[slothpiece]

Here is Penelope Trunk's latest post that basically parrots what we already know here about women getting married early if they want to have a better shot at having kids that don't end up being mongoloids when women want to have kids at the ripe age of 35.

The comments are typical feminist snark about it being a woman's choice and that she can have the best of both worlds where her education and career can come first and then she can have the white picket fence and dream man who will bring her her magic slipper when she is ready at 35. Add in a little bit of feminist shaming at men being "sexist" for wanting hot, early 20-something slampieces over crusty, expired 30-somethings who deserve the same thing they wanted before when they were younger but now men must accept them as older, rusted-out village bicycles. She may have just done this piece for web traffic. If so, she did a great job trolling the fembotsphere. Enjoy.

http://www.lolinez.com/?http://thoughtca...ur-career/

Quote:

Women who want to have kids should make it a high priority in their early twenties to find a partner. A Newsweek cover story, Marriage by the Numbers, says is okay to wait until after 35 to get married. Newsweek is revising the saying that a woman has more chance of getting hit by a truck than getting married after age 35.

But the article ignores one of the most pressing issues facing Generation X: Infertility. No generation of women has had more trouble with fertility than this generation who received the terrible advice, “Wait. You have time. Focus on your career first.”

In fact, you have your whole life to get a career. This is not true about having a baby.

Even if you are past your early twenties, or not heterosexual, if you’re single and want to have kids with a partner, you need to find one now. Take that career drive and direct it toward mating because your career skills will outlast your ovaries.

In case you think you’re waiting for “the right time,” there is no evidence to show when in a woman’s career is best to have kids. At any point, she is thrown off track. At any point when a woman has kids, statistically she will start to earn less money even if she takes no maternity leave whatsoever. There is no evidence to show that it’s easier to take time out of the workforce at a certain point in a career. People just plain don’t know.

Phyllis Moen, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, told me in an interview, “Don’t wait until the right time in your career to have a child or it will never come.”

However there is lots of evidence to show that a woman’s biological clock takes a nose-dive at age 35. I know, because that’s when I started having kids. The geneticist showed me and my husband a graph of Down’s Syndrome and we nearly keeled over when we saw the cliff at 35. We had no idea. That Down’s Syndrome cliff, though, is a stand-in for everything, because a huge percentage of fertility statistics get bad at 35.

There is also lots of evidence to say that having kids at least two years apart is best for the kids. However there is a distinct advantage for first-born kids. They are richer, smarter, and as if that’s not enough, year after year 90% of Harvard’s incoming freshmen are first-born. You can mitigate the impact of birth order on your second child by having three years between kids.

If you start when you are thirty-one, you can have two kids, three years apart, before you’re thirty-five. But this plan does not take into consideration that about 20% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. This means you have almost a 50% chance of having to go through three pregnancies to have two kids, which means you should start when you’re thirty.

If you want to have babies when you’re thirty, then you probably want to be married when you’re twenty-eight. This is good news because if you marry very young you’re more likely to get divorced, but the statistics get much better if you wait until you’re twenty-five. For a healthy marriage, experts think people should be married two or three years before they consider having children. A reasonable expectation is to meet someone, date for a couple of years, and get engaged with almost a year’s time to pull off a wedding. So you need to meet the person at age twenty-four.

So this means that it may make sense for men to work full-speed ahead on their career in their early twenties, but women cannot afford that. Women need to make time in their lives to search for a mate in the same systematic, focused way that women have been searching for careers in their early twenties. And don’t tell yourself you’re waiting until you know yourself better. Getting to know yourself is a lifelong process, and after age twenty-five, waiting to get married won’t decrease your chance of divorce.

The good news here is that a large body of research shows that you will gain more happiness by being married than by having a good job. Yes, you should not have to choose between a good job and marriage. But this column is not about what is fair or what is just. It is about what is real.

You have a biological clock that does not pay attention to issues of social justice. You cannot control your biological clock and you cannot control the workplace. But you can control where you spend your time and energy, and you should look hard for a husband early on. Line up the marriage first, then the career.

[Samseau]

The article sounds like it was written by a man.

Also, wasn't Penelope Trunk the same woman who showed her pictures of her "domestic violence" from her husband, with the bruises on her thigh, and then stayed with him regardless?

This chick had mad issues, can't believe she penned this.

[2Wycked]

Welp, my comments are now going into moderation, Took 20 minutes.

[2Wycked]

(08-23-2013 02:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The article sounds like it was written by a man.

Also, wasn't Penelope Trunk the same woman who showed her pictures of her "domestic violence" from her husband, with the bruises on her thigh, and then stayed with him regardless?

This chick had mad issues, can't believe she penned this.

Yeah, same woman.

Check out the feminine imperative in the comments, calling her crazy and off her rocker. Apparently, it is cool to use the fact your BF beats you as proof you are crazy if you are a woman defending the "decisions" you have made in life.

Whew, some of those personal attacks are vicious. And they say RoK is horribly misogynistic.

[kosko]

The comments are great.

So much bitter and scorched hearts in there:

Quote:

Eatyourheartout • 3 days ago −
I'm sorry, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and I can see what this woman is getting at but seriously. What a way to get your point across. Idiotic title. I am about to turn 34, I met the man of my dreams and sadly I wasn't the woman of his. I would love to have married him and could think of nothing better than getting to share the rest of my life with him and have a family ( I get what the fuss is about now) It took me 32 years to find him I'm not optimistic that another of his caliber will cross my path before my biological clock decides time is up. Forgive me though, for not crying into my pillow every night because I might
remain single and babyless. I actually have plans for my life and
ambitions I hope to achieve which will actually be more of a challenge than just getting hitched and/or knocked up. There is actually more to life and the world has enough babies! We women in our 30's are fully aware of the choice that might get made for us by the time we're 40 but does that mean we should settle, or make our life about finding a partner and having babies? I see married women and wonder sometimes why not me? but somehow I don't think desperately seeking a man before my time runs out is going to help. Stop making us feel worse, and stop making 20 somethings feel it's what life is all about.

The fact a women would even type her life as being fulfilled with a bunch of useless money and trips to Cuba and no means to carrying on her bloodline is pathetic.

You go across the globe and the female understands her most important thing and most power thing she can do is bring forward life. I can't wrap my head around how western women are so selfish to not understand that.


Oh well....

[Basil Ransom]

"The article sounds like it was written by a man.

Also, wasn't Penelope Trunk the same woman who showed her pictures of her "domestic violence" from her husband, with the bruises on her thigh, and then stayed with him regardless?

This chick had mad issues, can't believe she penned this."

In my experience, some of the craziest chicks I've met or fucked were pretty 'red pill.' Maybe a combination of intelligence and not giving a fuck, so they have no problem being honest about the way life works. I fucked this ginger telling me she hates feminists, an incredible crazy lay. It's the well-adjusted upper middle class SWPL white girls who eat up the conventional wisdom the most, who are totally committed to polite delusions.

[scorpion]

(Intro: Damn, I didn't realize how dramatic this post ended up until I finished and re-read it. I now feel it should be accompanied by some equally dramatic music for full effect. Play the video below while you read the rest of the post.)

The simple math breakdown she does provides a quick and easy explanation for Western demographic decline. If a woman is to reliably reproduce at replacement rate (two or more children) then she needs to meet her husband by age 24 at the latest. Think of how many 24 year old year old women you know who are married or engaged. Not many. And among the educated and affluent, the number is even smaller. The only women reproducing above the replacement rate these days are the poor, uneducated, unmarried ones pumping out bastard children left and right on the taxpayer dime. Meanwhile, the women who we desperately need to reproduce are spending their most fertile years partying, slaving away in some bullshit job and riding the cock carousel with reckless abandon. By the time Mother Nature brutally slaps them with a reality check around 30, it's already too late. They will be lucky to push a single, sickly child out of their battle-worn vaginas, their cervixes having been hammered into near-oblivion by a decade-long dick parade.

This is the reason that Feminism (and progressivism in general) represents nothing less than an existential threat to Western civilization. Feelings may be cloudy, but math does not lie. If our women are not reproducing at replacement rate, our numbers will decline relative to more fertile populations, such as those in the Islamic world. After just a few generations of this, the West as we know it will cease to exist. Allowing Western women to run out of control, completely abdicating their natural duties as wives and mothers is the failure and disgrace of our fathers and grandfathers. The great question posed to Western men today is whether we will simply take advantage of this failure to secure ourselves easy access to casual sex with the horde of slatterns it has produced, or whether we will attempt to reverse the situation before it becomes too late.

This is truly a pivotal time to be alive as a man in the West. The very existence of future generations is at stake. As much as we would like it to be, it is no longer simply about us and the pleasures of our own lives. Posterity, or what's left of it, will judge us for our choice, with the knowledge that we were the last generation of men who were positioned to arrest the trend of decline before it became irreversible. They will know it was we who stood at the turning point of history, who were chosen by destiny and providence to reap the harvest of the masculine renaissance we call the manosphere, which in actuality is nothing more than the re-discovery of the ancient and eternal truths that have guided mankind from the beginning, but which were intentionally erased from our culture by the progressive agenda. This forbidden knowledge is our power, and the future depends on how we use it. If we are content to harvest the fruits of the red pill for our personal gratification and amusement, the future will rightfully curse us as craven, narcissistic scoundrels who willingly abandoned their civilization and its future for the price of some cheaply acquired pussy. No better than some corpulent hog who eats herself to death while her children starve. The alternative is to make a stand, and though even then we may ultimately be defeated, it will at least be said that when history beckoned and the skies grew dark, we answered the call.

Rome is burning. Will we continue to fiddle, or form a bucket line?

[Blaster]

(08-23-2013 02:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The article sounds like it was written by a man.

Also, wasn't Penelope Trunk the same woman who showed her pictures of her "domestic violence" from her husband, with the bruises on her thigh, and then stayed with him regardless?

This chick had mad issues, can't believe she penned this.

Penelope Trunk has a history of dispensing intellectually honest advice about work and careers. Reading her blog I see a pattern of "reads information, draws logical conclusions, shares them" that is largely absent from most mainstream feminist writing where the conclusions are all pre-determined and facts are always twisted to fit narratives.

Granted, there's also a pattern of "spends two-thirds of the time talking about herself", but then she does write for a female audience.

[MikeCF]

Penelope Trunk is a head case but her thinking is far more red pill than any of the blog groupies that just arrived to the manosphere.

[N°6]

The abortionists never mention that it is mostly the firstborn that gets thrown into the fire. That's usually the strongest offspring which is why the ancient cults sacrificed the firstborn to the gods and gave them the first fruits of the harvest.

[Samseau]

(08-23-2013 03:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(Intro: Damn, I didn't realize how dramatic this post ended up until I finished and re-read it. I now feel it should be accompanied by some equally dramatic music for full effect. Play the video below while you read the rest of the post.)

The simple math breakdown she does provides a quick and easy explanation for Western demographic decline. If a woman is to reliably reproduce at replacement rate (two or more children) then she needs to meet her husband by age 24 at the latest. Think of how many 24 year old year old women you know who are married or engaged. Not many. And among the educated and affluent, the number is even smaller. The only women reproducing above the replacement rate these days are the poor, uneducated, unmarried ones pumping out bastard children left and right on the taxpayer dime. Meanwhile, the women who we desperately need to reproduce are spending their most fertile years partying, slaving away in some bullshit job and riding the cock carousel with reckless abandon. By the time Mother Nature brutally slaps them with a reality check around 30, it's already too late. They will be lucky to push a single, sickly child out of their battle-worn vaginas, their cervixes having been hammered into near-oblivion by a decade-long dick parade.

This is the reason that Feminism (and progressivism in general) represents nothing less than an existential threat to Western civilization. Feelings may be cloudy, but math does not lie. If our women are not reproducing at replacement rate, our numbers will decline relative to more fertile populations, such as those in the Islamic world. After just a few generations of this, the West as we know it will cease to exist. Allowing Western women to run out of control, completely abdicating their natural duties as wives and mothers is the failure and disgrace of our fathers and grandfathers. The great question posed to Western men today is whether we will simply take advantage of this failure to secure ourselves easy access to casual sex with the horde of slatterns it has produced, or whether we will attempt to reverse the situation before it becomes too late.

This is truly a pivotal time to be alive as a man in the West. The very existence of future generations is at stake. As much as we would like it to be, it is no longer simply about us and the pleasures of our own lives. Posterity, or what's left of it, will judge us for our choice, with the knowledge that we were the last generation of men who were positioned to arrest the trend of decline before it became irreversible. They will know it was we who stood at the turning point of history, who were chosen by destiny and providence to reap the harvest of the masculine renaissance we call the manosphere, which in actuality is nothing more than the re-discovery of the ancient and eternal truths that have guided mankind from the beginning, but which were intentionally erased from our culture by the progressive agenda. This forbidden knowledge is our power, and the future depends on how we use it. If we are content to harvest the fruits of the red pill for our personal gratification and amusement, the future will rightfully curse us as craven, narcissistic scoundrels who willingly abandoned their civilization and its future for the price of some cheaply acquired pussy. No better than some corpulent hog who eats herself to death while her children starve. The alternative is to make a stand, and though even then we may ultimately be defeated, it will at least be said that when history beckoned and the skies grew dark, we answered the call.

Rome is burning. Will we continue to fiddle, or form a bucket line?

If Penelope Trunk is our biggest ally in the fight to restore western fertility rates, then I'm 99.99% sure America is fucked.

[N°6]

Not sure if this is true but I have read that no identifiable group has recovered from a fertility rate which fell below 1.7 children per woman.

[N°6]

(08-23-2013 03:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Rome is burning. Will we continue to fiddle, or form a bucket line?

It used to bother me. It gave me a sense of responsibility and powerlessness. The worst of mixes. It also opened me up to accusations of being some sort of "...ist" for having what I felt were genuine concerns.

Now I feel like the Roman who is watching the inevitable decline from the sidelines.

When Rome fell, the mantle went to Constantinople. With the decline of the modern West, the mantle will go to Orthodox Russia which Germany will probably ally itself with.

[pump_and_romance]

(08-23-2013 03:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Meanwhile, the women who we desperately need to reproduce

Who desperately needs them to reproduce? I don't.

[Icepasian]

(08-24-2013 04:36 AM)pump_and_romance Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 03:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Meanwhile, the women who we desperately need to reproduce

Who desperately needs them to reproduce? I don't.

Unless you're above the age of 50, you do. The economy needs at the very least, a stable population for it to maintain its current level and/or growth. The young population is what creates the new social norms, most of the new technologies, and businesses as well. I hope your portfolio doesn't plan on the stock market climbing forever. The nations of the developed(and to-be developed) world from the US to Germany to China to Australia are going to have front row tickets to the Fall of Rome. See what happened to Japan in terms of GDP growth after it hit the demographic wall around 1990: http://ndainfo.files.wordpress.com/2009/...pangdp.jpg

That's exactly what is happening in the West and will happen worldwide. So unless you hate money and a high standard of living, you will be adversely affected by the lack of reproduction. This also leaves out the reality that with fewer young women, many young men will be incels because of older men taking women of their generation while the population pyramid is upside down. This raises the value of women and makes them increasingly scarce with each negative-growth generation that follows.

We've saved our house from the fires of demographic explosion by creating a flood. Now that flood(demographic implosion) is going to do what the fire didn't.

[Lord_Perseus]

(08-23-2013 03:28 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

"The article sounds like it was written by a man.

Also, wasn't Penelope Trunk the same woman who showed her pictures of her "domestic violence" from her husband, with the bruises on her thigh, and then stayed with him regardless?

This chick had mad issues, can't believe she penned this."

In my experience, some of the craziest chicks I've met or fucked were pretty 'red pill.' Maybe a combination of intelligence and not giving a fuck, so they have no problem being honest about the way life works. I fucked this ginger telling me she hates feminists, an incredible crazy lay. It's the well-adjusted upper middle class SWPL white girls who eat up the conventional wisdom the most, who are totally committed to polite delusions.

Does make you wonder if swallowing the red pill fucks with a woman's sanity. Damn shame if it's the case, sorta undermines our side if the only ones who get any attention for their sharing of RP wisdom are batshit crazy

[Lord_Perseus]

(08-24-2013 03:01 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 03:38 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Rome is burning. Will we continue to fiddle, or form a bucket line?

It used to bother me. It gave me a sense of responsibility and powerlessness. The worst of mixes. It also opened me up to accusations of being some sort of "...ist" for having what I felt were genuine concerns.

Now I feel like the Roman who is watching the inevitable decline from the sidelines.

When Rome fell, the mantle went to Constantinople. With the decline of the modern West, the mantle will go to Orthodox Russia which Germany will probably ally itself with.

You say it like it's a bad thing I find myself increasingly cheering for Putin. If Comrade Barack is the good guy then i'm rooting for the dude in the black hat

[pump_and_romance]

Icepasian: All those reasons seem abstract, subjective, and likely to be up for debate.

In terms of something real, concrete, and immediate, I can't think of any reason why I, personally, desperately need sorority chicks to reproduce. How about cutting back on overpopulation for a change?

[Damedius]

(08-25-2013 01:18 AM)pump_and_romance Wrote:  

Icepasian: All those reasons seem abstract, subjective, and likely to be up for debate.

In terms of something real, concrete, and immediate, I can't think of any reason why I, personally, desperately need sorority chicks to reproduce. How about cutting back on overpopulation for a change?

On top of that the economy is global now. So you can have a business online that isn't impacted as much by one country. You can also relocate to a place where the population isn't taking a nosedive.

[horn]

There are many 24-26yr olds reproducing. Just because you don't know many personally is irrelevant. Look up 'self-selection' bias. It's not like having your firstborn at 28 is significantly worse, either.

[samsamsam]

(08-25-2013 09:59 AM)horn Wrote:  

There are many 24-26yr olds reproducing. Just because you don't know many personally is irrelevant. Look up 'self-selection' bias. It's not like having your firstborn at 28 is significantly worse, either.

Not to be a total dick, but what quality are the people that are reproducing at that age? I am just curious. Yes we need people of all types but are those 24-26 good decision type people who will raise solid children who will contribute or those that will make dumb decisions like their parents? Though I am not a big fan of all that the "elites" have done to the US, we still need intelligent people who will achieve something with their lives.

I am not saying college is everything (it isn't - it is what you do with your life that matters). But most, not all, "successful" by society standards go to college. Based on what little I know, they tend to wait on having kids.

[Blaster]

(08-25-2013 09:59 AM)horn Wrote:  

There are many 24-26yr olds reproducing. Just because you don't know many personally is irrelevant. Look up 'self-selection' bias. It's not like having your firstborn at 28 is significantly worse, either.

It's true there are many people still having babies. In a country of 300 million you can find a lot of anything. The point is there are substantially less than in the past.

And there's ways to mitigate self-selection bias-- for example what's the likely fertility rate of your graduating class? What about the top 10% of your graduating class? Top 20%?

[Excelsior]

(08-25-2013 01:18 AM)pump_and_romance Wrote:  

How about cutting back on overpopulation for a change?

There is no overpopulation to cut back on.

[pump_and_romance]

(08-26-2013 12:14 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-25-2013 01:18 AM)pump_and_romance Wrote:  

How about cutting back on overpopulation for a change?

There is no overpopulation to cut back on.

Tell that to India

[nmmoooreland20]

Quote:

Unless you're above the age of 50, you do. The economy needs at the very least, a stable population for it to maintain its current level and/or growth.

Alternatively, technology.