South since forever. It is the human norm. K was the innovative and unprecedented thing.
K has led to fewer Westerners being around, and the sheer numbers of the
non-Western has meant that they increasingly get their way. And why not. Of course. If you don't show up, well where are you? Non-existent people can't vote.
Another thing that happened that wasn't expected was the diminished prestige of the woman who was home raising kids, and a lot of kids. Gradually, "I'm just a housewife," led to "OMG you are NOT having a kid NOW," and "she just pumps them out. She's a breeder."
NOBODY would have used such nauseatingly disrespectful language about a mother or motherhood before 1950.
The "baby boomers" resulted from a burst of enthusiasm for life and love for peace, home, children, after the horrors of WW II.
But the boomers' parents were having two, or three, or maaaaybe four kids. Only one kid was considered weird. "Only children are always spoiled. You need two," was the thinking. But more than two? No. Let's buy a house and have plenty.
The women were thinking differently.
The ads showed them in pearls and heels, pushing vacuums instead of pushing a broom. New appliances were making things sparklier and easier. But they were still home.
In the late Sixties, the untenable paradox of being home but not having that many kids, and therefore having empty days, exploded in the Women's Movement and the women left the home.
Then the home lost its anchor and the divorces happened.
The children of those divorces are today's parents or non-parents.
Their kids, the Antifas, know their futures have been looted, meaning, marriage was destroyed. That is why they crave belonging, and of course the colleges have become horrible places. Whatever humanity they arrived with was expunged by their Residential Advisor in the Freshman Year Experience program, which is national. Leftism, blah blah.
So that's R versus K.
Every problem you see today can be traced to simply not having enough children in the past.
Do you think religion could help with that? I know it's not magic.
I also think men say yes too much to unvetted women who look nice enough. The men don't hold out enough, do enough background checking, handwriting analysis, body language analysis, and just plain waiting. You can't know how someone handles frustration if you rush to amuse them. Time has to pass. And all that vetting and pondering might be done by a professional matchmaker. The bias would be, "you are only seeing one of my men if I think you are the Right Sort, ma'am." Not the other way around. Matchmakers should come back.
Another problem is the median age.
Have some kids.
Laws are passed by humans.
If you and all your relatives and friends had twice their number of children, those laws would not have passed.
Yes.
Perhaps a man should seek a sister of a male friend. Perhaps few women want to face an angry brother.
Yes, it is a problem.
It might be made worse by all this insisting on a woman with some college. A good high school education, good language, good habits, and a curious mind, might be better. Even better if she has seen what the job prospects really are, in real life, of non-STEM college and grad school women.
A home-maker life might be better, she might reason. And nobody says she can't read and study just because it makes life interesting.
But the men want that salary. Hers. Some of them want prestige from her education. Some of them want her to be so thin and cute that ... she can have anybody and, uh, does.
A not-so-educated, not-gorgeous, honest type with some personal energy, curiosity, goodness, patience, and at least one brother her husband knows a long time, might be a candidate.
Someone finally says it.
Bingo!!
I know a woman in Austin. A gang member came into her home assaulted her and stole from her. She felt sorry for him. Those sort of people wont turn red.
Have some kids is good advice but not a solution. The demographic time bomb of 0-17 year olds is already here, and even if every republican managed to crank out 5 kids by 40 we'd still be losing the demographic war to the third worlders.
Yes having kids is awesome, but our future on the r/K scale is 100% on the K plan.
I hear that.
But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.
If they stay together.
If they stay together.
Now that education is being restructured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was... you don't have to limit childbearing to the number of college educations you can provide.
Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.
I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.
The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary, to make life more comfortable.
R maybe be beating the snot out of K.
R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male. And the other half help with the younger children, so he's good all the way around. He can't lose.
Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.
There is only one source of numerous humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
In humans, it has come to mean, do you want eight children who live lean and start life lean, share clothes and toys, may not go to college, because we can't afford it?
Or, do you want one or two children who have life's advantages, have fun, and don't have those pressures of having to share, and who do go to college?
K has been the way of the Western world since the end of WW II. It seemed to work nicely for several generations, but it has produced problems too.
R has been the way of the East and the South since forever. It is the human norm. K was the innovative and unprecedented thing.
K has led to fewer Westerners being around, and the sheer numbers of the non-Western has meant that they increasingly get their way. And why not. Of course. If you don't show up, well where are you? Non-existent people can't vote.
Another thing that happened that wasn't expected was the diminished prestige of the woman who was home raising kids, and a lot of kids. Gradually, "I'm just a housewife," led to "OMG you are NOT having a kid NOW," and "she just pumps them out. She's a breeder."
NOBODY would have used such nauseatingly disrespectful language about a mother or motherhood before 1950.
The "baby boomers" resulted from a burst of enthusiasm for life and love for peace, home, children, after the horrors of WW II.
But the boomers' parents were having two, or three, or maaaaybe four kids. Only one kid was considered weird. "Only children are always spoiled. You need two," was the thinking. But more than two? No. Let's buy a house and have plenty.
The women were thinking differently.
The ads showed them in pearls and heels, pushing vacuums instead of pushing a broom. New appliances were making things sparklier and easier. But they were still home.
In the late Sixties, the untenable paradox of being home but not having that many kids, and therefore having empty days, exploded in the Women's Movement and the women left the home.
Then the home lost its anchor and the divorces happened.
The children of those divorces are today's parents or non-parents.
Their kids, the Antifas, know their futures have been looted, meaning, marriage was destroyed. That is why they crave belonging, and of course the colleges have become horrible places. Whatever humanity they arrived with was expunged by their Residential Advisor in the Freshman Year Experience program, which is national. Leftism, blah blah.
So that's R versus K.
Every problem you see today can be traced to simply not having enough children in the past.
Is it too late to catch up? Not quite.
You first! Today's women are garbage and bring this hellscape upon you.
Case in point, Tomi Lauren, every conservative's dream date until her latest rant.
Do you think religion could help with that? I know it's not magic.
I also think men say yes too much to unvetted women who look nice enough. The men don't hold out enough, do enough background checking, handwriting analysis, body language analysis, and just plain waiting. You can't know how someone handles frustration if you rush to amuse them. Time has to pass. And all that vetting and pondering might be done by a professional matchmaker. The bias would be, "you are only seeing one of my men if I think you are the Right Sort, ma'am." Not the other way around. Matchmakers should come back.
But yes there are huge problems.
Damn, I wish I lived in whatever fantasy world you live in.