It's all men's fault
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/19/women-not-to-blame-for-delaying-having-babies
Well there you have it folks.
Society has done so much to disincentivize fatherhood for men. Why should a man want to be a father? A modern father is a superfluous second parent who can be discarded at will by the woman. A family is now a woman and her children. Nothing more. That is what a family is. Men have every reason to not want to "have" a family.
Hear this: a modern family is now a woman and her children.
Men do not control a woman's fertility. Fertility is a measurement of a potential. Not an outcome. If a man's control over his own fertility does not jive with a woman's life plans he isn't controlling her fertility. He is making his own plans. If they don't fit then that's not the man's fault. Fertile soil is called fertile because it has the potential to grow things. That doesn't mean that the land is entitled to a farmer or that a lazy farmer who plants nothing is controlling the fertility of the land. The Tagus Valley is among the most fertile land in the world whether or not it is cultivated by farmers or not.
There's is this inane idea that someone women should always get everything they want. That the whole world has to flip upsidedown to accommodate them. That everyone has to conform to what women want out of life. This is ridiculous.
If the state starts coercing men into breeding with women I'm putting my boots to the street.
But I love the blaming and desperation. It's lovely. This scene needs Beethoven for accompaniment. The only thing lovely enough to match. In the coming years more and more of this will become more frequent and it's absolute music to my ears. It's nice to see men wake up and the comments in the article have made my day!
Why buy the cow when it can leave at any time while also continually being entitled to your stores of feed even though you get no milk at all anymore? What husbandryman would invest in that animal?
Also can anyone imagine a main stream newspaper publishing an article lambasting women so openly? Don't think so.
How to improve female fertility: avoid selfish men
Women understand it gets harder to become pregnant as they get older. But they don't always have a choice
Kate Garraway in the poster to make women think twice about putting off pregnancy. Photograph: Nicky Johnston/First Response
The new "Get Britain Fertile" campaign features a photograph of presenter Kate Garraway, made up to look elderly and pregnant. Her wrinkles and white hair juxtaposed with a fecund belly illustrate the main thrust of the campaign – to make British women aware of the decline in fertility by their 30s and 40s.
However, is there a grown woman left in Britain who's not already aware of this? Moreover, when are we, as a society, going to address a painful truth: that where timing is concerned, female fertility is not, as is often supposed, controlled exclusively by women, but also very much in the power of the men they are with?
There's much that's well intentioned about GBF. It claims to be aimed at both men and women. Garraway, an ambassador for the campaign, says she feels fortunate to have had children relatively late, and wants women to make "informed choices". However, GBF taps into the culture of misogyny surrounding female fertility. It feeds the urban myth of women "refusing" to have children because of careers, partying, or holding out for Leonardo DiCaprio.
These delusional "picky" females have been figments of the collective imagination for so long they need to be dusted down. Indeed, GBF is accompanied by a survey, stating that many women aged 18-46 are concerned about practicalities: ranging from loss of earnings and workplace inflexibility, to childcare costs and housing. All crucial issues, but for the purpose of this article, let's look at the third of women who say they want children but haven't yet found the right partner.
In my opinion that one-third is an underestimate. Even not finding the right man often turns out to be a euphemism for: "I met him, I spent years with him, but ultimately, he wouldn't have children." Put bluntly, many of these women at their fertile peak didn't refuse anything, their men did.
Like it or not, this is how men influence female fertility and, ultimately, female infertility. The mere thought is enough to inspire feminist panic: women, not men, should control their fertility. Who could disagree? It's also true that some women don't want children, period. And yet how many of us have met (or even been) the thirty-fortysomething, forced to abandon a long relationship because the man wouldn't start a family?
Such men may feel that the relationship isn't right, or don't want their freedom curtailed, or other reasons, all as valid as a woman making similar decisions. It only becomes unfair, verging on selfish, when men keep such insights to themselves for too long. These are the time-wasters, what I'd term the fertility-drifters, who think nothing of keeping women dangling for years on end.
It's not that these women are pathetic wimps, rather that often they can't win: if they push, they're pushy (humiliating); if they don't push, if they're respectful and patient, they'll waste even more time. Frequently, these men go on to start families with younger women, leaving their original partners scouring dating sites, lampooned as desperadoes on the hunt for viable sperm.
Some might say: "Diddums, that's life." Fine, so long as we acknowledge that this is something many women put up with during their fertile years, and that to castigate them is unfair. Sometimes it's not women who are picky, it's men. Ergo, such men should at least be part of the ongoing debate about late female procreation. After all, a stalled relationship at the wrong time with an immature, untruthful, or simply unwilling, man, is enough to compromise or even destroy a woman's fertility. If the GBF campaign really is aimed at both sexes, perhaps they need to include a photograph of a man with the caption: "Play fair and, by the way, sperm deteriorates too." Meanwhile, women may need another mantra – don't let anyone waste your precious time.
Women understand it gets harder to become pregnant as they get older. But they don't always have a choice
Kate Garraway in the poster to make women think twice about putting off pregnancy. Photograph: Nicky Johnston/First Response
The new "Get Britain Fertile" campaign features a photograph of presenter Kate Garraway, made up to look elderly and pregnant. Her wrinkles and white hair juxtaposed with a fecund belly illustrate the main thrust of the campaign – to make British women aware of the decline in fertility by their 30s and 40s.
However, is there a grown woman left in Britain who's not already aware of this? Moreover, when are we, as a society, going to address a painful truth: that where timing is concerned, female fertility is not, as is often supposed, controlled exclusively by women, but also very much in the power of the men they are with?
There's much that's well intentioned about GBF. It claims to be aimed at both men and women. Garraway, an ambassador for the campaign, says she feels fortunate to have had children relatively late, and wants women to make "informed choices". However, GBF taps into the culture of misogyny surrounding female fertility. It feeds the urban myth of women "refusing" to have children because of careers, partying, or holding out for Leonardo DiCaprio.
These delusional "picky" females have been figments of the collective imagination for so long they need to be dusted down. Indeed, GBF is accompanied by a survey, stating that many women aged 18-46 are concerned about practicalities: ranging from loss of earnings and workplace inflexibility, to childcare costs and housing. All crucial issues, but for the purpose of this article, let's look at the third of women who say they want children but haven't yet found the right partner.
In my opinion that one-third is an underestimate. Even not finding the right man often turns out to be a euphemism for: "I met him, I spent years with him, but ultimately, he wouldn't have children." Put bluntly, many of these women at their fertile peak didn't refuse anything, their men did.
Like it or not, this is how men influence female fertility and, ultimately, female infertility. The mere thought is enough to inspire feminist panic: women, not men, should control their fertility. Who could disagree? It's also true that some women don't want children, period. And yet how many of us have met (or even been) the thirty-fortysomething, forced to abandon a long relationship because the man wouldn't start a family?
Such men may feel that the relationship isn't right, or don't want their freedom curtailed, or other reasons, all as valid as a woman making similar decisions. It only becomes unfair, verging on selfish, when men keep such insights to themselves for too long. These are the time-wasters, what I'd term the fertility-drifters, who think nothing of keeping women dangling for years on end.
It's not that these women are pathetic wimps, rather that often they can't win: if they push, they're pushy (humiliating); if they don't push, if they're respectful and patient, they'll waste even more time. Frequently, these men go on to start families with younger women, leaving their original partners scouring dating sites, lampooned as desperadoes on the hunt for viable sperm.
Some might say: "Diddums, that's life." Fine, so long as we acknowledge that this is something many women put up with during their fertile years, and that to castigate them is unfair. Sometimes it's not women who are picky, it's men. Ergo, such men should at least be part of the ongoing debate about late female procreation. After all, a stalled relationship at the wrong time with an immature, untruthful, or simply unwilling, man, is enough to compromise or even destroy a woman's fertility. If the GBF campaign really is aimed at both sexes, perhaps they need to include a photograph of a man with the caption: "Play fair and, by the way, sperm deteriorates too." Meanwhile, women may need another mantra – don't let anyone waste your precious time.
Well there you have it folks.
Society has done so much to disincentivize fatherhood for men. Why should a man want to be a father? A modern father is a superfluous second parent who can be discarded at will by the woman. A family is now a woman and her children. Nothing more. That is what a family is. Men have every reason to not want to "have" a family.
Hear this: a modern family is now a woman and her children.
Men do not control a woman's fertility. Fertility is a measurement of a potential. Not an outcome. If a man's control over his own fertility does not jive with a woman's life plans he isn't controlling her fertility. He is making his own plans. If they don't fit then that's not the man's fault. Fertile soil is called fertile because it has the potential to grow things. That doesn't mean that the land is entitled to a farmer or that a lazy farmer who plants nothing is controlling the fertility of the land. The Tagus Valley is among the most fertile land in the world whether or not it is cultivated by farmers or not.
There's is this inane idea that someone women should always get everything they want. That the whole world has to flip upsidedown to accommodate them. That everyone has to conform to what women want out of life. This is ridiculous.
If the state starts coercing men into breeding with women I'm putting my boots to the street.
But I love the blaming and desperation. It's lovely. This scene needs Beethoven for accompaniment. The only thing lovely enough to match. In the coming years more and more of this will become more frequent and it's absolute music to my ears. It's nice to see men wake up and the comments in the article have made my day!
Why buy the cow when it can leave at any time while also continually being entitled to your stores of feed even though you get no milk at all anymore? What husbandryman would invest in that animal?
Also can anyone imagine a main stream newspaper publishing an article lambasting women so openly? Don't think so.
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by bssjonny
If you want to get pregnant on your own, go to a sperm bank. If you want to force me into fertilising you, well then i guess I'll be seeing you on Jeremy kyle.
It also kind of makes me sad; the men from our grandparents' generation cherished their offsprings, they used to carry pocket photos to show people their children, worked soul crushing jobs to provide their children with the best possible start they could. There obviously has been a huge change from which men have gone from that to "no thanks" in regards to children.
Original post by Ultimate1
It also kind of makes me sad; the men from our grandparents' generation cherished their offsprings, they used to carry pocket photos to show people their children, worked soul crushing jobs to provide their children with the best possible start they could. There obviously has been a huge change from which men have gone from that to "no thanks" in regards to children.
I think it's sad that unless we stop overpopulating this planet, millions more children are going to starve to death every year.
didi I read that right, the "get britain fertile" campaign? if anything we need the opposite.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
didi I read that right, the "get britain fertile" campaign? if anything we need the opposite.
Really? We have a fairly stable population at the moment, especially from British people. Much of the increase is down to immigrants and their children (although I don't see this as a problem - the world has an issue with overpopulation, Britain doesn't).
Original post by bssjonny
I think it's sad that unless we stop overpopulating this planet, millions more children are going to starve to death every year.
Starvation is not caused by overpopulation; it is a result of ****ty economic and agricultural policies in India and Africa. We've heard this prediction that an increase in population would cause mass starvation before, my parents heard it in the 1970s, my grandparents heard it in the 1930s; it's as old as the industrial revolution and it has been wrong since its inception.
Original post by PythianLegume
Really? We have a fairly stable population at the moment, especially from British people. Much of the increase is down to immigrants and their children (although I don't see this as a problem - the world has an issue with overpopulation, Britain doesn't).
70 million people here man, that's enough, more than enough. I know we're not at capacity yet but I do not want to be around when we're approaching it.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
70 million people here man, that's enough, more than enough. I know we're not at capacity yet but I do not want to be around when we're approaching it.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=population+of+the+uk&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB500GB500&aq=f&oq=population+of+the+uk&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.5554j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Not nearly 70 million.
well 63 is still loads, might as well be 70.
Original post by Ultimate1
It also kind of makes me sad; the men from our grandparents' generation cherished their offsprings, they used to carry pocket photos to show people their children, worked soul crushing jobs to provide their children with the best possible start they could. There obviously has been a huge change from which men have gone from that to "no thanks" in regards to children.
Men from our grandparents generation had hardly anything to do with their kids. Men are generally much more involved with their children in this generation. I don't even think it's true that people don't carry around photos of their children - I see plenty of fathers post pictures on Facebook, have their names tattooed onto themselves etc.
There has been a change on attitude towards children in recent generations, with men and women having the choice about whether or not to have children. In previous times, they didn't have a choice about it, both because of social expectations and contraception being less widely available. However, I don't think this has any effect on how people feel about their existing children. Wider acceptance of marriage breakdown and lone parenthood has meant people feel freer to leave unhappy relationships, and this isn't entirely men's fault or entirely women's fault. As much as you like to moan about men having unequal rights in child residence cases, plenty of men do leave their families, don't ever try to contact their children or have little to do with them and don't pay child maintenance. This isn't to do with men becoming disillusioned with parenthood because of feminism or whatever - it's to do with it being easier for men to walk away than it is for women.
A woman can leave a man any time she wants, and if they have kids together then she can take his kids and a huge amount of his materials belongings and money to boot. It makes sense to be sure of a woman's loyalty, in that regard - more so these days given the lowering of the stigma attached to divorce and being a single mother. I'm not sure how big a factor this is, but it likely does make some men more cautious in choosing to settle down. His wife need not be malicious for personal disagreements to cause such a devastating break up, so it makes sense to be even more sure that those disagreements aren't there.
I would like to point out though that if you know your partner wants children and you don't (which is the type of man the article is criticising, I think), then you ought to break it off rather than either 'trick' your partner into missing out on what is probably a major life goal or take on a major unwanted responsibility yourself.
However, is it a myth that there are women who put their careers first in their 20s before having kids? What proportion of women they make up and how much of that voluntary is tricky to determine, but they certainly exist, as do women who don't want children at all. Plus, what about women who don't want children then later change their mind?
I would like to point out though that if you know your partner wants children and you don't (which is the type of man the article is criticising, I think), then you ought to break it off rather than either 'trick' your partner into missing out on what is probably a major life goal or take on a major unwanted responsibility yourself.
However, is it a myth that there are women who put their careers first in their 20s before having kids? What proportion of women they make up and how much of that voluntary is tricky to determine, but they certainly exist, as do women who don't want children at all. Plus, what about women who don't want children then later change their mind?
ArtGoblin
As much as you like to moan about men having unequal rights in child residence cases, plenty of men do leave their families, don't ever try to contact their children or have little to do with them and don't pay child maintenance.
The second part doesn't justify the first, however. More over, the two could be, in part, connected. There are men who have to pay extortionate amounts of child support, for very little allowed contact with their children. This is something I have witnessed first-hand in several cases. It's not to say that it is totally justified, to not contact your children; but if many men are going to be treated so unfairly, it's little wonder that some men end up turning their backs on things. Maybe some women would, too, if they were dealt the same kind of deal as these fathers. It's hardly the fairest of comparisons.
ArtGoblin
This isn't to do with men becoming disillusioned with parenthood because of feminism or whatever - it's to do with it being easier for men to walk away than it is for women.
Then why do so many more men do so NOW, than pre-feminism? And how much easier IS it, for men to walk away, after the child's birth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2330458/Get-Britain-Fertile-Peter-Lloyd-says-men-blame-women-childless-Melissa-Kite-says-society-is.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Nice to see a mainstream newspaper actually including a male response to this.
Nice to see a mainstream newspaper actually including a male response to this.
Who'd've thought it! A Guardian article blaming the problems in society on straight, white men. What a shocker.
Original post by truffle_girl
The second part doesn't justify the first, however. More over, the two could be, in part, connected. There are men who have to pay extortionate amounts of child support, for very little allowed contact with their children. This is something I have witnessed first-hand in several cases. It's not to say that it is totally justified, to not contact your children; but if many men are going to be treated so unfairly, it's little wonder that some men end up turning their backs on things. Maybe some women would, too, if they were dealt the same kind of deal as these fathers. It's hardly the fairest of comparisons.
Then why do so many more men do so NOW, than pre-feminism? And how much easier IS it, for men to walk away, after the child's birth?
Then why do so many more men do so NOW, than pre-feminism? And how much easier IS it, for men to walk away, after the child's birth?
So, you think it is right for a father to walk away and not support his child because he was given what you say is an unfair deal? Who is losing out here? Surely the child? For your information, my father didn't care about me and tried to avoid paying child maintenance too because he wanted to hurt my mum and make sure she was at a financial loss - but in doing so it affected me. Sure, he can hate my mum, but his action negatively affected me too. So he didn't ever have my best interests in mind...
As for the guardian article, having children should be a mutual choice and both women and men should confront their partners to ask if they would be willing to have children in the future.
Original post by SilverstarDJ
So, you think it is right for a father to walk away and not support his child because he was given what you say is an unfair deal? Who is losing out here? Surely the child? For your information, my father didn't care about me and tried to avoid paying child maintenance too because he wanted to hurt my mum and make sure she was at a financial loss - but in doing so it affected me. Sure, he can hate my mum, but his action negatively affected me too. So he didn't ever have my best interests in mind...
Seems like your mum didn't have your best interests in mind by having you to a man who didn't want to support you. Why is that angle never brought up? Hmmm....
It's an unfair deal when all is done to remove all responsibility from women in having children but none is done for men so the natural response, and although it's a still a small size of the population but rapidly growing, is to get yourself out of such situations and just let women deal with the consequences of their actions ie just don't have any children. Which is why this is music to my ears; men are finally waking up and women, unable to see the injustice (then again when have they ever) screaming about men not wanting children. Absolutely priceless. In fact in Japan already a large portion of the population have completely disregarded women, the situation isbso badthat male escorts are pretty common. There will be many more shaming articles like these in the coming years as more and more men simply say: "**** it". There was a survey recently where young adult men preferred video games over sex. Can't say I blame then given the entitlement culture of British women and being far inferior to their European couterparts in the looks department.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ultimate1
Seems like your mum didn't have your best interests in mind by having you to a man who didn't want to support you. Why is that angle never brought up? Hmmm....
He supported me by paying household bills, but ultimately did not care about me. I don't think anyone would go into a relationship thinking their husband would not support them and their child. I don't it crossed her mind that he wouldn't - but things didn't work out and ultimately no matter what someone says you won't know how things will turn out until after you've had children. No one can see into the future.
She had my best interests because she always supported me financially and emotionally, whereas my father was happy to walk away without a trance and no effort to get in touch with me. She took the decision to get a divorce as it was a better environment for me to grow up in (ie without my dad). We had cutbacks financially but life was a lot better without him. SO yes, she did have my best interests in mind, but my father did not.
It's an unfair deal when all is done to remove all responsibility from women in having children but none is done for men so the natural response, and although it's a still a small size of the population but rapidly growing, is to get yourself out of such situations and just let women deal with the consequences of their actions ie just don't have any children. Which is why this is music to my ears; men are finally waking up and women, unable to see the injustice (then again when have they ever) screaming about men not wanting children. Absolutely priceless. In fact in Japan already a large portion of the population have completely disregarded women, the situation isbso badthat male escorts are pretty common. There will be many more shaming articles like these in the coming years as more and more men simply say: "**** it". There was a survey recently where young adult men preferred video games over sex. Can't say I blame then given the entitlement culture of British women and being far inferior to their European couterparts in the looks department.
Having children is a mutual responsibility and a mutual decision.
If a guy doesn't want children, fine. I don't have a problem with that, no one should be forced into it. If I wanted to have children and my partner was strongly against having children, I'd leave to find someone who has similar hopes and dreams for the future so I could be happy in the long run.
What injustice are you talking about?
You seem very shallow in your final sentence.
Original post by silverstardj
he supported me by paying household bills, but ultimately did not care about me. I don't think anyone would go into a relationship thinking their husband would not support them and their child. I don't it crossed her mind that he wouldn't - but things didn't work out and ultimately no matter what someone says you won't know how things will turn out until after you've had children. No one can see into the future.
she had my best interests because she always supported me financially and emotionally, whereas my father was happy to walk away without a trance and no effort to get in touch with me. She took the decision to get a divorce as it was a better environment for me to grow up in (ie without my dad). We had cutbacks financially but life was a lot better without him. So yes, she did have my best interests in mind, but my father did not.
having children is a mutual responsibility and a mutual decision.
If a guy doesn't want children, fine. I don't have a problem with that, no one should be forced into it. If i wanted to have children and my partner was strongly against having children, i'd leave to find someone who has similar hopes and dreams for the future so i could be happy in the long run.
What injustice are you talking about?
You seem very shallow in your final sentence.
she had my best interests because she always supported me financially and emotionally, whereas my father was happy to walk away without a trance and no effort to get in touch with me. She took the decision to get a divorce as it was a better environment for me to grow up in (ie without my dad). We had cutbacks financially but life was a lot better without him. So yes, she did have my best interests in mind, but my father did not.
having children is a mutual responsibility and a mutual decision.
If a guy doesn't want children, fine. I don't have a problem with that, no one should be forced into it. If i wanted to have children and my partner was strongly against having children, i'd leave to find someone who has similar hopes and dreams for the future so i could be happy in the long run.
What injustice are you talking about?
You seem very shallow in your final sentence.
I stand by my op, lies lies lies leis
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Indicated i was on placement by a mistake on my student finance england application!!Last reply 11 minutes ago
Charles University of Medicine or Medical University of WarsawLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2869
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Applying for student finance - does you part live outside ukLast reply 17 minutes ago
Jagiellonian (Krakow), Warsaw or Poznań medical school?Last reply 17 minutes ago
what is the 5 marker (practical question) of ocr as chemistry 2023 was onTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
