Birth rates arent declining because of a left wing ideological agenda you moron.
Its because most young people these days are deep in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and have to make the decision between having children or a desirable standard of living.
The utter selfishness of the boomer generation has completely fucked us, and now they shame us for not owning our own homes and giving them grandchildren before we even turn 30.
So why is Africa above replacement rate? It's not about money. Women in rich countries with freedom of choice and no social rail guards are bad for society.
This has never happened in the first world. Don't define quasi-slavery as employment. The human condition has always necessitated either work or charity.
You can just have kids in the first world and they won't be in the conditions you described. It doesn't matter how many kids Africans have, their conditions are because of who they are, not their birth rates.
The OP tweet is just confusing to me - who was brainwashing her for 50 years? Was her pharmacist extolling the childfree lifestyle every time she went to re-up her birth control?
Take accountability for the same decision you were making for 30+ years.
Then thats her fault. How stupid do you have to be to blame an outside source when at any point you could have..idk..thought for yourself for once? Making this a right or left thing is just silly at this point. People need to just start taking some accountability and stop pretending like its everyone else's fault. No one forced her to take bc for that long.
Throughout history the people who have had the most children have been the poor. And that seems to be the case today. The poor are the people having children while middle class are not.
A big reason for this is the historical trend is that in the past children were an economic asset to their parents because they could get working at like 8, but nowadays they're a huge financial burden
No, it's because teen pregnancy is practically non-existent. Which is a good thing. We shouldn't have teen moms. The number of people actively choosing not to have kids because they don't want them hasn't changed since the 1950s you ghoul.
For recent birth cohorts in developed countries like the US, a study on lifetime fertility suggests the national decline is primarily driven by women having fewer children, rather than remaining childless.
Contribution to Decline in Cohort Fertility Percentage
Lower Fertility Among Parous Women ("Child-Fewer") >60\%
Increase in Childlessness <40\%
The decline in the US TFR is overwhelmingly driven by the drop in births to younger women, despite small increases for women over 35.
Age Group Trend Since 2007 Contribution to Decline
Ages 15–29 Largest and steepest decline in fertility rates. Primary Driver of the total fertility rate decline.
Ages 30–34 Declined significantly, but not as steeply as the younger cohorts. Major Contributor to the total decline.
Ages 35+ Slight increases in fertility rates (reflecting delayed childbearing). These increases were not nearly enough to offset the massive declines among younger women.
...
The data on Completed Fertility for women aged 45–50 (those who have largely finished childbearing) in the US shows that the two-child family is the most common size.
Based on recent analyses (e.g., 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey), the distribution of children ever born to women aged 45–50 is as follows:
Number of Children Ever Born Percent of Women (Ages 45–50)
2 Children \approx 36\%
1 Child \approx 18\%
3 Children \approx 19\%
4+ Children (More) \approx 12\%
0 Children (Childless) \approx 15\%
Key Takeaways
Two is the Mode: Having exactly two children is the most common outcome, representing the plurality of women in this age group.
The "Squeezed Middle" Effect: The data supports the idea that the decline in fertility is primarily due to women having fewer large families (4+ children) compared to past generations, which contributes to the perception of the "squeezed middle" in terms of children.
More Than Two: If you look at having more than two children (3+ children), this accounts for about 31\% of women in this age range (19\% + 12\%).
Childless Rate: The percentage of women aged 45–50 who are childless has held relatively steady (and even slightly decreased for this age group) compared to younger cohorts who are seeing a sharp rise in childlessness.
From Gemini
Tldr: there is delayed childbirth for women pursuing education and careers, which reduces the chances of 2nd children.
Sure. But they're empirically happier and it does offer a seemingly impossible hurdle to the unsupportable idea that people literally can't afford kids. No, that absolutely can afford kids. They're just making the choice not to have them because they want the lifestyle where they spend their time and money on themselves. The people least able to afford kids are the most successful at raising families. And their kids are also overwhelmingly (empirically) more likely to out earn them each generation.
I liked the part where they called those who
felt they couldn’t afford to have children as selfish. Their proof was that their are children alive that parents can’t afford? Which then goes on to say those parents are the most successful at raising families.
Those children also end up earning more than their parents? Is this the new psyop?
I mean, when your entire argument is "I feel kids are expensive" meanwhile all measurable data points in the other direction, yeah, I can see why you'd have to call it a psyop.
Poor people have more kids. People with kids are happier. Virtually all kids end up out earning their parents. This has been true in every generation in the US and today is no different. And the poorer the parents, the more likely this is to be true. Yes, this is inflation adjusted. No, you actually are just economically illiterate and don't know any of the social studies data. And this isn't just some cherrypicked shit, you'd be hard pressed to find any data saying otherwise.
And that's you using the word selfish. I never said that. It's certainly self-centered, but I think I'd rather people with your worldview not reproduce so I certainly wouldn't criticize it.
He's someone who blocked the people who challenge his posts. Dunno if I can even post this, since I'm responding to a chain that he started.
Originally came back because this mans behavior is unusual to me and I think I've realized something, other people are surely overestimating the difficulty of raising a child to maturity but this guy I think might be one of those people who regard their own children the same way most people regard their pets; rather than feeling responsible for raising a responsible adult and all the challenges that entails, he may just see them as an accessory to his life. I realized this from one of his posts which I can't see now that he's blocked me. Very convenient for the side that is usually groaning about free speech! They want free speech for them and silence for anyone else, whereas libs just refuse to give monetary support to what they disagree with, usually (as evidence of their lack of coordination, it seems that dozens of libleft commentators actually individually paid Jordan Peterson 400 dollars to see what his 'university' offers, which as expected was just slick videos from unqualified experts with no exams).
Not something this completely understood by everyone and easy to verify. Never comply with a bad faith request like this. I can read down thread you know it's true too.
Dad of three here - my evidence wakes me up too early every morning, shits in its own pants, can’t feed itself, is responsible for 90% of the bruises I wind up with, and has recently decided that a series of shrill noises is a great way to get some attention.
Good parents do put their kids to work with chores by 8 years old.
My friends 8 year old girl does her own laundry, cooks, can mow the lawn, mop the floors, dust, picks up dog poop, and gets themselves ready for school.
That kid is an asset to the family, not a burden. On 2 separate visits she brought me eggs and crepes totally on her own with no help. I was amazed.
Yes, but it's a complicated issue. People like myself waited until 40 to have a kid, and I am in a much, much better place financially than my parents were when they had kids.
However, raising an individual child is much more expensive now and I spent my 30s accustomed to going out with friends, traveling, going to restaurants, etc. I also spent a lot of that time working on my house, which id now hate to move out of (esp since its almost doubled in price in that time).
So having a 2nd child seems pretty daunting to me, even though technically we can afford it. A 3rd child is absolutely out of the question.
So best case you've got 2 college educated people reproducing below replacement level.
I feel like we were on the last chopper out of Nam and anyone younger than me got absolutely fucked.
Poor people tend to have a lot of family help, and I mean this is no disrespectful way, but lower standards. I dont want to deny my child an ivy league education if he's smart enough for it. For poor people theyre elated if their kids graduate a shitty public high school. They dont see additional kids as fighting for finite resources.
No matter how much money you have, if your parents had you young and were active, you had way better childhood and bond with parents than your child can ever hope to have.
I am not only speaking about not having as much energy in your 40 than in your 20 (thats why many shitty parents moan that they are tired: of course you are, you are too old for this). Older parents are also way more risk averse. But more importantly those milestones later in life. Graduation? Maybe, you might be healthy enough in your 60. Wedding? No chance, you will be dead already. Enjoying your grandchild and being important support for your kid? In your dreams.
Dumbest shit ive ever read. Im in better shape and health than my dad was at 30. I also wont have to feed my kid macaroni and cut up hot dogs for lunch. He will have much better nutrition and better access to things.
My parents got married too young and didnt know how to get along, I had to grow up with them fighting all the time until they got divorced. My wife and I were together 17 years before having a kid and have been through all the shit first. My dad wasnt at my graduation so if im 60 at his so fucking what? Im planning on retiring when he graduates high school so I can spend time with him and give him the support he needs. I didnt even get a graduation present from my dad.
But im a whole 10 years older! Go fuck yourself retard.
Sure but that’s down to individual preference as opposed to capitalism. And trust me when I say there are a fuck ton of issues with capitalism, particularly this unregulated hellscape we’ve been going towards.
Capitalism influences preferences. For instance college was never not an option for me, and I graduated into a horrible recession so I went to grad school for 3 more years. Didn't start my career until 28 with an awful paying job. Needed a down-payment large enough to buy my dad's old 5 bedroom house. Had roommates for 5 years to help with mortgage. Delayed having a child by at least 8 years.
Now costs have inflated so much I am nervous about retirement, even though on paper im doing well. The amount of control that corporations have on being able to squeeze every last dollar out of people is very alarming. Once an industry implodes itself they will move on to the next thing, after a government bailout. Im really hoping to get to a point where if the world is fucked I can just let my kid not have to worry about earning a paycheck and I can leave him my house.
Sure. It influences preferences for some people, especially middle class, white people (because again, poor people are having children at a rate that outpaces the middle class). But to what degree? If you want to have kids that have a life better than you, or even at the level you had (vacations, nice clothes, good healthy food) that’s not going to be feasible the way it was before. The boomers running the capitalist society we live in now have seen to that. But it is also undeniable that those kids would live in comfort only dreamt of be the generations that preceded the baby boomers.
I’d also add, that merely blaming capitalism is absurdly reductive and unhelpful. Another massive issue that nobody seems to want to mention is how isolating modern society is, with the countless distractions and social media. If you’re a young person of childbearing age, where the fuck do you even meet people? The bar? Young people don’t go there. Church? Ditto. Public parks? Everyone’s in their own worlds on their phones doomscrolling. There are an absurd number of young men in their 20s who have never even had sex. And that’s not down to being tied down by a job, or concern for the future.
So yeah capitalism undoubtedly has an influence on low birth rates. But so does the very nature of society. Also who knows how much of low birth rates are down to microplastics (which I guess could be tied to capitalism but plastic waste also gets generated by other industrial nations that are less unregulated capitalistic).
My point being this is a very complex issue with numerous factors and it’s idiotic and unhelpful to lay it all on one thing.
I wasnt saying its only capitalism, but the lack of spaces and social interaction could also be blamed a lot on capitalism. Its much of the result of all the tech companies being publicly traded. Look at how much more 'social' social media was before you could buy Facebook (meta) stock.
It's because what makes poor people poor is poor personal planning.
The middle class defines itself by being able to climb.
Actually the poor also make use of social capital, reaching out for help, whereas the middle class has internalized Thatcher's reality: 'there is no such thing as society', and so they have to take care of themselves with maximal regard for personal safety.
When they stop being safe, or when it's no longer possible, that's when the guillotines come out.
If op wants more poor people, that problem will solve itself.
If you're literally asking, it's because the middle class see the bare minimum floor of having a child as like providing for every single one of little Timmy's desires like summer camp and tons of new toys and after school activities and soccer practice and a neverending schedule of play dates and piano lessons and $400,000 saved for private school and blah blah. Whereas the poor weren't planning on doing all that shit anyway so it's basically just more food cost.
Yeah but I'm saying so many of the middle class have been conditioned to have this idea that you have to do and buy every single thing for your kid or else you're a failure as a parent, whereas much of the truly poor are just like "guess we're having another, gotta buy more food soon"
Well yeah that's part of what I mean. Many in the middle class are like holy shit if I want to have a kid I have to do all this stuff and it costs literally a million dollars. Whereas many of the poorest are just like "I guess the food budgets gonna go up"
I think having such a cavalier attitude toward producing children is grossly irresponsible. Children don't need every little thing they ask for, but they need more than to just be kept alive.
Honestly I think all they need is to be taught how to be resilient, curious, social, thoughtful and resourceful, and the rest will take care of itself.
A lot of high earning millennials aren't having children or are only having one and that's more because they have literally no time and no energy because it's been entirely monopolized by their boss and landlords, and by the time their future is certain, they have absolutely no energy left at the end of the day for another kid or one at all, or even time to find a relationship and unwind. They have simply aged out of having multiple kids.
It's been found that professional high earners ironically make the worst investors, choosing maximal safety over gains.
For work, they are already working towards their careers. For food, in many parts it has been made illegal to have community gardens, much less growing something in your apartment (mold and feces damage), and for time and energy, that belongs to someone else now.
The poor, as has been observed, don't bother to teach these skills if they aren't actively teaching the opposite.
All that op is doing is being annoying - but who knows, maybe they'll be annoying enough to awaken some who are asleep.
... Actually I think I just outed myself.
The kids need to be taught how to be resilient, curious, social, thoughtful and resourceful, as well as when to gamble and when not, because there are no sure things and you always have to make a Bayesian estimation, like is a favorable or dis favorable outcome more than 50% likely, which is a little more solid than just an educated guess.
It's actually because the middle class define themselves by being able to climb. The poor who have kids don't seem to plan at all, believing their situation is hopeless, and so entrusted to a higher power if considered at all. That's kind of a big part of what makes them poor.
It's just more difficult for the climbers now, and it's hard to discern who is worth reproducing with and thus who is worth the sacrifice. Some types simply cannot be trusted.
The issue is that the middle class is trying to build for their own futures and it's not easy to find others who are worthy. If the people are not worthy and the system is not worthy then like the Jews of masada they would rather let themselves be extinguished than taken advantage of. Hopefully they will pursue other solutions before then. Historically, they have.
Luigi isn't loved exclusively for his good looks...
Well those childless weirdos can have their dollars and I’ll have the eternal happiness of when my kids run at me when I get home from work and give me the biggest hugs.
You can’t have dual incomes (as easily) with two kids. It’s just cheaper not to have kids, especially early in your careers when you aren’t earning as much.
Doesnt really matter. Responsible father, mainly young one, often doubles or even triples his income because of child. Exactly because you can't count on dual income.
From personal experience, people with children earn way more than childless ones. Because people without children are often content, exactly because of dual income. People with children try their hardest to provide for their family.
And of course, I am talking only about reaponsible people.
And I’m saying that people choosing not to have kids are partly (if not largely) doing so to set themself up for a better financial situation later in life
It actually does. There's even a causative link between having kids and earning more. It doesn't make sense until you think about human psychology and social dynamics. Also your kids are a better retirement plan than social security and even with that factored in they're overwhelmingly likely to out earn out and live a materially wealthier life than you even while assisting you in your old age.
If people wanted kids, they’d have them. There’s far too many people on Reddit bragging about their $300k/year tech jobs and their funko pop collections while also proclaiming themselves to be proudly childfree to pretend like economic concerns are the only issue here (also poor people have more kids than affluent people).
I never understood this mentality of trying to make as much money as possible and being child free at the same time. It all boils down to selfishness, and that isnt a great trait.
Imagine making all that money and collecting all those things only to have it go to the state when you die.
Or consider anon that something called a will exists that allows you to legally designate those collections, the house, cars, and money to whoever you want. You act like these people don’t have nieces, nephews, younger siblings, friends with kids, etc. they can leave their worldly possessions to.
Men are so silly sometimes. You ask people to imagine then repeat the most boring, unimaginative comment I know you read on X or Reddit a hundred times instead of using your own brain to think.
Problem is kids are expensive. And as soon as ones born your dual income halved and your expenses go up. So what was previously a comfortable life can turn into one that's paycheck to paycheck just to stay afloat
It's pretty new, like the last couple of decades. It's getting increasingly expensive to own a home on a single income. Then childcare is so expensive it's hardly worth having the extra income because most of it is swallowed by childcare anyway.
My wife and live pretty comfortable lives and don't really stress about money and are set to pay the house off in 10 years. If we lose an income for realistically 5-6 years before she can go back to part time, it actually works out to 20 years to pay off the mortgage, assuming she can get a job that pays as well as she currently is.
I love seeing those posts where someone says " I've handed out 1000 resumes and haven't got a single call back" Whenever I check post history it's some dude bragging that he makes 100k a year doing nothing, as if his company isn't going to notice after a year or so.
Yeah this is really what it is. I got pregnant unexpectedly and the first thought I had was there is absolutely no way I can afford to have and raise another human being no matter how badly I want to. It’s really bleak and fucked me up. There were other factors but I digress
This is such a lie.
There has been a birth rate problem since the 70s.
Then explain why during the 90s when the economy was at its peak was there still a low birth rate.
Instead of lying about the reasons be honest about it cause it all boils down to i don't want to change my lifestyle and I care to much of the opinions of others.
Then explain the great depression was there a birthing crisis during that time?
Contraceptive pill wasn't available during the great depression. To say nothing of IUDs and shit. Condoms existed but weren't exactly mainstream and cost money.
And "not wanting to change my lifestyle" isn't like, sacrificing funko pops or whatever. It's the difference between not really stressing about money and having some savings vs stressing about minor expenses and living in fear of losing my job and home. The lost income from a single earner exponentially increases the length of time before I can retire. 5-6 years now adds about 10 years to my mortgage, that's without considering the added expense from the child itself.
That's before you've even considered things like having interrupted sleep and spending your free time going to parks and shit instead of fun stuff you'd rather be doing. Doesn't help that I have 4 much younger siblings and I am very aware of the work involved.
And tbh if I cared about the opinion of others I'd be more inclined to have kids.
I want them at some point but given it's so easy to choose not to have kids it's hard to actually make that decision and take the plunge. So I'm just kicking the can down the road and eventually the choice will be made for me.
Imagine thinking you can compare depression era America or 'Third World' birth rates to modern day 'First World' western life.
Theres clearly more factors to consider than wealth alone, but I would guess that the main reason birth rates are low in urbanised 'first world' areas among the middle classes, is because they've crunched the numbers and realised they simply cant afford them, not because they read a book written by a wokie feminist.
It’s not a left wing ideological agenda, but across the board the more women get rights and responsibilities the less likely they are to have children, which is the most important factor along with industrialization, not economic incentives. Africa is the poorest continent by far yet has the fastest birth rate by far.
As much as I wish I was paid more, higher pay doesn’t increase the birth rate.
The one and only way to increase the birth rate (excluding immigration) is to limit higher education to women. For good reason, this will obviously never happen, but it’s simply the only correlation researchers have been able to find.
In order to sustain the West, we must continue to import bootyful Latinas and I thank God daily for it.
You cannot compare the societal cultures of the poorest people in the poorest countries to that of the western world.
The poorest people in the poorest countries will endure a standard of living that people in the west would avoid like the plague.
Im making the argument why western or 'first world' birthrates are falling. Its not as simple as 'because wamen'.
Many women would happily become full time mums but simply are unable to stop working and reply on a single income. Wealth disparity has made parenthood unappealing.
I didn't say poorest people in the poorest countries. I said the poorest countries and the poorest people in the richest countries.
Whatever way you slice it, you can't avoid the fact that less money=more babies. And you're whole "it's too unaffordable to have kids" narrative goes out the window.
what you say is partially true, but also a huge part of it this
a desirable standard of living
for the newer social media brainwashed generations, this is a huge factor. they prefer being able to post about their vacation/restaurant/party/rolex/purse/shoes than spending that on children.
Me and my partner literally cannot afford to do any of that anyway, regardless of children.
But im from the UK where wages have been fucked since 2008. Having children on an average UK salary without a nearby support system of grandparents etc is economic suicide.
(Me and my partner do not have reliable families we could turn to. We would be wholly on our own and scraping by to afford childcare.)
I try to avoid generalizations but god damn did the boomer generation, like a solid 75% of them at least, screw the rest of us the fuck over. I guess the seeds of this generational "fuck you, I got mine, were always there. Given the toxic combination of badly regulated capitalism and corruption and Evangelical Christians. Up until a couple years ago I thought we might still have time to course correct. Never have I wanted to be more wrong but all signs as far as I can tell point to: we're fucked.
Young people these days have been taught to be selfish and not take responsibility for their own problems. They are conditioned to believe that they deserve all the nice things in life without working hard for them.
Why are you replying to a screenshot and calling it a moron? Slow?
Nigeria has the highest birth rates with the lowest gdp, money is not why people dont have children, its because they choose to live more comfortably rather than reproduce, and the whole point of the OOP is that this choice is usually wrong in hindsight, because they end up old and lonely, and despite everyone telling them as much they still do it, so we laugh at them
That doesn't match with the data. People don't have kids when kids would impede their personal and financial development.
Poor people have lots of kids because they don't expect promotions or buying a house whether they have them or not.
The middle classes don't have them any more because kids are a career killer for women and waiting longer to get kids means they get more security and financial independence in the long run. Back in the 60s middle class women didn't have careers so nothing was stopping them from having children.
My dad beat the crap out of me and I don't want kids so I don't beat the crap out of them. But yeah I'll wake up some day depressed I didn't have kids lol
We all have trauma, doesn’t necessarily mean you need to repeat it. In fact, you might do your damnedest to not repeat it because you know how horrible it was and you wouldn’t want to be the one doing it or receiving it, especially to an innocent child.
If you’re aware enough to realize this, why can’t you control it?
I am controlling it by not putting children in a position to be dependent on a person with substance abuse problems and a temper, something my parents could have bothered to do. I'm working on my issues in therapy but clearly you have no understanding of how trauma works if you think I can just choose to not lose control.
My dad's uncle bought a house in 1974 for 60 000 dollars. Quick inflation calculator says that would be 500 000 in today's dollars. I can't remember exactly but I know they sold it for somewhere between 1.4 and 2.2 million. The guy who bought it is gonna bulldoze it.
This….people seem to overlook the “today’s dollars” calculations…bought my first house in 1995 for 50k. That was a ton of money to me back then! I was only bringing home about 12k net dollars…
Compare your income and house costs 12k/50k to modern average city numbers 65k/500k. Couple that with the fact that the cost of living is also higher now.
Tough times but I feel like it could be worse. I am not hopeful that it will get better though.
Another thing that's often overlooked is not just the inflation calculation from x year to Y year but also the BUYING POWER OF $1 in year X vs Y.
For those not familiar I mean it's more than just the dollar value changing by itself.
The average cost of goods of various items have gone up significantly, cost of living has gone up and the avg income and minimum wage hasn't followed the same trend.
200 years ago people would have 5 children in a 1 room cabin with the hopes that 2 would survive. In modern day the richest countries are having the fewest kids and the poorest countries, mostly in Africa and India are having the most.
The strongest predictor/corollary for birth rates is not spending on sex ed or contraceptives, not price per carbohydrate or anything like that- the strongest predictor is wealth of nation divided per person, oft measured as gdp per capita. The strongest predictor across time and the largest samples is wealth- the richer a nation gets its birth rate always begins dropping. The effect is differential just as the gdp growth of nations is differential but the effect is always the same- \^money, vbabies.
Lots of theories as to why and there are probably factors that get in the way of this a little bit ranging from cultural to economic but the strongest and most accepted theory is urbanization, that is more people living in cities where all the wealth is generated and out of the countryside. In largely ruralized societies you have lots of kids- each kids is an extra hand for labor and also the infant mortality rate tends to be high so you need to try and get ahead of that- kids are a net asset. In the city jobs tend to be a lot more clerical than manual and there's more attention on the kids- each one of them quickly becomes a net liability both because they can't help with the job you're likely to have, (in addition to it likely being illegal to make them do so,) and the pesky availability of medicine, resources and medical expertise concentrated in the city means that infant mortality is decimated making each kid annoyingly long-lived. There's natural incentives to having less kids in urbanized living.
This is not helped by the weakening of real purchasing power, as you mentioned- people are also less inclined to have kids when they can barely cover rent, don't get me wrong- but the predominant large scale predictor is gdp and it's happening everywhere. The places that experienced rapid onset urbanization and economic development in the postwar period like japan and korea became the tip of the spear in this phenomenon but there are signs even parts of sub-saharan africa is experiencing this in its more developed areas like Botswana. (This is also, funnily enough, the main impetus originally behind China's infamous 'one-child' policy- it was putting the cart before the horse in the sense that if you exhibit the side effects of economically developed urbanized nations you could make an economically developed urbanized nation appear- this is now, like many things from the Great Leap Forward, biting them in the ass).
Point is at broadest scales the strongest trend is economic development inversely impacting birth rates, catastrophic as the economy seems from the layman's perspective. It's not clear that there is a lot that can buck the trend.
It might be helped by increasing the real purchasing power of the middle class, making people able to more afford kids. It might be helped by applying antidotes to liberal propaganda that deconstruct the nuclear family a la Shinzo Abe's ghost. I don't know.
But these are unlikely to buck or halt an otherwise global and consistent trend.
Should also mention the state of the world. Every week we have some unprecedented event happening politically or economically, or militarily, even medically! Its not a warm feeling idea to bring a child into so much uncertainty.
Even though human life has always been chaos, I feel like media bringing it to such attention all the time doesnt help. Maybe societal anxiety has risen in the last 100 years cause of it? Idk im just spitballing at this point.
If you go back 100 years you find subsistence farmers with too many kids to feed, and even today poor people are firing out kids, poverty doesn't stop people having kids, having other options for what to do with their life stops them
We've already seen plenty of angst from the older childless women. It's mostly confined to articles and whining for now. Thankfully women, especially old ones, just aren't that good at violence.
I've seen plenty of angst from women with children and I've seen plenty of nice and well-adjusted women with and without children. The fact is women go through a physical change called menopause in their late 40s and early 50s and some handle it better than others depending on things like their health, environmental factors and financial and emotional state. Women have a broad spectrum of types and personalities, just like men. OP is fucking stupid and has the lived experience of a dumb, flightless bird. The aptly named Dodo comes to mind. The dodo is fucking stupid, so, by all means, emulate the Dodo. We need more stupid people. There is a shortage and we wouldn't want to run out.
They're really good at voting and getting elected to HOA boards though. They can happily make everyone else's life miserable through social violence instead
I was gonna say, these women will badger people by being an annoying cog in every system as some pointless admin or potentially some rule maker/enforcer
The old childless hags vote for socialism and gibs because they instinctively know there's no kids and grandkids to look after them in their elderly years. Lots of rabid feminists in Europe also promote that shit to daughters of other women they despise.
Yeah I have had female dogs who have had puppies and female dogs who have not, and neither of them have had strange behaviour. Not to mention, did this guy forget nuns have existed for centuries, and the Vestal Virgins for centuries before that? Don’t you think that would have stopped if they ended up getting violent because of their oath of chastity?
Yeah its completely false. Worst thing that happens to them is pyometra which is an infection of the uterus, which can happen in any unspayed dog regardless of whether they get pregnant or not.
Which from what I understand is something that if not treated, and the only treatment being removal, will most likely kill them in a few days so it's not even something they experience long enough to make significant personality changes
a precursor infection of the uterus could be chronic before going into a critical stage but yes, its not smth that would last years or explain personality changes.
I'm not a vet and only speaking from experience in regards to the timespan available from when they first start showing physical symptoms, I was always told less than a week
You don't have to google this, but if you do, they will of course tell you it's a myth, but no one explains that it was "vets" looking to make money that made this up. So now you know why
Where im from, we call them "jamonas" which roughly translates to "female ham" and what the comment said is true except for the violence. They dont affect others, since its not really in women's nature to be overtly violent. They just turn into depressed alcoholic mega Karens.
And on Reddit popular page would be like “I am 50 and I don’t regret not having a child” with comments saving how op is intelligent and people with kids are wasting their life and showing some bull shit studies
It’s crazy how fast redditors will switch from “we shouldn’t have kids because the earth is too populated” to “we NEED a gazillion immigrants because our birthrates are collapsing”
Well, if we run with anons thought experiment for a minute, the women he’s describing could end up being the female equivalent of Saint Rodger - killing people because they envy what they can’t have.
no we wont. taking actions like that requires initiative, decisiveness, execution, preparation, the actual balls to carry it out.
what we will see is an influx of even more complaining, "support groups", suicide threats/attempts (but not actual suicides, thats also for men), etc. and societal resources having to be wasted to deal with these people. even more than what we do today, which is a shit ton.
...am I the only one here who notices that everything the Epstein Island flag poster listed as a symptom of not-pregnancy is also a symptom of pregnancy...?
What a retarded post. Even if dogs do that which idk , it makes me so mad when people try to say “because x happens to this animal if Must happen to humans as well” . And brainwashed to not have kids ? If anything the brainwashing would’ve to have kids. God I wish I had never wasted my time reading this dumbass post
A lot of the women I work I've worked with in the past, that never had children, usually had some pretty dysfunctional upbringing.
A lot of them grew up in very abusive and broken family structures. One said she knew about bail and commissary since she was a little girl. A few got physically and sexually abused.
Many have psychological issues and a lot are just as autistic as I am. A lot of women are less liked be into being child bearing tradwife mode when their internal workings are those of Temple Grandin. As for me, I'm surprised as hell I managed to keX ep a long term job and not end up on the streets a drug addict.
My last marriage crashed and burned, with me escaping childless. I heard my ex got remarried. As the years passes by, I've become so antisocial and awkward to the point I'm unable to get into another relationship.
As a childless middle age guy I already know I wouldn't have the fortified to raise a kid, so I can't even imagine being a woman putting your life on hold to carry a kid for almost a year, corporate through the mental and physical pain to birth it, then raise it.
Weird, I don't remember putting my actual name, Driver License number, social security number, banking account data, home address, work address, or what vehicle I drive on my post🤔
Lol This is only a discussion for the odd and disconnected underbelly of society. Unsocialized and social ostracized Men are obsessed with blaming women for all sorts of problems. Go up to a 30 year old women and try to convince them *they* are the problem with society because of reason X (Declining birth rates, divorce rates, not being "trad") lol, they will look at you like the complete dunce you are and just keep living their lives. Why don't women want to have children? Well a lot of them do, just not with you, probably because you're on 4chan regurgitating goofy dribble about needing volition to push through life and "The consequences of women and their decisions". Embarassing lol.
While I do think it’s getting worse as time goes on, I don’t think this is yet as much of an epidemic as 4chan thinks lol. Out of the probably 50+ grown women I know, only maybe 3 of them don’t have kids and also never plan to have them. All of the others have at least one kid or seriously plan on having one or more. I’m also in a conservative rural area so maybe that skews things.
Nationwide, Google suggests almost 30% of US childless adults never plan to have them, but I suspect that’s probably mostly men. That number has more than doubled since 2002 though, so it’s definitely becoming more mainstream.
I keep telling people that it really makes me sad that so many people willingly choose to not experience the unique sort of happiness of being a parent. One of the coolest, most rewarding things I've done in my life. Inb4 shutup feg
such a incel cope. women can never, ever match men when it comes being a absolute horrendous agent of pure evil.
that being said, women can always go for selective abortions and get only female children. a revenge of thousands of years of female child infanticide. i am surprised they haven't started doing it yet at a massive scale.
Women don't commit violent crime because it's not in their nature. Instead they get their cruelty fix from social manipulation within the power structure. Instead of beating you up, they cry on bluesky about how you said something racist and get malcontent troons to email bomb your workplace with demands to fire you. Or they become teachers to bully kids over nothing, or become DEI consultants to push game devs into destroying your hobby.
I’m sure most men would not continue having children with women like that after getting duped one time. Leading to them getting outpaced by non retarded women.
you only need around 10-20 percent of men to impregnate all women. if we could establish a system, where we could reward these men for their "contribution", let the first child be always a female, male can be second or third child, and let the rest of 80 percent of males die as lonely incels, voila, patriarchy no more. can't believe women haven't realised this.
maybe one day when science manages to devise a way to split and extract a single X chromosome from a sperm, the day patriarchy begins to collapse into extinction.
DickManning@reddit
Pretty sure most “Karen’s” are childless
zqmbgn@reddit
Data shows over 96% of school shooters are male
oldbutterface@reddit
Birth rates arent declining because of a left wing ideological agenda you moron.
Its because most young people these days are deep in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and have to make the decision between having children or a desirable standard of living.
The utter selfishness of the boomer generation has completely fucked us, and now they shame us for not owning our own homes and giving them grandchildren before we even turn 30.
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
So why is Africa above replacement rate? It's not about money. Women in rich countries with freedom of choice and no social rail guards are bad for society.
Foxar@reddit
Because its socially acceptable to have 6 kids who will work from moment they can do anything useful and have them support your ass.
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
This is better than your people dying out so you can work an office job.
Foxar@reddit
I feel bad for your children if you will have them
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
I think they'd rather be alive and do a little work than not exist.
"I want my kids to have a good chance at life! So I'll put off having them indefinitely so they don't even get a chance to be alive!"
Foxar@reddit
I rather not be born than to be born into quasi-slavery in barely survivable environment.
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
This has never happened in the first world. Don't define quasi-slavery as employment. The human condition has always necessitated either work or charity.
Foxar@reddit
What? We were talking about Africa and the replacement rate there. How's that first world?
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
You can just have kids in the first world and they won't be in the conditions you described. It doesn't matter how many kids Africans have, their conditions are because of who they are, not their birth rates.
antibread@reddit
Maternal education is tied closely to reproduction
I-cum-in-Spezs-Mouth@reddit
It's due to urbanization. The more urban a country is, the less children. It's been a well known and studied fact for a long time now.
Left wingers just like to LARP and say it's money. It's not and never has been
SirChasm@reddit
The OP tweet is just confusing to me - who was brainwashing her for 50 years? Was her pharmacist extolling the childfree lifestyle every time she went to re-up her birth control?
Take accountability for the same decision you were making for 30+ years.
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Schools, universities, TV, magazines, advertising, social media. Basically anything owned by people of diminutive headwear.
auntjomomma@reddit
Then thats her fault. How stupid do you have to be to blame an outside source when at any point you could have..idk..thought for yourself for once? Making this a right or left thing is just silly at this point. People need to just start taking some accountability and stop pretending like its everyone else's fault. No one forced her to take bc for that long.
Bum_King@reddit
I see you have never spoken with a woman.
auntjomomma@reddit
...I AM a woman. Thats an asinine comment to make. Lol
Bum_King@reddit
I’d try to explain to you what subreddit you’re in and why I made that comment, but it would probably go over your head.
auntjomomma@reddit
Nah, the jokes made in here are far funnier. Try harder, you basic champ.
Bum_King@reddit
I’m not here to make some mentally impaired woman laugh.
auntjomomma@reddit
Ill give it a 2/10. You need to do better. I can make up better shit. And im a woman.
Bum_King@reddit
You’ve already told us you’re a woman as if anyone cares, and we already know women are great at making up shit.
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
I'm naming the cause, not defending it.
baudmiksen@reddit
Cant be brainwashed if you don't have a brain
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Throughout history the people who have had the most children have been the poor. And that seems to be the case today. The poor are the people having children while middle class are not.
Curly_Fried_Mushroom@reddit
A big reason for this is the historical trend is that in the past children were an economic asset to their parents because they could get working at like 8, but nowadays they're a huge financial burden
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
The big reason is feminism and birth control.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
No, it's because teen pregnancy is practically non-existent. Which is a good thing. We shouldn't have teen moms. The number of people actively choosing not to have kids because they don't want them hasn't changed since the 1950s you ghoul.
netgrey@reddit
As bad as teen pregnancy seemed at the time, not reproducing your species turns out to be worse for society.
xinorez1@reddit
For recent birth cohorts in developed countries like the US, a study on lifetime fertility suggests the national decline is primarily driven by women having fewer children, rather than remaining childless.
Contribution to Decline in Cohort Fertility Percentage
Lower Fertility Among Parous Women ("Child-Fewer") >60\%
Increase in Childlessness <40\%
The decline in the US TFR is overwhelmingly driven by the drop in births to younger women, despite small increases for women over 35.
Age Group Trend Since 2007 Contribution to Decline
Ages 15–29 Largest and steepest decline in fertility rates. Primary Driver of the total fertility rate decline.
Ages 30–34 Declined significantly, but not as steeply as the younger cohorts. Major Contributor to the total decline.
Ages 35+ Slight increases in fertility rates (reflecting delayed childbearing). These increases were not nearly enough to offset the massive declines among younger women.
...
The data on Completed Fertility for women aged 45–50 (those who have largely finished childbearing) in the US shows that the two-child family is the most common size. Based on recent analyses (e.g., 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey), the distribution of children ever born to women aged 45–50 is as follows:
Number of Children Ever Born Percent of Women (Ages 45–50)
2 Children \approx 36\%
1 Child \approx 18\%
3 Children \approx 19\%
4+ Children (More) \approx 12\%
0 Children (Childless) \approx 15\%
Key Takeaways
Two is the Mode: Having exactly two children is the most common outcome, representing the plurality of women in this age group.
The "Squeezed Middle" Effect: The data supports the idea that the decline in fertility is primarily due to women having fewer large families (4+ children) compared to past generations, which contributes to the perception of the "squeezed middle" in terms of children.
More Than Two: If you look at having more than two children (3+ children), this accounts for about 31\% of women in this age range (19\% + 12\%).
Childless Rate: The percentage of women aged 45–50 who are childless has held relatively steady (and even slightly decreased for this age group) compared to younger cohorts who are seeing a sharp rise in childlessness.
From Gemini
Tldr: there is delayed childbirth for women pursuing education and careers, which reduces the chances of 2nd children.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
When people like OP exist, I don’t know if the species is worth saving
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
Stop projecting
You're not worth saving.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
Nah, I’m actually one of the good ones.
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
You don't determine your own worth.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
lol okay chud
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
Did it hurt you?
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
Cope and seethe
Amazonrazer@reddit
yeah the famously feminist state of Russia and South Korea lmfao you guys are delusional
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
You still see the trend I mentioned today tho in first world countries
Big__If_True@reddit
Nobody accused the poor people having tons of kids in 2026 of being smart
cplusequals@reddit
Sure. But they're empirically happier and it does offer a seemingly impossible hurdle to the unsupportable idea that people literally can't afford kids. No, that absolutely can afford kids. They're just making the choice not to have them because they want the lifestyle where they spend their time and money on themselves. The people least able to afford kids are the most successful at raising families. And their kids are also overwhelmingly (empirically) more likely to out earn them each generation.
Cerael@reddit
“Poor people are happier”
Someone has been sucking propogandas dick
cplusequals@reddit
"People with children are happier."
So much of today's discourse is just people pretending not to understand the point.
calibud@reddit
I liked the part where they called those who
felt they couldn’t afford to have children as selfish. Their proof was that their are children alive that parents can’t afford? Which then goes on to say those parents are the most successful at raising families.
Those children also end up earning more than their parents? Is this the new psyop?
cplusequals@reddit
I mean, when your entire argument is "I feel kids are expensive" meanwhile all measurable data points in the other direction, yeah, I can see why you'd have to call it a psyop.
Poor people have more kids. People with kids are happier. Virtually all kids end up out earning their parents. This has been true in every generation in the US and today is no different. And the poorer the parents, the more likely this is to be true. Yes, this is inflation adjusted. No, you actually are just economically illiterate and don't know any of the social studies data. And this isn't just some cherrypicked shit, you'd be hard pressed to find any data saying otherwise.
And that's you using the word selfish. I never said that. It's certainly self-centered, but I think I'd rather people with your worldview not reproduce so I certainly wouldn't criticize it.
Not_Just_Any_Lurker@reddit
This is the shit people who aren't paying for childcare say on the internet. I already know you either have no children or are a deadbeat.
xinorez1@reddit
He's someone who blocked the people who challenge his posts. Dunno if I can even post this, since I'm responding to a chain that he started.
Originally came back because this mans behavior is unusual to me and I think I've realized something, other people are surely overestimating the difficulty of raising a child to maturity but this guy I think might be one of those people who regard their own children the same way most people regard their pets; rather than feeling responsible for raising a responsible adult and all the challenges that entails, he may just see them as an accessory to his life. I realized this from one of his posts which I can't see now that he's blocked me. Very convenient for the side that is usually groaning about free speech! They want free speech for them and silence for anyone else, whereas libs just refuse to give monetary support to what they disagree with, usually (as evidence of their lack of coordination, it seems that dozens of libleft commentators actually individually paid Jordan Peterson 400 dollars to see what his 'university' offers, which as expected was just slick videos from unqualified experts with no exams).
cplusequals@reddit
We're actually celebrating mother's day this weekend! Gonna make chocolate turtles.
xinorez1@reddit
And for your example, all the miserable fuckwits with children, plus the wealthy who have the most children of all in the US.
Also you've been asked to substantiate your point.
cplusequals@reddit
Poor people have more children than rich people in the US. If you need verification for that your opinion is less than worthless.
migstrove@reddit
You sound like a bundle of joy
xinorez1@reddit
And for your example, all the miserable fuckwits with children, plus the wealthy who have the most children of all in the US.
UntBag@reddit
I don’t know those rednecks get a simple quad and dirt bike w/beer and their happiness is set
Cerael@reddit
Consoom that reality TV bro its doing a great job shaping your world view! Surprised you could rip your eyes away from tiktok to write this comment!
JeSuisLePain@reddit
Citation needed
cplusequals@reddit
Why are you even in this conversation if you don't know people with kids universally report higher life satisfaction?
kailethre@reddit
substantiate your claim with evidence
cplusequals@reddit
Not something this completely understood by everyone and easy to verify. Never comply with a bad faith request like this. I can read down thread you know it's true too.
Spicoli_Horse@reddit
Dad of three here - my evidence wakes me up too early every morning, shits in its own pants, can’t feed itself, is responsible for 90% of the bruises I wind up with, and has recently decided that a series of shrill noises is a great way to get some attention.
Happiest years of my life, so far.
kailethre@reddit
i absolutely dont doubt it, i just wanted the other guy to post literally any kind of paper or study or survey to back up their claim
migstrove@reddit
Why?
SynV92@reddit
Actually it's a direct indicator of not being smart
LateNightDoober@reddit
Imagine thinking that poors having 5 kids is the result of a logical decision and not their oafish need to bang without any kind of protectio
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Are you having an argument with someone in your head? Where did I ever say any of it was logical?
Kryptus@reddit
Good parents do put their kids to work with chores by 8 years old.
My friends 8 year old girl does her own laundry, cooks, can mow the lawn, mop the floors, dust, picks up dog poop, and gets themselves ready for school.
That kid is an asset to the family, not a burden. On 2 separate visits she brought me eggs and crepes totally on her own with no help. I was amazed.
xinorez1@reddit
I hear Barrons been killing innocent animals for as long. You have to start them early!
JeSuisLePain@reddit
Sounds like your friend is abusive asshole behind closed doors.
Daysleeper1234@reddit
8? Dude, they started working moment they could walk and hold something. :D
isigneduptomake1post@reddit
Yes, but it's a complicated issue. People like myself waited until 40 to have a kid, and I am in a much, much better place financially than my parents were when they had kids.
However, raising an individual child is much more expensive now and I spent my 30s accustomed to going out with friends, traveling, going to restaurants, etc. I also spent a lot of that time working on my house, which id now hate to move out of (esp since its almost doubled in price in that time).
So having a 2nd child seems pretty daunting to me, even though technically we can afford it. A 3rd child is absolutely out of the question.
So best case you've got 2 college educated people reproducing below replacement level.
I feel like we were on the last chopper out of Nam and anyone younger than me got absolutely fucked.
Poor people tend to have a lot of family help, and I mean this is no disrespectful way, but lower standards. I dont want to deny my child an ivy league education if he's smart enough for it. For poor people theyre elated if their kids graduate a shitty public high school. They dont see additional kids as fighting for finite resources.
Apprehensive-Toe4160@reddit
No matter how much money you have, if your parents had you young and were active, you had way better childhood and bond with parents than your child can ever hope to have.
I am not only speaking about not having as much energy in your 40 than in your 20 (thats why many shitty parents moan that they are tired: of course you are, you are too old for this). Older parents are also way more risk averse. But more importantly those milestones later in life. Graduation? Maybe, you might be healthy enough in your 60. Wedding? No chance, you will be dead already. Enjoying your grandchild and being important support for your kid? In your dreams.
isigneduptomake1post@reddit
Dumbest shit ive ever read. Im in better shape and health than my dad was at 30. I also wont have to feed my kid macaroni and cut up hot dogs for lunch. He will have much better nutrition and better access to things.
My parents got married too young and didnt know how to get along, I had to grow up with them fighting all the time until they got divorced. My wife and I were together 17 years before having a kid and have been through all the shit first. My dad wasnt at my graduation so if im 60 at his so fucking what? Im planning on retiring when he graduates high school so I can spend time with him and give him the support he needs. I didnt even get a graduation present from my dad.
But im a whole 10 years older! Go fuck yourself retard.
xinorez1@reddit
I bet they were fighting about whether women should read, much less vote, and not pesky little things like finances, investment and retirement...
/s
Apprehensive-Toe4160@reddit
Nice cope:) Tough luck, you wont live to see your grandkids. No matter what you wish for, my comment is reality which you chose. It isnt pretty.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Sure but that’s down to individual preference as opposed to capitalism. And trust me when I say there are a fuck ton of issues with capitalism, particularly this unregulated hellscape we’ve been going towards.
isigneduptomake1post@reddit
Capitalism influences preferences. For instance college was never not an option for me, and I graduated into a horrible recession so I went to grad school for 3 more years. Didn't start my career until 28 with an awful paying job. Needed a down-payment large enough to buy my dad's old 5 bedroom house. Had roommates for 5 years to help with mortgage. Delayed having a child by at least 8 years.
Now costs have inflated so much I am nervous about retirement, even though on paper im doing well. The amount of control that corporations have on being able to squeeze every last dollar out of people is very alarming. Once an industry implodes itself they will move on to the next thing, after a government bailout. Im really hoping to get to a point where if the world is fucked I can just let my kid not have to worry about earning a paycheck and I can leave him my house.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Sure. It influences preferences for some people, especially middle class, white people (because again, poor people are having children at a rate that outpaces the middle class). But to what degree? If you want to have kids that have a life better than you, or even at the level you had (vacations, nice clothes, good healthy food) that’s not going to be feasible the way it was before. The boomers running the capitalist society we live in now have seen to that. But it is also undeniable that those kids would live in comfort only dreamt of be the generations that preceded the baby boomers.
I’d also add, that merely blaming capitalism is absurdly reductive and unhelpful. Another massive issue that nobody seems to want to mention is how isolating modern society is, with the countless distractions and social media. If you’re a young person of childbearing age, where the fuck do you even meet people? The bar? Young people don’t go there. Church? Ditto. Public parks? Everyone’s in their own worlds on their phones doomscrolling. There are an absurd number of young men in their 20s who have never even had sex. And that’s not down to being tied down by a job, or concern for the future.
So yeah capitalism undoubtedly has an influence on low birth rates. But so does the very nature of society. Also who knows how much of low birth rates are down to microplastics (which I guess could be tied to capitalism but plastic waste also gets generated by other industrial nations that are less unregulated capitalistic).
My point being this is a very complex issue with numerous factors and it’s idiotic and unhelpful to lay it all on one thing.
isigneduptomake1post@reddit
I wasnt saying its only capitalism, but the lack of spaces and social interaction could also be blamed a lot on capitalism. Its much of the result of all the tech companies being publicly traded. Look at how much more 'social' social media was before you could buy Facebook (meta) stock.
Pauldb@reddit
If the poor manage to have children why can't middle class?
xinorez1@reddit
The poor aren't planning for it. The middle class defines itself by being able to climb. That's the difference.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Good question.
xinorez1@reddit
It's because what makes poor people poor is poor personal planning.
The middle class defines itself by being able to climb.
Actually the poor also make use of social capital, reaching out for help, whereas the middle class has internalized Thatcher's reality: 'there is no such thing as society', and so they have to take care of themselves with maximal regard for personal safety.
When they stop being safe, or when it's no longer possible, that's when the guillotines come out.
If op wants more poor people, that problem will solve itself.
snmnky9490@reddit
If you're literally asking, it's because the middle class see the bare minimum floor of having a child as like providing for every single one of little Timmy's desires like summer camp and tons of new toys and after school activities and soccer practice and a neverending schedule of play dates and piano lessons and $400,000 saved for private school and blah blah. Whereas the poor weren't planning on doing all that shit anyway so it's basically just more food cost.
Pauldb@reddit
You kid just need time and love. Not all the things people imagine.
snmnky9490@reddit
Yeah but I'm saying so many of the middle class have been conditioned to have this idea that you have to do and buy every single thing for your kid or else you're a failure as a parent, whereas much of the truly poor are just like "guess we're having another, gotta buy more food soon"
JeSuisLePain@reddit
Or maybe the middle class are just smart enough to realize what a burden children you can barely afford are. Shit will ruin your life.
snmnky9490@reddit
Well yeah that's part of what I mean. Many in the middle class are like holy shit if I want to have a kid I have to do all this stuff and it costs literally a million dollars. Whereas many of the poorest are just like "I guess the food budgets gonna go up"
JeSuisLePain@reddit
I think having such a cavalier attitude toward producing children is grossly irresponsible. Children don't need every little thing they ask for, but they need more than to just be kept alive.
xinorez1@reddit
Honestly I think all they need is to be taught how to be resilient, curious, social, thoughtful and resourceful, and the rest will take care of itself.
A lot of high earning millennials aren't having children or are only having one and that's more because they have literally no time and no energy because it's been entirely monopolized by their boss and landlords, and by the time their future is certain, they have absolutely no energy left at the end of the day for another kid or one at all, or even time to find a relationship and unwind. They have simply aged out of having multiple kids.
It's been found that professional high earners ironically make the worst investors, choosing maximal safety over gains.
For work, they are already working towards their careers. For food, in many parts it has been made illegal to have community gardens, much less growing something in your apartment (mold and feces damage), and for time and energy, that belongs to someone else now.
The poor, as has been observed, don't bother to teach these skills if they aren't actively teaching the opposite.
All that op is doing is being annoying - but who knows, maybe they'll be annoying enough to awaken some who are asleep.
... Actually I think I just outed myself.
The kids need to be taught how to be resilient, curious, social, thoughtful and resourceful, as well as when to gamble and when not, because there are no sure things and you always have to make a Bayesian estimation, like is a favorable or dis favorable outcome more than 50% likely, which is a little more solid than just an educated guess.
xinorez1@reddit
Time belongs to their boss. Love too since the capacity for it diminishes with energy.
There's a reason hamsters eat their young and it's not for nutrition.
xinorez1@reddit
It's actually because the middle class define themselves by being able to climb. The poor who have kids don't seem to plan at all, believing their situation is hopeless, and so entrusted to a higher power if considered at all. That's kind of a big part of what makes them poor.
It's just more difficult for the climbers now, and it's hard to discern who is worth reproducing with and thus who is worth the sacrifice. Some types simply cannot be trusted.
The issue is that the middle class is trying to build for their own futures and it's not easy to find others who are worthy. If the people are not worthy and the system is not worthy then like the Jews of masada they would rather let themselves be extinguished than taken advantage of. Hopefully they will pursue other solutions before then. Historically, they have.
Luigi isn't loved exclusively for his good looks...
HippoRun23@reddit
Well those childless weirdos can have their dollars and I’ll have the eternal happiness of when my kids run at me when I get home from work and give me the biggest hugs.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
Your children can also kill and rape people. Hell, they could eventually kill you
onlyinvowels@reddit
The correlation isn’t one way. Having kids doesn’t help get you out of poverty
Apprehensive-Toe4160@reddit
Of course it helps. Unless you are a deadbeat, having a child is biggest driver for people to increase their income.
onlyinvowels@reddit
You can’t have dual incomes (as easily) with two kids. It’s just cheaper not to have kids, especially early in your careers when you aren’t earning as much.
Apprehensive-Toe4160@reddit
Doesnt really matter. Responsible father, mainly young one, often doubles or even triples his income because of child. Exactly because you can't count on dual income.
From personal experience, people with children earn way more than childless ones. Because people without children are often content, exactly because of dual income. People with children try their hardest to provide for their family.
And of course, I am talking only about reaponsible people.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Didn’t say that it did
onlyinvowels@reddit
I know
shooshmashta@reddit
He's saying poor people have kids. Has nothing to do with getting them out of poverty.
onlyinvowels@reddit
And I’m saying that people choosing not to have kids are partly (if not largely) doing so to set themself up for a better financial situation later in life
cplusequals@reddit
It actually does. There's even a causative link between having kids and earning more. It doesn't make sense until you think about human psychology and social dynamics. Also your kids are a better retirement plan than social security and even with that factored in they're overwhelmingly likely to out earn out and live a materially wealthier life than you even while assisting you in your old age.
JeSuisLePain@reddit
That's because many of the poor are simply regarded.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
And meanwhile theirs are the genes being passed on.
JeSuisLePain@reddit
No it just makes the world more regarded.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
Yeah I know. Sucks
bunker_man@reddit
Yeah, because the middle class care whether they ate stable first and in modern day they aren't.
New_Race9503@reddit
Ya, but back in the day having kids was cheap. Nowadays not so much.
Cute-Contract-6762@reddit
The trend persists.
xinorez1@reddit
It kind of is though.
The left wing gives people the notion that they can have some effect on their destiny. If you believe that then you will try to optimize.
The poor don't seem to act with such belief, seeming to act with faith that someone else will take care of it.
BitingSatyr@reddit
If people wanted kids, they’d have them. There’s far too many people on Reddit bragging about their $300k/year tech jobs and their funko pop collections while also proclaiming themselves to be proudly childfree to pretend like economic concerns are the only issue here (also poor people have more kids than affluent people).
thisguy883@reddit
I never understood this mentality of trying to make as much money as possible and being child free at the same time. It all boils down to selfishness, and that isnt a great trait.
Imagine making all that money and collecting all those things only to have it go to the state when you die.
xinorez1@reddit
People like to build things. Children are costlier.
Also if they have any family at all, the family gets it, although to be fair usually the collections are liquidated.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
It goes to waste when you die anyway. My parents have mountains of shit I don’t want or care about lol
kindnesskangaroo@reddit
Or consider anon that something called a will exists that allows you to legally designate those collections, the house, cars, and money to whoever you want. You act like these people don’t have nieces, nephews, younger siblings, friends with kids, etc. they can leave their worldly possessions to.
Men are so silly sometimes. You ask people to imagine then repeat the most boring, unimaginative comment I know you read on X or Reddit a hundred times instead of using your own brain to think.
womerah@reddit
I like the idea you can be selfish towards people that don't exist
Downside190@reddit
Problem is kids are expensive. And as soon as ones born your dual income halved and your expenses go up. So what was previously a comfortable life can turn into one that's paycheck to paycheck just to stay afloat
Check_Me_Out-Boss@reddit
That's not new, though.
pVom@reddit
It's pretty new, like the last couple of decades. It's getting increasingly expensive to own a home on a single income. Then childcare is so expensive it's hardly worth having the extra income because most of it is swallowed by childcare anyway.
My wife and live pretty comfortable lives and don't really stress about money and are set to pay the house off in 10 years. If we lose an income for realistically 5-6 years before she can go back to part time, it actually works out to 20 years to pay off the mortgage, assuming she can get a job that pays as well as she currently is.
griffy001@reddit
whut abt dis raddit post i seen where the guy said he makes lotsa money and dont wanta have kids!!!!
thukon@reddit
Ok I lol'd
mpTCO@reddit
Hate when text to speech turns on by itself
Check_Me_Out-Boss@reddit
Good rebuttal. You really nailed it.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
This literally never happens
leastemployableman@reddit
I love seeing those posts where someone says " I've handed out 1000 resumes and haven't got a single call back" Whenever I check post history it's some dude bragging that he makes 100k a year doing nothing, as if his company isn't going to notice after a year or so.
pueblohuts@reddit
Yeah this is really what it is. I got pregnant unexpectedly and the first thought I had was there is absolutely no way I can afford to have and raise another human being no matter how badly I want to. It’s really bleak and fucked me up. There were other factors but I digress
outland_king@reddit
This would possibly be true if birth rates weren't typically inversely proportional to income.
The poorest families are having the most children. So I blame education institutions and fear mongering social media.
Onesharpman@reddit
Not true at all. Plenty of poor people have children. People are just afraid of growing up.
Salt_Lingonberry1122@reddit
This is such a lie. There has been a birth rate problem since the 70s. Then explain why during the 90s when the economy was at its peak was there still a low birth rate. Instead of lying about the reasons be honest about it cause it all boils down to i don't want to change my lifestyle and I care to much of the opinions of others. Then explain the great depression was there a birthing crisis during that time?
pVom@reddit
Contraceptive pill wasn't available during the great depression. To say nothing of IUDs and shit. Condoms existed but weren't exactly mainstream and cost money.
And "not wanting to change my lifestyle" isn't like, sacrificing funko pops or whatever. It's the difference between not really stressing about money and having some savings vs stressing about minor expenses and living in fear of losing my job and home. The lost income from a single earner exponentially increases the length of time before I can retire. 5-6 years now adds about 10 years to my mortgage, that's without considering the added expense from the child itself.
That's before you've even considered things like having interrupted sleep and spending your free time going to parks and shit instead of fun stuff you'd rather be doing. Doesn't help that I have 4 much younger siblings and I am very aware of the work involved.
And tbh if I cared about the opinion of others I'd be more inclined to have kids.
I want them at some point but given it's so easy to choose not to have kids it's hard to actually make that decision and take the plunge. So I'm just kicking the can down the road and eventually the choice will be made for me.
NedStarkX@reddit
Nigeria has more births and TFR (Total Fertility Rate) than the entirety of Europe.
America in the Great Depression had higher birth rates
Danes who literally get paid to have kids and have the best social safety net on Earth have a lower TFR
It's obvious that living standards and poverty are not the problem
pVom@reddit
In fairness Nigeria has a little less than half the population of Europe so it's not that much of a stretch
oldbutterface@reddit
Imagine thinking you can compare depression era America or 'Third World' birth rates to modern day 'First World' western life.
Theres clearly more factors to consider than wealth alone, but I would guess that the main reason birth rates are low in urbanised 'first world' areas among the middle classes, is because they've crunched the numbers and realised they simply cant afford them, not because they read a book written by a wokie feminist.
WetAndLoose@reddit
It’s not a left wing ideological agenda, but across the board the more women get rights and responsibilities the less likely they are to have children, which is the most important factor along with industrialization, not economic incentives. Africa is the poorest continent by far yet has the fastest birth rate by far.
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
So it's best not to import them to countries with low birth rates.
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
So why doesn't the government help these young people, but instead provides housing and benefits to the horde of "economic migrants"?
TacoMedic@reddit
As much as I wish I was paid more, higher pay doesn’t increase the birth rate.
The one and only way to increase the birth rate (excluding immigration) is to limit higher education to women. For good reason, this will obviously never happen, but it’s simply the only correlation researchers have been able to find.
In order to sustain the West, we must continue to import bootyful Latinas and I thank God daily for it.
studmuffffffin@reddit
The poorest countries and the poorest people in the richest countries have the most kids.
Tired of this argument. It’s women’s rights and access to birth control. That’s it.
oldbutterface@reddit
You cannot compare the societal cultures of the poorest people in the poorest countries to that of the western world.
The poorest people in the poorest countries will endure a standard of living that people in the west would avoid like the plague.
Im making the argument why western or 'first world' birthrates are falling. Its not as simple as 'because wamen'.
Many women would happily become full time mums but simply are unable to stop working and reply on a single income. Wealth disparity has made parenthood unappealing.
studmuffffffin@reddit
I didn't say poorest people in the poorest countries. I said the poorest countries and the poorest people in the richest countries.
Whatever way you slice it, you can't avoid the fact that less money=more babies. And you're whole "it's too unaffordable to have kids" narrative goes out the window.
Virgil_Rug_Say_RUG@reddit
what you say is partially true, but also a huge part of it this
for the newer social media brainwashed generations, this is a huge factor. they prefer being able to post about their vacation/restaurant/party/rolex/purse/shoes than spending that on children.
oldbutterface@reddit
Me and my partner literally cannot afford to do any of that anyway, regardless of children.
But im from the UK where wages have been fucked since 2008. Having children on an average UK salary without a nearby support system of grandparents etc is economic suicide.
(Me and my partner do not have reliable families we could turn to. We would be wholly on our own and scraping by to afford childcare.)
BlueDaka@reddit
Imagine blaming men and money when it has always been women and smart phones/the internet.
Halcyon_156@reddit
I try to avoid generalizations but god damn did the boomer generation, like a solid 75% of them at least, screw the rest of us the fuck over. I guess the seeds of this generational "fuck you, I got mine, were always there. Given the toxic combination of badly regulated capitalism and corruption and Evangelical Christians. Up until a couple years ago I thought we might still have time to course correct. Never have I wanted to be more wrong but all signs as far as I can tell point to: we're fucked.
Check_Me_Out-Boss@reddit
They literally told mellinials over and over not to have children due to overcrowding on the planet.
It was even on TV shows aimed at children.
oldbutterface@reddit
Who is they? Gay feminist liberal ghosts?
And yes overpopulation is a real thing. Humans grow at an exponential rate. It is not necessary for everyone to have children.
Check_Me_Out-Boss@reddit
But we need to import people from those overpopulated regions to replace the people who aren't having children, right?
Kryptus@reddit
Young people these days have been taught to be selfish and not take responsibility for their own problems. They are conditioned to believe that they deserve all the nice things in life without working hard for them.
SerJoseph@reddit
Why are you replying to a screenshot and calling it a moron? Slow? Nigeria has the highest birth rates with the lowest gdp, money is not why people dont have children, its because they choose to live more comfortably rather than reproduce, and the whole point of the OOP is that this choice is usually wrong in hindsight, because they end up old and lonely, and despite everyone telling them as much they still do it, so we laugh at them
CaterpillarLoud8071@reddit
That doesn't match with the data. People don't have kids when kids would impede their personal and financial development.
Poor people have lots of kids because they don't expect promotions or buying a house whether they have them or not.
The middle classes don't have them any more because kids are a career killer for women and waiting longer to get kids means they get more security and financial independence in the long run. Back in the 60s middle class women didn't have careers so nothing was stopping them from having children.
oldbutterface@reddit
More like back in the 60s a single salary could sustain an entire household.
Root2109@reddit
My dad beat the crap out of me and I don't want kids so I don't beat the crap out of them. But yeah I'll wake up some day depressed I didn't have kids lol
Zenaesthetic@reddit
You can’t trust yourself to not beat your children? Well at least you’re honest about it.
Root2109@reddit
Yes it's called trauma from getting beat
Zenaesthetic@reddit
We all have trauma, doesn’t necessarily mean you need to repeat it. In fact, you might do your damnedest to not repeat it because you know how horrible it was and you wouldn’t want to be the one doing it or receiving it, especially to an innocent child.
If you’re aware enough to realize this, why can’t you control it?
Root2109@reddit
I am controlling it by not putting children in a position to be dependent on a person with substance abuse problems and a temper, something my parents could have bothered to do. I'm working on my issues in therapy but clearly you have no understanding of how trauma works if you think I can just choose to not lose control.
Zenaesthetic@reddit
I was raised in a cult and abused, I'm not going to raise and abuse my kids in a cult or abuse them. There, I broke the cycle.
Root2109@reddit
I'm really happy for you that you were able to reach that level of healing, I hope to get there some day but it's a long road 🙂
Zenaesthetic@reddit
Indeed, good luck!
igotbanneddd@reddit
My dad's uncle bought a house in 1974 for 60 000 dollars. Quick inflation calculator says that would be 500 000 in today's dollars. I can't remember exactly but I know they sold it for somewhere between 1.4 and 2.2 million. The guy who bought it is gonna bulldoze it.
Check_Me_Out-Boss@reddit
That's not really a good return.
TYLERDURDEN1974@reddit
This….people seem to overlook the “today’s dollars” calculations…bought my first house in 1995 for 50k. That was a ton of money to me back then! I was only bringing home about 12k net dollars…
Michael1795@reddit
Compare your income and house costs 12k/50k to modern average city numbers 65k/500k. Couple that with the fact that the cost of living is also higher now.
Tough times but I feel like it could be worse. I am not hopeful that it will get better though.
thesplendor@reddit
no…, they’re not overlooking it
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Yeah, now imagine it costs 4 or 5 tons of money and you will understand what young people today are facing.
Tyzorg@reddit
Another thing that's often overlooked is not just the inflation calculation from x year to Y year but also the BUYING POWER OF $1 in year X vs Y.
For those not familiar I mean it's more than just the dollar value changing by itself.
The average cost of goods of various items have gone up significantly, cost of living has gone up and the avg income and minimum wage hasn't followed the same trend.
Mysterious_Lawyer551@reddit
Except for israel (also kazakhstan)
_Diggus_Bickus_@reddit
200 years ago people would have 5 children in a 1 room cabin with the hopes that 2 would survive. In modern day the richest countries are having the fewest kids and the poorest countries, mostly in Africa and India are having the most.
Amazonrazer@reddit
Both India and African Countries birthrates are dropping btw
_Diggus_Bickus_@reddit
And their economic conditions are improving
Sgt_major_dodgy@reddit
Because in Africa and India you can send your kids to work (and they need to)
Whereas in the west a child is essentially a huge financial burden that costs a fucking fortune for 16-18 years minimum
_Diggus_Bickus_@reddit
I promise you children were a burden through out human history
Cumsocktornado@reddit
AIGHT HERE WE GO
The strongest predictor/corollary for birth rates is not spending on sex ed or contraceptives, not price per carbohydrate or anything like that- the strongest predictor is wealth of nation divided per person, oft measured as gdp per capita. The strongest predictor across time and the largest samples is wealth- the richer a nation gets its birth rate always begins dropping. The effect is differential just as the gdp growth of nations is differential but the effect is always the same- \^money, vbabies.
Lots of theories as to why and there are probably factors that get in the way of this a little bit ranging from cultural to economic but the strongest and most accepted theory is urbanization, that is more people living in cities where all the wealth is generated and out of the countryside. In largely ruralized societies you have lots of kids- each kids is an extra hand for labor and also the infant mortality rate tends to be high so you need to try and get ahead of that- kids are a net asset. In the city jobs tend to be a lot more clerical than manual and there's more attention on the kids- each one of them quickly becomes a net liability both because they can't help with the job you're likely to have, (in addition to it likely being illegal to make them do so,) and the pesky availability of medicine, resources and medical expertise concentrated in the city means that infant mortality is decimated making each kid annoyingly long-lived. There's natural incentives to having less kids in urbanized living.
This is not helped by the weakening of real purchasing power, as you mentioned- people are also less inclined to have kids when they can barely cover rent, don't get me wrong- but the predominant large scale predictor is gdp and it's happening everywhere. The places that experienced rapid onset urbanization and economic development in the postwar period like japan and korea became the tip of the spear in this phenomenon but there are signs even parts of sub-saharan africa is experiencing this in its more developed areas like Botswana. (This is also, funnily enough, the main impetus originally behind China's infamous 'one-child' policy- it was putting the cart before the horse in the sense that if you exhibit the side effects of economically developed urbanized nations you could make an economically developed urbanized nation appear- this is now, like many things from the Great Leap Forward, biting them in the ass).
Point is at broadest scales the strongest trend is economic development inversely impacting birth rates, catastrophic as the economy seems from the layman's perspective. It's not clear that there is a lot that can buck the trend.
It might be helped by increasing the real purchasing power of the middle class, making people able to more afford kids. It might be helped by applying antidotes to liberal propaganda that deconstruct the nuclear family a la Shinzo Abe's ghost. I don't know.
But these are unlikely to buck or halt an otherwise global and consistent trend.
Michael1795@reddit
Should also mention the state of the world. Every week we have some unprecedented event happening politically or economically, or militarily, even medically! Its not a warm feeling idea to bring a child into so much uncertainty.
Even though human life has always been chaos, I feel like media bringing it to such attention all the time doesnt help. Maybe societal anxiety has risen in the last 100 years cause of it? Idk im just spitballing at this point.
Noobeater1@reddit
If you go back 100 years you find subsistence farmers with too many kids to feed, and even today poor people are firing out kids, poverty doesn't stop people having kids, having other options for what to do with their life stops them
ZyklonFart@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
volatile-solution@reddit
capitalism, basically.
Angel_OfSolitude@reddit
We've already seen plenty of angst from the older childless women. It's mostly confined to articles and whining for now. Thankfully women, especially old ones, just aren't that good at violence.
PLoxeus@reddit
Empty egg cartons
Casulte@reddit
Holy F--
Wow... what an amazing burn.
Halcyon_156@reddit
I've seen plenty of angst from women with children and I've seen plenty of nice and well-adjusted women with and without children. The fact is women go through a physical change called menopause in their late 40s and early 50s and some handle it better than others depending on things like their health, environmental factors and financial and emotional state. Women have a broad spectrum of types and personalities, just like men. OP is fucking stupid and has the lived experience of a dumb, flightless bird. The aptly named Dodo comes to mind. The dodo is fucking stupid, so, by all means, emulate the Dodo. We need more stupid people. There is a shortage and we wouldn't want to run out.
Searril@reddit
Damn, this really hurt you.
TechnicoloMonochrome@reddit
Struck a fuckin nerve lmao
Jimmi11@reddit
It seems to have kicked her right in the dead uterus.
KYSFGS@reddit
Wait... you're supposed to be fear-mongering what's this "the voice of reason" nonsense?
Quick call someone a slur
BreakfastMint@reddit
Based normal person
itsthechizyeah@reddit
On. The. Nose.
pocketgravel@reddit
They're really good at voting and getting elected to HOA boards though. They can happily make everyone else's life miserable through social violence instead
gunfox@reddit
Well here’s the catch:
Davethemann@reddit
I was gonna say, these women will badger people by being an annoying cog in every system as some pointless admin or potentially some rule maker/enforcer
DangJorts@reddit
Easy to get elected when zero men have an interest in it
Hefty-Competition588@reddit
These women love to vote, I wouldn't be so sure
Knee_Ger_Cmpt13@reddit
The old childless hags vote for socialism and gibs because they instinctively know there's no kids and grandkids to look after them in their elderly years. Lots of rabid feminists in Europe also promote that shit to daughters of other women they despise.
Delicious-Mission787@reddit
Just have children lol, why are you bitching about other people not having kids
Cozy_Minty@reddit
I have never heard of that happening to dogs lol
Darthblaker7474@reddit
Supposedly they're more likely go get cancer if you keep them intact but not up the duff.
Cozy_Minty@reddit
Yeah, but that's because you can't get ovarian cancer if you don't have any ovaries
Darthblaker7474@reddit
palladiumpaladin@reddit
Yeah I have had female dogs who have had puppies and female dogs who have not, and neither of them have had strange behaviour. Not to mention, did this guy forget nuns have existed for centuries, and the Vestal Virgins for centuries before that? Don’t you think that would have stopped if they ended up getting violent because of their oath of chastity?
Dave5876@reddit
Because anon pulled it out of his incel behind
Minute-Employ-4964@reddit
Mine did used to get really sad and obsessive over toys but that’s about it
Willy_Boi2@reddit
4chan sociology has a tendency to be fucking retarded
whimsical_fuckery_@reddit
Yeah its completely false. Worst thing that happens to them is pyometra which is an infection of the uterus, which can happen in any unspayed dog regardless of whether they get pregnant or not.
baudmiksen@reddit
Which from what I understand is something that if not treated, and the only treatment being removal, will most likely kill them in a few days so it's not even something they experience long enough to make significant personality changes
whimsical_fuckery_@reddit
a precursor infection of the uterus could be chronic before going into a critical stage but yes, its not smth that would last years or explain personality changes.
baudmiksen@reddit
I'm not a vet and only speaking from experience in regards to the timespan available from when they first start showing physical symptoms, I was always told less than a week
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
Dany0@reddit
You don't have to google this, but if you do, they will of course tell you it's a myth, but no one explains that it was "vets" looking to make money that made this up. So now you know why
wavs101@reddit
Where im from, we call them "jamonas" which roughly translates to "female ham" and what the comment said is true except for the violence. They dont affect others, since its not really in women's nature to be overtly violent. They just turn into depressed alcoholic mega Karens.
BLANKTWGOK@reddit
And on Reddit popular page would be like “I am 50 and I don’t regret not having a child” with comments saving how op is intelligent and people with kids are wasting their life and showing some bull shit studies
Successful-Mine-5967@reddit
It’s crazy how fast redditors will switch from “we shouldn’t have kids because the earth is too populated” to “we NEED a gazillion immigrants because our birthrates are collapsing”
xinorez1@reddit
Immigrants OR systemic change. You're forgetting the or.
Socialists and fascists haven't.
austin101123@reddit
50 year old school shooters?
Davethemann@reddit
Have you never seen the attendance offices in schools
edbods@reddit
late bloomers
TraumaPerformer@reddit
Well, if we run with anons thought experiment for a minute, the women he’s describing could end up being the female equivalent of Saint Rodger - killing people because they envy what they can’t have.
Djames516@reddit
>scool shooters
Doubt it
peppaz@reddit
So they were on 4chan the whole time huh
ItsMangel@reddit
Teachers, maybe?
OutrageousQuantity12@reddit
He’s cheating by just describing Japan and South Korea.
Initial-Masterpiece8@reddit
Suddenly a society-ending problem when women become asocial, fat and violent.
HippoRun23@reddit
I don’t think we’ll see that at all. Maybe the female suicide rate will tick up though.
Velvety_MuppetKing@reddit
Well it’s a good thing humans aren’t even Carniforms, much less dogs.
Hefty-Competition588@reddit
Just speaking to his comment on dogs: he's just describing menopause in general
PhantasmologicalAnus@reddit
They think people think about them and their choices?
Anguscablejnr@reddit
My main issue with this is that it requires me to unquestioningly accept that dogs and people are the same.
QUEEN_OF_HEARTS_777@reddit
You probably believe that men and women are equal.
baudmiksen@reddit
You know it's not true because even when one of them is at its worst it's still far more enjoyable than the other
Heir233@reddit
My female dog who has never been pregnant is 17 years old and healthy.
PlanetXParadox@reddit
Sounds like true gender equality to me. I support women’s wrongs!!!!!
TheEvilSeagull@reddit
My neighbor’s dog ate chocolate and died
100PercentPureWater@reddit
Human ≠ dogs
BlueDaka@reddit
It never had to be this way, but cis-women would rather be chadsexuals in some dark triad male's harem then even be near their looksmatch.
Virgil_Rug_Say_RUG@reddit
no we wont. taking actions like that requires initiative, decisiveness, execution, preparation, the actual balls to carry it out.
what we will see is an influx of even more complaining, "support groups", suicide threats/attempts (but not actual suicides, thats also for men), etc. and societal resources having to be wasted to deal with these people. even more than what we do today, which is a shit ton.
BodybuilderChoice488@reddit
People literally used to adopt lol
Slide-Maleficent@reddit
...am I the only one here who notices that everything the Epstein Island flag poster listed as a symptom of not-pregnancy is also a symptom of pregnancy...?
lsdrunning@reddit
This is the dumbest women-hating sentence I've seen in awhile. Incel
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed bc your account is under 5 days old.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
NotAUserNamm@reddit
Seriously, in what fucked up world is rape a worse thing than a female school shooter? Wierd choice of censorship there buddy
Glum_Engineering_671@reddit
He's out of line but he's probably right
Algo_Muy_Obsceno@reddit
Fake: anon has a wife
Most pet female dogs never have puppies and are totally fine. Anon’s source is his ass.
VatanKomurcu@reddit
reminds me of the covid times fearmongering about how you'll see people dropping dead from the vaccines in only two weeks. i dont find it believable.
Balthazar3000@reddit
My female dogs lived over a decade and were generally chill.
Robofro@reddit
I’m just shook by “Slough of health issues”. Was directing to say slew?
ToMyOtherFavoriteWW@reddit
Coleslaw of health issues
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Shleaouwghe
Necom123@reddit
What a retarded post. Even if dogs do that which idk , it makes me so mad when people try to say “because x happens to this animal if Must happen to humans as well” . And brainwashed to not have kids ? If anything the brainwashing would’ve to have kids. God I wish I had never wasted my time reading this dumbass post
g_rated_pornstar@reddit
A lot of the women I work I've worked with in the past, that never had children, usually had some pretty dysfunctional upbringing.
A lot of them grew up in very abusive and broken family structures. One said she knew about bail and commissary since she was a little girl. A few got physically and sexually abused.
Many have psychological issues and a lot are just as autistic as I am. A lot of women are less liked be into being child bearing tradwife mode when their internal workings are those of Temple Grandin. As for me, I'm surprised as hell I managed to keX ep a long term job and not end up on the streets a drug addict.
My last marriage crashed and burned, with me escaping childless. I heard my ex got remarried. As the years passes by, I've become so antisocial and awkward to the point I'm unable to get into another relationship.
As a childless middle age guy I already know I wouldn't have the fortified to raise a kid, so I can't even imagine being a woman putting your life on hold to carry a kid for almost a year, corporate through the mental and physical pain to birth it, then raise it.
Soft-Low1471@reddit
Did you really have to spew your personal info?
g_rated_pornstar@reddit
Weird, I don't remember putting my actual name, Driver License number, social security number, banking account data, home address, work address, or what vehicle I drive on my post🤔
solidsquirrel1@reddit
Ah yes everyone knows mothers never get fat, rude, entitled, and angry. Nope, never happens
CybranNation@reddit
So they're going to turn into a standard 4chan user?
SupaDupaPowa@reddit
Lol This is only a discussion for the odd and disconnected underbelly of society. Unsocialized and social ostracized Men are obsessed with blaming women for all sorts of problems. Go up to a 30 year old women and try to convince them *they* are the problem with society because of reason X (Declining birth rates, divorce rates, not being "trad") lol, they will look at you like the complete dunce you are and just keep living their lives. Why don't women want to have children? Well a lot of them do, just not with you, probably because you're on 4chan regurgitating goofy dribble about needing volition to push through life and "The consequences of women and their decisions". Embarassing lol.
Point is, they want kids, NOT WITH YOU!
GMEgrifter7@reddit
Shatophiliac@reddit
While I do think it’s getting worse as time goes on, I don’t think this is yet as much of an epidemic as 4chan thinks lol. Out of the probably 50+ grown women I know, only maybe 3 of them don’t have kids and also never plan to have them. All of the others have at least one kid or seriously plan on having one or more. I’m also in a conservative rural area so maybe that skews things.
Nationwide, Google suggests almost 30% of US childless adults never plan to have them, but I suspect that’s probably mostly men. That number has more than doubled since 2002 though, so it’s definitely becoming more mainstream.
rectal_expansion@reddit
Both my aunts don’t have children, they travel and are successful artists, they haven’t gotten fat and stabbed anyone lol
Childless women are the last thing I’m worried about in the future. New data about the AMOC came out recently, that’s pretty scary lol
Wolfegarde@reddit
JE is still on Chan and needs new victims letsgo
IANVS@reddit
Societal effects? They'll become teachers and HR staff and make everyone's lives miserable.
Environmental-Fly471@reddit
I keep telling people that it really makes me sad that so many people willingly choose to not experience the unique sort of happiness of being a parent. One of the coolest, most rewarding things I've done in my life. Inb4 shutup feg
Helpful_Spring8739@reddit
Ah yes, because comparing women to dogs is always accurate.
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
The dogpill never lies.
jawaismyhomeboy@reddit
You'll be lonely forever lol
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
You don't even know what I'm referring to, simp.
volatile-solution@reddit
such a incel cope. women can never, ever match men when it comes being a absolute horrendous agent of pure evil.
that being said, women can always go for selective abortions and get only female children. a revenge of thousands of years of female child infanticide. i am surprised they haven't started doing it yet at a massive scale.
SkibididdyOhio@reddit
Brown femcel hands wrote this post, pure curry-flavoured delusion and inferiority complex beyond any possibility of redemption
ZyklonFart@reddit
When is the last time you saw a vagina that didn't belong to your mother?
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
Women don't commit violent crime because it's not in their nature. Instead they get their cruelty fix from social manipulation within the power structure. Instead of beating you up, they cry on bluesky about how you said something racist and get malcontent troons to email bomb your workplace with demands to fire you. Or they become teachers to bully kids over nothing, or become DEI consultants to push game devs into destroying your hobby.
Blackhawk23@reddit
I’m sure most men would not continue having children with women like that after getting duped one time. Leading to them getting outpaced by non retarded women.
volatile-solution@reddit
you only need around 10-20 percent of men to impregnate all women. if we could establish a system, where we could reward these men for their "contribution", let the first child be always a female, male can be second or third child, and let the rest of 80 percent of males die as lonely incels, voila, patriarchy no more. can't believe women haven't realised this.
maybe one day when science manages to devise a way to split and extract a single X chromosome from a sperm, the day patriarchy begins to collapse into extinction.
lapideous@reddit
Yes, no
ZyklonFart@reddit
Sexless anons worried about things that will literally never impact them.
highyoshi@reddit
Ah the trust worthy of source of one tweet from someone who is probably a dude in Russia (maybe India)
AlphaMassDeBeta@reddit
Yeah I remeber a teacher who was obviously an unmarried old spinster was really fucking horrible to children.
Palealedad@reddit
Women are going to turn into Anons?
Barbie_and_KenM@reddit
Yea it's definitely the women without kids getting fat, not the moms.
the_glengarry_leads@reddit
Idk who said it, but: “at a certain age, single women marry the government.” We already see the effects
johnknockout@reddit
I think we already saw this happen with third wave feminism…
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.