"You're a sadistic voyeur unsurprisingly praising someone who insults "retards" and makes rape jokes for sport. "

I insult those that behave as if they are retarded when they are not - I'm not insulting retards, anymore than I would be insulting the color "blue" if you Coated yourself in blue ink and I called you blue-boy. Act like you are mentally retarded – a specific medical condition – and I will call you such. What’s the problem? Afraid of honesty, Putin?

As for rape jokes – I’m not joking when I am talking about your ass. I think it would be good for you. But even at that, I do it specifically because it *bothers* you…and I’m so glad to see how easily it is to manipulate your fragile emotions.

Now…as for who *really* abuses the retards…I would think we have ample evidence it is Putin himself – who openly despises children, openly despises having children, admits the education system he works in cheats the children all the time…and yet he stays there…around the children he hates. Talk about an abusive piece of shit – it is Putin incarnate.

@YJ " I'm just afraid that women who have children are less likely to be successful and provide for themselves"

I feel very sorry for you, in a way, when you talk about a woman having children and say you are concerned that she won't be "successsful" and be able to provide for herself.

First of all, what *you* define as successs, and what a *mother* defines as success are most liekly two entirely different things. Second, if our world were not falling in to massive moral and ethical decay, the notion of a woman caring for children also having to provide for herself would be a minor issue, as there would be a **partner**...I am my wife's partner *for life*, and while she does work, I consider it my obligation to her to provide for her as part of the deal we made when we agreed to spend our lives together. Thus, success to her, if you asked her, would most likely less be about the next promotion -- she honestly doesn't seem to care about advancement at work, as long as she is happy doing what she is doing -- and it is more about being able to sing the praises of her daughters and brag about them. OUr daughters *are* her success story.

All you Liberal men that disdain marriage, disdain femininity, disdain "traditional" values...I suggest that you don't understand a good number of women out there, and you view and judge the world by completely different and arbitrary, selfish standard.

"Nevertheless, it manages to identify some interesting attitudes."

Not really. The only interesting attitude it identifies is the Christian persecution complex.

" I'm just afraid that women who have children are less likely to be successful and provide for themselves"

That conflates unwed teenage mothers (which basically dooms mother and child to poverty) with women who get married. Sure, popping out a kid at 16 with no father in sight will make a woman less successful and able to provide for herself. Devastatingly so. But having one at, say, 28, with her husband? It'd be a pretty hard sell to convince me that that's some hardship that will hold her back. It isn't having children in and of itself that one can argue can make women less successful and able to provide for themselves, it's having children when they are in a position where they have no business having children.


It's really sad to see how far the termites have gotten on this issue. People need to have children or there won't be people any more. There's nothing weird about it and there's nothing wrong about it. What's the matter with you?

krellin you are correct, to a point. I definitely used "success" through a patriarchal filter, one where being able to support ones self and family is of paramount importance. However, having been raised by a single mother, I am more aware than many of how oftentimes a person who expected a traditional family may be forced to support her children without much help. Since her goal of raising a traditional family has collapsed, she is now in a position where advancing her career (and thus chance of eking out a more comfortable life) is made all the more difficult having children.

Of course success has many different definitions depending on criteria, and I perhaps did not use the best word there. What I was trying to say is that should a woman choose to eschew her traditional role, and rather wishes to be self-sufficient, it is highly likely that she would thus consider success in her career an important goal to that end. Reasonable?

Your last paragraph is kinda funny. As if femininity has anything at all to do with marriage and traditional values. Your implication is that for a woman to be feminine, she is somehow dependent on either of those.

"But having one at, say, 28, with her husband? It'd be a pretty hard sell to convince me that that's some hardship that will hold her back"

Really, do you think childcare is cheap? Many women in such situations quit their jobs because childcare is unaffordable, or at the very least suspend any plans of advancing in their schooling and getting graduate degrees.

Invictus: not just teenage mothers (see above). The reality is that when a woman chooses to have a family, she usually becomes to some degree dependent on her spouse. That is a huge thing. And if it doesn't work out, she is usually stuck with the consequences as far as self-advancement goes.

If you were a woman, would you raise children under those circumstances? I sure as hell wouldn't. I wouldn't have any kids at all unless my financial security was certain, and that means certain independently of whatever man might be in the picture. If it's so critical for you that women have more children, maybe you ought to give them a bit more incentive to do so.

Haha Invictus saw that youtube video about how the Muslims are outbreeding the Christians and is getting all worried about it. 10 to 1 that's what this is REALLY about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

"Really, do you think childcare is cheap?"

What kind of an idiot do you take me for to think childcare is cheap?


"The reality is that when a woman chooses to have a family, she usually becomes to some degree dependent on her spouse. That is a huge thing. And if it doesn't work out, she is usually stuck with the consequences as far as self-advancement goes."

Um, what's wrong with being dependent on your spouse? Isn't that the point? Isn't that what goes along with marriage? As for a woman being ill-placed after a divorce, so is the man. Often worse since courts consistently favor women in divorce proceedings. The fact that divorces are awful things to go through doesn't de-legitimize the act of procreating.

" If it's so critical for you that women have more children, maybe you ought to give them a bit more incentive to do so."

It isn't critical for me that women have more children. It's critical to me that having children isn't made out to be some horrible, horrible thing by lunatics like you and Putin33.

Spouses should be emotionally dependent on each-other, but traditional marriage often places a huge financial dependence on the woman. There is no reason that ought to be the case. The time she spends raising children is time she's not spending developing employable skills for herself, so even with a "favorable divorce" she's STILL dependent on the man. Is that a lifestyle you would choose if you were a woman? Sounds risky to me. I'd rather invest my time in my own future first.

I never said or implied having children is a horrible thing. I can't speak for Putin. What I would do is caution any woman against having children unless they are sure it's the absolute right choice for them.

"What kind of an idiot do you take me for to think childcare is cheap?"

Then how would having a child not be a set back?

"Um, what's wrong with being dependent on your spouse? Isn't that the point? Isn't that what goes along with marriage?"

So it's the goal of marriage to be financially dependent on one's spouse instead of having the ability to earn income independently? What?

Having a child is like any long-term investment. You invest a tremendous amount of time an money for the first quarter and reap benefits the rest of the way. It's not surprising that a Marxist would see a child as a set back. Marxist have no concept of long-term planning. Five-years in the limit of their mindset.

Can one of the Extinctionists please explain how being a good parent doesn't count as success in its own right?

Haha Emac.

Would you like to offer anything at all to show that political affiliation has any correlation with the ability to appreciate motherhood? Or is it easiest for you to just spout groundless rhetorical soundbites?

@abge I don't know if you think that label applies to me (never heard of that before) but I've already stated that it absolutely can. Each individual chooses her own metric of success.

"he reality is that when a woman chooses to have a family, she usually becomes to some degree dependent on her spouse. That is a huge thing. And if it doesn't work out, she is usually stuck with the consequences as far as self-advancement goes.

"If you were a woman, would you raise children under those circumstances? I sure as hell wouldn't."

Well, I *think* that I would still find attractive the idea of placing myself in a position of dependence and complete trust with somebody I loved who committed to me. Hypotheticals are notoriously tricky, obviously.

@YJ,

"Would you like to offer anything at all to show that political affiliation has any correlation with the ability to appreciate motherhood? Or is it easiest for you to just spout groundless rhetorical soundbites?"

I know you were addressing Emac, but a first-order approximation to evidence for this might be the fact that conservatives marry and have children at much higher rates than liberals.

@YJ

Extinctionist is just a tongue-in-cheek term I made up in response to Putin constantly referring to people with kids as Breeders.

"So it's the goal of marriage to be financially dependent on one's spouse instead of having the ability to earn income independently? What?"

Raising kids requires sacrifices. Big ones. No one is saying otherwise. The parent who stays at home isn't the only one who sacrifices. Nor does the mother have to be the stay-at-home parent.

"Raising kids requires sacrifices. Big ones. No one is saying otherwise."

Not sure how this is relevant to the conversation I was having with Invictus about how the goal of marriage is dependence & that a 28 yr old married woman having a kid isn't a financial or career setback.

"Can one of the Extinctionists please explain how being a good parent doesn't count as success in its own right?"

Who even said this? I never once mentioned the word 'success'.

"Marxist have no concept of long-term planning. Five-years in the limit of their mindset."

LOL @ the notion that people reproduce with 'long-term planning' in mind and not just thinking that "kiddies are cute".

Not surprising that a market ideologue would try to commodify their offspring though.

" please explain how being a good parent doesn't count as success in its own right?"

Please explain to me what is appealing about the notion that your self-worth is tied to the behavior/production of your offspring?

"I never once mentioned the word 'success'."

It was directed at YJ, but he had already addressed it; I just missed it.

"Not sure how this is relevant to the conversation I was having with Invictus about how the goal of marriage is dependence & that a 28 yr old married woman having a kid isn't a financial or career setback."

If the mother stays at home, then it could very well be a financial or career setback, although not necessarily. It's a financial setback for the father, too, though. My point was if you view marriage as a team, then I don't see why it matters when you rely on your spouse for some things and they rely on you for others.

"Please explain to me what is appealing about the notion that your self-worth is tied to the behavior/production of your offspring?"

I find it appealing for several reasons:

1) Raising a healthy and productive child is probably one of the more difficult things you can accomplish in life. I enjoy challenges.

2) I find it intrinsically more motivating than a hobby or job, where my attention would otherwise be focused.

3) As humans, I think it's natural to want a sense of community. In my experience, family accomplishes that much better than other relationships.

@Semck:

"Well, I *think* that I would still find attractive the idea of placing myself in a position of dependence and complete trust with somebody I loved who committed to me. Hypotheticals are notoriously tricky, obviously."

You're more than welcome to do just that even as a man. What's stopping you then? Why not abandon your career options, find the most promising young woman, and just hitch up to her wagon?


"...conservatives marry and have children at much higher rates than liberals."

If true, this says little about their ability to appreciate the benefits of raising children when they choose to. Perhaps liberals are merely more selective about who they might marry, or at what point child rearing is the right choice for them? But I suppose it's acceptable as a first order answer :)

That's all fine and good, abge. I'd only chime in that in no way should a woman be obligated to feel the same way. No woman should feel that her only metric of self-worth is her capacity for motherhood.

"No woman should feel that her only metric of self-worth is her capacity for motherhood."

I agree completely. I don't think anyone here is arguing that. Quite frankly, I'd much prefer that my gf keeps her job when we have kids so I can stay home all day, but, financially, I doubt that will work.

Children also kill marriages. Instead of focusing on that relationship, everything is now about the child. Free time? What free time? Go out with the wife spontaneously? How is that possible? Everything must be planned ahead of time. Romance is dead. And forget it if you have a child with some kind of developmental disabilities. Your life and existence outside of caring for the child is completely finished.

I don't know, it kinda sounds like Invictus and krellin are arguing that.

krellin has basically equated femininity with the traditional role of women (marriage/children), and Invictus seems to think that a housekeeper's financial dependence on her spouse is the natural order of things.