population decline

[alincoln 2371]

6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

That and he's boinking the next door Karen during the kids' nap.

They have to be careful.  A divorced manny is relatively fucked.

[Guest Lobo]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

That and he's boinking the next door Karen during the kids' nap.

Yeah, you like that Karen?!?  (smacks her left ass cheek)  You wanna speak to my manager, Karen?!? (smacks right ass cheek)

[MissingInAction 25000]

30 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, you like that Karen?!?  (smacks her left ass cheek)  You wanna speak to my manager, Karen?!? (smacks right ass cheek)

Who's your manager now, Karen?! *spits in her face*

[Guest Lobo]

I think we just accidentally invented, what could be a very valuable, new sub-genre of porn. 

"My cock is your manager, Karen." is all oral.

"Can you just go check in the back?" is all anal. 

"What do you call a group of Karens?" is actually an orgy.

Which is good because this whole 'step' thing has gotten outta control.  

 

what were we talking about again?  Oh yeah, the marginalization of non-degreed males in the U.S.  They're gonna love this new Pornhub channel btw.  

[texashorne 1177]

Non-degreed males will only become a destabilizer if we fail to invent sex robots.  

[MissingInAction 25000]

6 minutes ago, texashorne said:

Non-degreed males will only become a destabilizer if we fail to invent sex robots.  

Have any of these mass shooters been married at the time of the crime? 

[Bender Bending Rodriguez 1678]

1 hour ago, texashorne said:

Non-degreed males will only become a destabilizer if we fail to invent sex robots.  

[BabaYaga 15286]

Time to getz to fukin'

[Blotto 23484]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

Have any of these mass shooters been married at the time of the crime? 

this one comes to mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

 

[CooterBrown 18001]

Non-degreed males will only become a destabilizer if we fail to invent sex robots.  

Uneducated and unmarried men is the main recruiting pool for terrorist groups. There’s a reason the 72 virgins thing became the main selling point.

[MissingInAction 25000]

18 minutes ago, Blotto said:

this one comes to mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik

 

Burqa sex must not be all that great.

[Blotto 23484]

1 minute ago, MissingInAction said:

Burqa sex must not be all that great.

[Braff Zacklin 13551]

On 10/3/2021 at 9:10 AM, Incredulity said:

The sun becoming a Red Giant and boiling the oceans isn’t on us.

Something that's destined to occur about 5 billion years from now isn't exactly "current."

[heso 2785]

On 10/3/2021 at 3:07 PM, Snake Diggity said:

NYU Prof/talking head Scott Galloway has been on this a lot lately.

 

I am not worried and think it will be a good thing.

Wages will shift to marginalize education; trades wages will rise to be equivalent of bachelors degree wages and even masters wages in low demand fields.  So even tho dudes aren’t going to college as much, they will still make enough money to get laid.  Technology will fill in most of the other gaps. Continued migration to cities will mitigate other risks of depopulation.  Population may decrease but if the economic activity of each person becomes more efficient it will be offset or even be a net gain.

I think global population will peak sometime between 2050 and 2090.  I’m bummed I’m already too old to expect to live until it becomes reasonable to expect to benefit from the huge jumps in medical technology that will dramatically increase lifespan and quality of life in old age.  But my kids lives will be a golden age.

Wouldn’t an increase in the supply of non-degreed men increase the pool of trade candidates and eventually put downward pressure on trade wages? Or at least create inverse relationship with wages of degreed men?

[Satoshi 129]

6 hours ago, alincoln said:

Anecdotally, the househusband/manny population has exploded in the past decade in the burbs.  There is an even larger number of men who "work" and have college degrees, but who are essentially diaper carriers/child taxi drivers.  From what I can tell, these guys have relatively stress-free lives (other than coming to grips with their wife being pounded over the desk by another partner in the firm) in no small part because the wife/mother continues to also perform an outsized share of the domestic responsibilities compared to men who are the breadwinners.  An emasculating existence without question, but it has its advantages.  

At the risk of sounding old fashioned I’ll say I’ve always thought that was a bad example to set for your kids and should be avoided if at all possible. There’s likely to be a dent in the respect that sons feel towards their dad given the role that they are see other dads play as providers. And daughters should see a fathers example and apply that to potential future mates. 

[texashorne 1177]

32 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

At the risk of sounding old fashioned I’ll say I’ve always thought that was a bad example to set for your kids and should be avoided if at all possible. There’s likely to be a dent in the respect that sons feel towards their dad given the role that they are see other dads play as providers. And daughters should see a fathers example and apply that to potential future mates. 

I have 2 neighbors that are stay at home dads.. both awesome guys.. Their kids will be fine, and certainly have a huge leg up over kids with a single parent, or even a traditional household with a stay at home mom and an MIA father. Their kids will have a much stronger bond with their father than normal, IMO..

That being said, there are few men cut out to take the lead on raising babies...its not an easy task and the male mind is not wired to be successful at it.. It takes a special type of person for sure.. 

As for the respect thing, most men who stay at home with kids will enter the working world once their children hit a certain age...More so than women. This could happen as early as kindergarten.. 

[Satoshi 129]

8 minutes ago, texashorne said:

I have 2 neighbors that are stay at home dads.. both awesome guys.. Their kids will be fine, and certainly have a huge leg up over kids with a single parent, or even a traditional household with a stay at home mom and an MIA father. Their kids will have a much stronger bond with their father than normal, IMO..

That being said, there are few men cut out to take the lead on raising babies...its not an easy task and the male mind is not wired to be successful at it.. It takes a special type of person for sure.. 

As for the respect thing, most men who stay at home with kids will enter the working world once their children hit a certain age...More so than women. This could happen as early as kindergarten.. 

I agree. It does take a special person.
 

The one I know is an old friend and his kids are in school and he’s still at home so I guess that’s the lens I look through at these setups. She’s not the nicest woman either so that probably colors my perception a bit too. 

[Snake Diggity 4619]

8 hours ago, heso said:

Wouldn’t an increase in the supply of non-degreed men increase the pool of trade candidates and eventually put downward pressure on trade wages? Or at least create inverse relationship with wages of degreed men?

Yes, in a vacuum.  But I think technology will start to replace degreed jobs more relative to non-degrees jobs (compared to the past), and minimum wage increases will push up non-degreed wages relative to degreed wages.  And I am not sure the pool of trade workers will increase in total even though less men go to college; population stabilization/decline will decrease the total pool of workers.

A lot of my opinion is based on my own anecdotal experience.  The opportunity to make money with a trade skill these days seems unlimited.

[Guest Lobo]

This is a little political and a little religious but the data points and links inside are very clear and very intriguing:

https://www.reimaginedonline.org/2021/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-male/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=169530845&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_v1h5XBmKsq5otnzNNQCbqOS1mZZBwbVJ2iIpt1ONq6g4xDKJrMcKHHiHlK1wFmsUZjOMOGy_bRBczgxAZlqu-J1kAr-1h4TsNn2tGV6UBSyuMRjo&utm_content=169530845&utm_source=hs_email

[XYZ 2154]

On 10/13/2021 at 1:43 PM, Braff Zacklin said:

Something that's destined to occur about 5 billion years from now isn't exactly "current."

More like 1 billion years. I think in 1 billion the earth becomes inhabitable, and in 5 billion the sun explodes. But don’t quote me on that.

[Brisketexan 105036]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

This is a little political and a little religious but the data points and links inside are very clear and very intriguing:

https://www.reimaginedonline.org/2021/10/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-male/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=169530845&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_v1h5XBmKsq5otnzNNQCbqOS1mZZBwbVJ2iIpt1ONq6g4xDKJrMcKHHiHlK1wFmsUZjOMOGy_bRBczgxAZlqu-J1kAr-1h4TsNn2tGV6UBSyuMRjo&utm_content=169530845&utm_source=hs_email

Fascinating.  And maybe really, really important.

While anecdotes are not data, this is something my wife observed (and got pissed about) years ago.  She saw our daughter go through an education that was DESIGNED for her: sit still, with your bright and shiny faces, and be a pleaser to the teacher.  Girls are a LOT better at that than boys are.

On the flip side, the system punishes and deems poor performers anyone who is wiggly, squirmy, loud, needs to move about, etc.  In other words.....most boys.  Here's a couple of blog posts on the topic: https://theparentcue.org/how-boys-learn-differently-than-girls/   and https://theparentcue.org/how-girls-learn-differently-than-boys/  They cite to "Why Gender Matters," a REALLY great book.  Recommend it to most parents I know.

Summary statements:

Quote

A girl’s brain has several advantages that make the classroom setting easier for her. It involves things like her hippocampus and the amount of serotonin being produced in her brain. But we’ll let David get to those as he discusses how we can specifically be aware of boys. She also has more oxytocins being secreted in her brain from her earliest stages of development, which is often considered the nurturing hormone. The limbic system of her brain is more developed, enabling her to have more complex emotions than her male peers.

Basically, what all of this means is that she will be able to listen better for longer periods of time and sit more calmly in her seat as she does. She will not be as easily distracted as she learns.

Compare to boys:

Quote

As for his learning style, boys start out primarily as tactile and kinesthetic learners. He loves to touch, feel, build and explore with his hands. As they grow, boys are primarily visual, spatial and experiential learners. A high percentage of content throughout his day will be presented in an auditory format. He desperately needs those who teach, coach and parent him to remember the very way that God designed him. He needs us to accompany auditory instruction with visual content. Because girls outperform boys in written and verbal expression, he benefits from periodically having the option to present a report by acting out a character, building a model, or creating a cool video that demonstrates his knowledge of the content more than a written book report may do.

So.....which one of those learning styles is our education system built for?  Which one does it affirmatively work AGAINST?  I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to say that our K-12 model is FAILING our boys, and we're reaping the results.  But society is a complex system.  Our education system has ALWAYS had that flaw.  But for most of history, the relative disadvantage that boys got in K-12 education was made up for by a higher-education system and workplace that were tilted to favor men.  Johnny didn't have to be as good a student as Jane because Jane wasn't a threat to take Johnny's job as an attorney or doctor or accountant.  Jane was gonna be a nurse, teacher, or housewife.

Fast-forward to the 80s and beyond.  Janes are still "A" students.  Johnnys are still "B" students (yes, there are outliers in both groups -- we're just talking about the general outcome/product of our education system).  But now, High End University is getting lots of applications from female students.  And on paper, for ever 2 high-performing males the HEU wants to admit, there are 3 females it wants to admit.  Because they have kick-ass transcripts.  And after higher ed is over, Fancy Law Firm doesn't favor male candidates -- it just hires the best.  Top Notch Oncology Clinic hires from the best, doesn't care about gender.  Etc. etc. across the board.

When we had a K-12 education system that favored girls, but everything after that favored boys, then you at least had a shot at balance (although of course, for a long-ass time, the post K-12 favoritism ruled the day -- men dominated the workplace).  Now that we have a K-12 system that favors girls, and everything after that is AT LEAST close to balanced, we're seeing the results of the K-12 discrepancy.  And the result will be dangerous for us. 

Biology long dictated that "idle women" were not a problem -- they actually weren't going to be idle.  They were going to have and raise children -- a pretty solid occupation and purpose.  So, in terms of creating large social risks, "idle women" who didn't have a lot of opportunities post K-12 wasn't a destabilizing influence.

But "idle men" are.....trouble.  They are a destabilizing influence -- on families, communities, and society as a whole.  

Not sure what all to do about it.  But to take it back to the thesis of these last few posts, a deliberate re-examination of our K-12 education model would be a really good fucking start.

[F250 28760]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fascinating.  And maybe really, really important.

While anecdotes are not data, this is something my wife observed (and got pissed about) years ago.  She saw our daughter go through an education that was DESIGNED for her: sit still, with your bright and shiny faces, and be a pleaser to the teacher.  Girls are a LOT better at that than boys are.

On the flip side, the system punishes and deems poor performers anyone who is wiggly, squirmy, loud, needs to move about, etc.  In other words.....most boys.  Here's a couple of blog posts on the topic: https://theparentcue.org/how-boys-learn-differently-than-girls/   and https://theparentcue.org/how-girls-learn-differently-than-boys/  They cite to "Why Gender Matters," a REALLY great book.  Recommend it to most parents I know.

Summary statements:

Compare to boys:

So.....which one of those learning styles is our education system built for?  Which one does it affirmatively work AGAINST?  I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to say that our K-12 model is FAILING our boys, and we're reaping the results.  But society is a complex system.  Our education system has ALWAYS had that flaw.  But for most of history, the relative disadvantage that boys got in K-12 education was made up for by a higher-education system and workplace that were tilted to favor men.  Johnny didn't have to be as good a student as Jane because Jane wasn't a threat to take Johnny's job as an attorney or doctor or accountant.  Jane was gonna be a nurse, teacher, or housewife.

Fast-forward to the 80s and beyond.  Janes are still "A" students.  Johnnys are still "B" students (yes, there are outliers in both groups -- we're just talking about the general outcome/product of our education system).  But now, High End University is getting lots of applications from female students.  And on paper, for ever 2 high-performing males the HEU wants to admit, there are 3 females it wants to admit.  Because they have kick-ass transcripts.  And after higher ed is over, Fancy Law Firm doesn't favor male candidates -- it just hires the best.  Top Notch Oncology Clinic hires from the best, doesn't care about gender.  Etc. etc. across the board.

When we had a K-12 education system that favored girls, but everything after that favored boys, then you at least had a shot at balance (although of course, for a long-ass time, the post K-12 favoritism ruled the day -- men dominated the workplace).  Now that we have a K-12 system that favors girls, and everything after that is AT LEAST close to balanced, we're seeing the results of the K-12 discrepancy.  And the result will be dangerous for us. 

Biology long dictated that "idle women" were not a problem -- they actually weren't going to be idle.  They were going to have and raise children -- a pretty solid occupation and purpose.  So, in terms of creating large social risks, "idle women" who didn't have a lot of opportunities post K-12 wasn't a destabilizing influence.

But "idle men" are.....trouble.  They are a destabilizing influence -- on families, communities, and society as a whole.  

Not sure what all to do about it.  But to take it back to the thesis of these last few posts, a deliberate re-examination of our K-12 education model would be a really good fucking start.

I remember reading about single-sex education benefiting students. I think this was based off of charter schools and private schools. Doubtful it could ever be attempted with the public schools and the pros and cons are so mired in politics I doubt it could ever be a solution even if it was useful.

 

[Brisketexan 105036]

I remember reading about single-sex education benefiting students. I think this was based off of charter schools and private schools. Doubtful it could ever be attempted with the public schools and the pros and cons are so mired in politics I doubt it could ever be a solution even if it was useful.
 

I went to an all make Jesuit high school. The advantages were incredible (aside from the Jesuits kicking ass). It was just a friendlier and safer environment for you g men to learn in. The dynamic was tailored for how we thought and spoke, we weren’t worried about preening or looking dumb in front of a girl, etc.

I am a strong proponent.

[KYHorn 17000]

Was thinking about this thread and made a connection with some other research on the increase in same-sex attraction and bisexuality. 

Here's a chart that shows the percentages of sexual orientations (and transgender) by age of respondent:

Spoiler

Here's looking at just males:

Spoiler

Here's looking at just females:

Spoiler

So, while the non-heterosexual population tends to be around 7% in most of the population (which is reflected in the 5-10% range that has been fairly well-established in the literature) among young adults, the increase has been dramatic. But, the increase is not equal across the diverse sexual orientation options. It is primarily driven by huge increases in bisexual females, and to a lesser extent male/female trans identification. I think I've read that somethin like 70% of the increase in these categories is attributable to bisexual females. Anyway, I'm curious if this change is enduring (both for this cohort as they age and for future cohorts), and, if it is, whether it changes the mate selection dynamics for these females. In other words, if I'm a highly-educated bisexual female experiencing the issues discussed in this thread related to finding a suitable male partner, do I decide to settle with a more successful bisexual/lesbian female? If so, with such a large increase in this bisexual population, does it serve to appreciably reduce the disparities between educated women and men as it relates to their mate options?

[CooterBrown 18001]

So.....which one of those learning styles is our education system built for?  Which one does it affirmatively work AGAINST?  I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to say that our K-12 model is FAILING our boys, and we're reaping the results.  But society is a complex system.  Our education system has ALWAYS had that flaw.  But for most of history, the relative disadvantage that boys got in K-12 education was made up for by a higher-education system and workplace that were tilted to favor men.  Johnny didn't have to be as good a student as Jane because Jane wasn't a threat to take Johnny's job as an attorney or doctor or accountant.  Jane was gonna be a nurse, teacher, or housewife.
Fast-forward to the 80s and beyond.  Janes are still "A" students.  Johnnys are still "B" students (yes, there are outliers in both groups -- we're just talking about the general outcome/product of our education system).  But now, High End University is getting lots of applications from female students.  And on paper, for ever 2 high-performing males the HEU wants to admit, there are 3 females it wants to admit.  Because they have kick-ass transcripts.  And after higher ed is over, Fancy Law Firm doesn't favor male candidates -- it just hires the best.  Top Notch Oncology Clinic hires from the best, doesn't care about gender.  Etc. etc. across the board.
When we had a K-12 education system that favored girls, but everything after that favored boys, then you at least had a shot at balance (although of course, for a long-ass time, the post K-12 favoritism ruled the day -- men dominated the workplace).  Now that we have a K-12 system that favors girls, and everything after that is AT LEAST close to balanced, we're seeing the results of the K-12 discrepancy.  And the result will be dangerous for us. 
Biology long dictated that "idle women" were not a problem -- they actually weren't going to be idle.  They were going to have and raise children -- a pretty solid occupation and purpose.  So, in terms of creating large social risks, "idle women" who didn't have a lot of opportunities post K-12 wasn't a destabilizing influence.
But "idle men" are.....trouble.  They are a destabilizing influence -- on families, communities, and society as a whole.  
Not sure what all to do about it.  But to take it back to the thesis of these last few posts, a deliberate re-examination of our K-12 education model would be a really good fucking start.

Sound like we need to selectively abort more male fetuses.

[Celery Man 20929]

1 hour ago, KYHorn said:

Was thinking about this thread and made a connection with some other research on the increase in same-sex attraction and bisexuality. 

Here's a chart that shows the percentages of sexual orientations (and transgender) by age of respondent:

  Hide contents

Here's looking at just males:

  Hide contents

Here's looking at just females:

  Hide contents

So, while the non-heterosexual population tends to be around 7% in most of the population (which is reflected in the 5-10% range that has been fairly well-established in the literature) among young adults, the increase has been dramatic. But, the increase is not equal across the diverse sexual orientation options. It is primarily driven by huge increases in bisexual females, and to a lesser extent male/female trans identification. I think I've read that somethin like 70% of the increase in these categories is attributable to bisexual females. Anyway, I'm curious if this change is enduring (both for this cohort as they age and for future cohorts), and, if it is, whether it changes the mate selection dynamics for these females. In other words, if I'm a highly-educated bisexual female experiencing the issues discussed in this thread related to finding a suitable male partner, do I decide to settle with a more successful bisexual/lesbian female? If so, with such a large increase in this bisexual population, does it serve to appreciably reduce the disparities between educated women and men as it relates to their mate options?

without doing any kind of research or having any studies to back up my assertion, I would wager that this has a lot to do with the rapid change in society's tolerance of different orientations as well as the general fluidity/spectrum of sexual orientation. Women tending a lot more towards the middle of the spectrum than men seems to line up with reality for me, and I also wonder how much of that is because of the actual differences between men and women and how much of it is because society is still far more tolerant of lesbians and bisexual women than gay men or bisexual men. I feel like in a weird way probably there's even less... understanding of the idea of a bisexual man than a gay man right now.

Anyways, I'm suggesting that it could be there are fewer non hetero old people showing up on the chart because of a) closeted gays b) bisexual trending people reporting as purely hetero, and for good measure c) young people experiment while old people settle in

 

For kids with dads who stay at home, I suspect that if that arrangement works well for everyone involved (actually involved) it probably doesn't hurt the kids' respect for their fathers at all. Why would or should they have the notion that it is specifically a man's job to be the primary income earner in the family or financially support a nuclear home owning family alone? Speaking from the exact same place of jumping to conclusions that probably support what I think anyways, I would suggest that

  a) men in their 20s and 30s who were raised to believe this and no longer live in a society that makes it easy for typical/average dumbass males are a problem, and

  b) every dude who makes $67k/drives a Dodge Stratus feeling that this makes them a complete man and therefore a paragon of American success and an expert in all topics is a problem

B is an issue that we would all do well to check ourselves on regularly

Edited October 16, 2021 by Celery Man

[WhatTheBuck 28771]

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I went to an all make Jesuit high school.

Did you get made a lot?

[Brisketexan 105036]

Did you get made a lot?

And that’s a fair question. Fucking autocorrect and fat fingers.

[Underdog 28543]

On 10/13/2021 at 12:37 PM, Blotto said:

Would wear those legs like a feedbag. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13506]

On 10/13/2021 at 10:33 PM, Snake Diggity said:

Yes, in a vacuum.  But I think technology will start to replace degreed jobs more relative to non-degrees jobs (compared to the past), and minimum wage increases will push up non-degreed wages relative to degreed wages.  And I am not sure the pool of trade workers will increase in total even though less men go to college; population stabilization/decline will decrease the total pool of workers.

A lot of my opinion is based on my own anecdotal experience.  The opportunity to make money with a trade skill these days seems unlimited.

Technology will replace tasks and jobs, regardless of degrees. And in the macro, the people that are deciding to take a break from working, are screwing themselves in the long run. Shortage of truck drivers? Fine, let's fast track self-driving vehicles. Doesn't mean 100% replacement but supply chains won't want to rely of human resources as much as they are now. Same with office jobs. The pandemic has proven that many jobs can be remote, so let's find the best candidate in the country or world that will accept a lower paycheck.

I think it's great if young men want to become electricians or plumbers or contractors because we need them. However if they bring the attitudes, that led them to playing video games 24/7, they're not going to be successful.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4974]

On 10/13/2021 at 9:32 AM, MissingInAction said:

Have any of these mass shooters been married at the time of the crime? 

If anything, almost all mass shooters being unmarried disproves the notion that lack of sex causes these things.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21864]

If a married guy is going to murder someone it's about 99% that it will be his wife, not some random person/people

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

On 10/15/2021 at 7:20 PM, Brisketexan said:

Fascinating.  And maybe really, really important.

While anecdotes are not data, this is something my wife observed (and got pissed about) years ago.  She saw our daughter go through an education that was DESIGNED for her: sit still, with your bright and shiny faces, and be a pleaser to the teacher.  Girls are a LOT better at that than boys are.

On the flip side, the system punishes and deems poor performers anyone who is wiggly, squirmy, loud, needs to move about, etc.  In other words.....most boys.  Here's a couple of blog posts on the topic: https://theparentcue.org/how-boys-learn-differently-than-girls/   and https://theparentcue.org/how-girls-learn-differently-than-boys/  They cite to "Why Gender Matters," a REALLY great book.  Recommend it to most parents I know.

Summary statements:

Compare to boys:

So.....which one of those learning styles is our education system built for?  Which one does it affirmatively work AGAINST?  I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to say that our K-12 model is FAILING our boys, and we're reaping the results.  But society is a complex system.  Our education system has ALWAYS had that flaw.  But for most of history, the relative disadvantage that boys got in K-12 education was made up for by a higher-education system and workplace that were tilted to favor men.  Johnny didn't have to be as good a student as Jane because Jane wasn't a threat to take Johnny's job as an attorney or doctor or accountant.  Jane was gonna be a nurse, teacher, or housewife.

Fast-forward to the 80s and beyond.  Janes are still "A" students.  Johnnys are still "B" students (yes, there are outliers in both groups -- we're just talking about the general outcome/product of our education system).  But now, High End University is getting lots of applications from female students.  And on paper, for ever 2 high-performing males the HEU wants to admit, there are 3 females it wants to admit.  Because they have kick-ass transcripts.  And after higher ed is over, Fancy Law Firm doesn't favor male candidates -- it just hires the best.  Top Notch Oncology Clinic hires from the best, doesn't care about gender.  Etc. etc. across the board.

When we had a K-12 education system that favored girls, but everything after that favored boys, then you at least had a shot at balance (although of course, for a long-ass time, the post K-12 favoritism ruled the day -- men dominated the workplace).  Now that we have a K-12 system that favors girls, and everything after that is AT LEAST close to balanced, we're seeing the results of the K-12 discrepancy.  And the result will be dangerous for us. 

Biology long dictated that "idle women" were not a problem -- they actually weren't going to be idle.  They were going to have and raise children -- a pretty solid occupation and purpose.  So, in terms of creating large social risks, "idle women" who didn't have a lot of opportunities post K-12 wasn't a destabilizing influence.

But "idle men" are.....trouble.  They are a destabilizing influence -- on families, communities, and society as a whole.  

Not sure what all to do about it.  But to take it back to the thesis of these last few posts, a deliberate re-examination of our K-12 education model would be a really good fucking start.

So, we just got my daughters ADHD diagnosis yesterday, and adhd for girls is not the normal- she fits into what you are talking about school designed to shit on (as does my ADHD son- I’m basically a sloth but my dad is ADHD, my brother is and 5 of the 7 grandkids from dad are ADHD). It’s amazing when they all get together watching them vibrate basically sitting in their chairs- it’s hard to describe and I’m sure at an earlier time in my life I probably suspected the diagnosis was bullshit, but parenting through this it’s definitely a thing. 
one of the interesting things I noted from the test was they put them on a computer for 15 minutes and it’s boring as fuck- they are supposed to hit a space bar when a shape shows up. No measure of intelligence just- hey- when you see a shape hit this button. 
the typical girl that’s 6 years old will “miss” 6 shapes out of 100’s that go by in 15 minutes. My daughter missed 6 a minute seemingly. 
school is tedious and boring. The neurological girl, all the way from age 6, can deal with this. Hyper kids just can’t. 
The tests showed my son with an IQ around 130. He’s texted gifted. He basically failed out of kindergarten even though we held him back (august 17 birthday) and he didn’t start school until he was 6 years and 2 days old- still ended up getting jerked from kindergarten and home schooled in March. He we r from not being able to read and crying whenever we worked with him to being top of his class by the start of first grade. He got Diagnosed. He got medicine. He got home schooled until he caught up to where he needed to be. His behavior came in line with the medicine (when we forget it three or four times a year he uniformly gets bad not from the teacher) but as long as he takes the pill he can succeed and thrive. 
Let’s just say I don’t guess most parents of kids like this have the resources, know how, commitment or free time to be able to stay on top of it like that. And that’s how you get smart boys that can’t compete with girls. 
the boy is way smarter than his older sister who knocks down straight A’s. She’s calm, not prone to checking out bc it gets boring, and doesn’t cause problems. She will always be a better student until/unless she ends up needing serious mental horsepower to succeed. She’s above average so that isn’t likely to happen in high school not most college tracts. Unless she tries to do hard science, math, computers etc. but going to law school?  Will be a piece of cake for her. 

[Guest Lobo]

Jesus dude, thanks for making it weird.  And also true.  

95% of cases with female homicide victim---police start with the husband/boyfriend.

95% of cases with multiple shooting victims---police start with single white male with beef against people/business/school.

There's a reason for that.  

 

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

32 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If anything, almost all mass shooters being unmarried disproves the notion that lack of sex causes these things.

I know it’s a joke but the typical married person has way more sex than the typical non married. 
I can feel like I’m in a massive dry spell and have sex 5 or 6 times a month. You have to hit 100% yo best that if you are single and going out every Friday and Saturday night. 
when things are going well it’s 10 or 12 times a month. You’d have to be a degenerate with incredible game to knock down 10 or 12 sexual experience as a single person in a month. 

[MissingInAction 25000]

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know it’s a joke but the typical married person has way more sex than the typical non married. 
I can feel like I’m in a massive dry spell and have sex 5 or 6 times a month. You have to hit 100% yo best that if you are single and going out every Friday and Saturday night. 
when things are going well it’s 10 or 12 times a month. You’d have to be a degenerate with incredible game to knock down 10 or 12 sexual experience as a single person in a month. 

10 a month was nothing in my 20s and 30s. In my late 40s and I barely even think about sex ten times a month.

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

1 minute ago, MissingInAction said:

10 a month was nothing in my 20s and 30s. In my late 40s and I barely even think about sex ten times a month.

Yeah but you aren’t exactly an argument against degeneracy here. Most people don’t go out 10 or 12 times a month. Even if it was guaranteed. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[MissingInAction 25000]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but you aren’t exactly an argument against degeneracy here. Most people don’t go out 10 or 12 times a month. Even if it was guaranteed. 

Oh I'm most definitely a degen.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13506]

19 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know it’s a joke but the typical married person has way more sex than the typical non married. 
I can feel like I’m in a massive dry spell and have sex 5 or 6 times a month. You have to hit 100% yo best that if you are single and going out every Friday and Saturday night. 
when things are going well it’s 10 or 12 times a month. You’d have to be a degenerate with incredible game to knock down 10 or 12 sexual experience as a single person in a month. 

 

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but you aren’t exactly an argument against degeneracy here. Most people don’t go out 10 or 12 times a month. Even if it was guaranteed. 

I get your argument but single people don't just have bars as options to pick someone up. They could have someone that is just a phone call away, and I know some guys who can basically order sex off apps like Tinder.

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I get your argument but single people don't just have bars as options to pick someone up. They could have someone that is just a phone call away, and I know some guys who can basically order sex off apps like Tinder.

Yeah- the apps and computerization of hook ups probably work to get it closer to level, but even a phone call is work/planning that a married guy in a healthy relationship doesn’t have to engage in. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

Phone call is a lot less work than setting up a sex tent.

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I get your argument but single people don't just have bars as options to pick someone up. They could have someone that is just a phone call away, and I know some guys who can basically order sex off apps like Tinder.

Average single person with no partner has sex 33 times a year. Average married 64 times a year. Average cohabitating non married person 83 times a year. 

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

Phone call is a lot less work than setting up a sex tent.

True. Which is why probably only averaged 6 times a month during our trip. 

[XYZ 2154]

How does all this bullshit tie in to “population decline”?

[Guest Lobo]

Well if Wulaw Horn keeps fucking at this rate, he could possibly turn the tide of declining population levels in Westernized Cultures. 

I for one applaud his efforts

Edited October 20, 2021 by Lobo

[Nice Guy Eddie 13506]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Average single person with no partner has sex 33 times a year. Average married 64 times a year. Average cohabitating non married person 83 times a year. 

I'm not saying that single people have sex more than married people. But single doesn't mean going to the bars to pick someone up.

[Sandman 3403]

On 10/15/2021 at 7:20 PM, Brisketexan said:

She saw our daughter go through an education that was DESIGNED for her: sit still, with your bright and shiny faces, and be a pleaser to the teacher.  Girls are a LOT better at that than boys are.

This makes sense to me, as most teachers are female. I don't think it's some kind of conspiracy, I just think it's natural for women to structure things in a manner that appeals to, or would benefit other females. 

[F250 28760]

6 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Average single person with no partner has sex 33 times a year. Average married 64 times a year. Average cohabitating non married person 83 times a year. 

Yeah that's the benefit of having a live in sex partner. The down side being that they live in your house.

 

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Yeah that's the benefit of having a live in sex partner. The down side being that they live in your house.

 

Also the average is 33 because some people can apparently run through 33 in a holiday weekend 

[Wulaw Horn 19063]

6 hours ago, Sandman said:

This makes sense to me, as most teachers are female. I don't think it's some kind of conspiracy, I just think it's natural for women to structure things in a manner that appeals to, or would benefit other females. 

I don’t think this is it. I taught for a couple years and I preferred people who would sit still and shit up and not cause problems. It’s just easier on the teacher. My guess is every teacher more or less would find that to be their preference.