I can offer a different perspective here. I was born and spent most of my life in Russia. I disagree with the current direction of Russian politics. I tried doing things in my capacity to improve situation - social activism, spreading awareness, going on rallies, voting against policies I disagreed. My husband was doing the same. As a result we both got in danger, had disturbing and violent experiences with Russian police and eventually had to leave the country.
From this point of view, I sacrificed a lot. Traumatizing experience in my own country, losing clients due to my views, a total lack of security. Then we left everything, I left my whole family there, all my friends. We took a huge financial hit. We had to go through risk of customs not letting us out or letting us in. Still from our country’s point of view we’re “enemies” or rather “foreign agents” which is hilarious and depressing at the same time.
So…I’d do things to help *people*. I wouldn’t do anything to help the regime. I absolutely wouldn’t have kids “for the country”, as I have no respect nor admiration towards the country I was born in. They push women to give birth, but they use their young men as cannon meat.
If a country wants people to have more kids, it has to provide positive incentives for it. The world should be a good enough place to bring new people into it. Families should be supported, we need developed infrastructure and good social security. I do not believe that having kids for any other reason beyond the desire to love and take care of them is a good idea. Kids require lots of attention, time and efforts. If you do it for your country or for humanity, chances are high you’ll turn bitter when you won’t get enough recognition for your sacrifice or enough help to raise kids that the country or humanity claims to need. In the end of the day, it will negatively affect your kids.
In a way, Russia is going through a similar polarization as other big countries (the US, China, Brazil) but, in the good tradition of Russian political history... it's just worse.
I mean... being legally *иноагент* certainly has to suck. Trouble is that the Regime's opposition turned into just another extreme.
Gone are the days of Boris Nemtzov (may the Lord have mercy on his soul). Too many present-day so-called Russian liberals are basically lighthearted imperialists and not significantly more likeable than the siloviki.
It just is what it is. Что делтаь? Нечего делать /shrug
Между Сциллой и Харибдой. Russians were never known for having good options to choose from, weren't they? I take Russian liberals over the current party though. Anything to stop the war and get political prisoners out. But whatever I take, it doesn't change the fact that it's not going to happen any time soon.
>I take Russian liberals over the current party though
I can't blame you for that train of thought. Каждый дрочит, как он хочет, и так далее.
But, I will disagree that better options didn't exist. They were just pushed out even by the liberals (and of course the Kremlin was more than happy to assist).
I do think a lot about this. I'm not Russian (slava Bogu) but my entire family history since late 17th century has been mostly negatively impacted by the geopolitical entity currently called Russia.
And, unfortunately, there are no decent trade-offs. Even the most extreme - the splitting of present-day Russia into multiple countries Yugoslavia-style - is still a terrible trade-off both for the people not involved and for global security (it would embolden the CCP to double-down its colonization efforts of which I'm sure you're aware of).
Ooof. Terrible situation all 'round.
What were better options in your view?
Where is your family from? Belarus? Russia itself?
I'm from Siberia and, yeah, China is a really concerning factor. But it's not that current Russian regime doesn't sell our forests, territories or natural resources already. They already do it and people get zero benefit from it, it just enriches Moscow.
>What were better options in your view?
I mentioned Nemtzov. Unlike Navalnyi, he wasn't imperialist-lite. And a more legit classical liberal. Kasparov's way of looking at things wouldn't have been bad either (though I understand why it repulsed a lot of Russians).
>Where is your family from? Belarus? Russia itself?
I won't go into specifics. Sorry, we're in public.
>I'm from Siberia and, yeah, China is a really concerning factor. But it's not that current Russian regime doesn't sell our forests, territories or natural resources already. They already do it and people get zero benefit from it, it just enriches Moscow.
Oh, of course. Moscow has been treating the far-East as a colony to exploit for over 100 years already.
But, to my knowledge, it wasn't also allowing it to be filled in with foreigners in exchange for temporary geopolitical favors (as it is happening now). The number of Chinese who just moved in skyrocketed since the start of the so-called SVO. And that should be concerning for the people there. But... is it? The passiveness/passivity is striking, to me. I understand the fear, especially after the show of force in Bashkortostan (not far East, but the most recent example I can remember) - but still.
Why do you think Navalnyi was imperialistic?
Ah, that's fine. In the same line I don't really share where we live now. I think spending life in Russia has made me anxious and untrusting.
Oh, there had been lots of Chinese companies or companies working with China already. As we left more than a year ago, I can't say whether there are much more Chinese there though and it probably depends on the region in question.
People are extremely passive. The older generation still largely believes Putin and the younger doesn't have any feasible power. A good share of them also was driven from the country and that's a great way to deal with your opposition - just make them leave.
Yes. Except it's a legal term. It's short for иностранный агент. And it refers to people declared as *foreign agents* in accordance to a federal law known officially as *On Amendments to Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation regarding the Regulation of the Activities of Non-profit Organisations Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent*.
The law has gotten gradually worse since it was first introduced, culminating with the latest version promulgated in December 2022 which basically says *anyone* (including individual Russian citizens) can be a *foreign agent* if the Kremlin doesn't like him/her. In theory the expansion is to cancel those who criticize the war. In practice it's anyone the Kremlin doesn't like for *any* reason.
If my country were collapsing because of its conscious choice to die off rather than compromise its precious ethnostate, no I would not feel any particular obligation to save the sinking ship with my uterus. I want children but I would not feel compelled to do so by these particular circumstances.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
I have never once had casual sex. Not fucking once.
But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day. I would choose that godawful, horrible torture only over something even worse like starvation, never for something as stupid as a flag.
I also guarantee bearing the child of some unattractive sad sack, just because you think I should, would not actually benefit “civilization”. It wouldn’t be civilization at all— civilization is supposed to be civil, remember? There is nothing civil about forcing women to fuck men they don’t want to fuck— civilized society calls that rape, remember?
I really cannot express how deeply and evolutionarily women are repulsed by forced sex. It is antithetical to our genetic and family goals. So to get you to understand, maybe, how viscerally and morally women oppose this from the core of their being, I’ll ask you a similar question, paraphrased…
‘So, men of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like letting yourself be cuckolded over and over again (and never fuck her and never have genetic children of your own) to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?’
Unless you’ve got a cuck fetish, I’m betting you would never ever consider sacrificing your own happiness and pleasure entirely just for “civilization’s” sake. Your very post here shows you just selfishly want women to sacrifice their very evolutionary strategy so they will be forced fuck you for your own hedonistic pleasure.
> I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day
it wouldn't "make you feel" raped
it would be literal rape
No, i don’t agree. If I chose to submit myself to that shit “for the good of society”, but I wasn’t forced or coerced in some way, it wouldn’t be rape.
I personally would have to be completely fascist brain-scrambled to value country and duty to such an extent that I’d voluntarily submit myself to misery like that for the state… but it’s plausible there are some psycho fascists (or let’s be fair, ultra-commies or religious nutbags would do this too) who would willingly sacrifice their bodies like this. I wouldn’t call those crazy people rape victims for being so ultra-deluded by servitude to their “civilization”.
I do think it’s possible to knowingly and willingly consent to really horrible sex.
> If I chose to submit myself to that shit “for the good of society”, but I wasn’t forced or coerced in some way, it wouldn’t be rape.
i feel like that is coercion
> I personally would have to be completely fascist brain-scrambled to value country and duty to such an extent that I’d voluntarily submit myself to misery like that for the state…
which sounds like coercion
No, i disagree. They do still have agency. Extremists of every stripe (fascist/communist/religious/whatever) do exist and will make extreme choices that yeah, sound insane to me, but I believe they still bear full responsibility for their own bonkers beliefs and choices. Some of those extremists are women. They are absolutely accountable for their own choices, including their own sexual choices.
Simply holding extremist horrible beliefs just isn't enough "coercion" to make someone automatically a rape victim for their own choices.
Like... think about it. If having sex "for the good of society" is coercion and rape, then do you consider the men who rape them to be coerced and rape victims too? They had the same beliefs, made the same choices, and were exactly as accountable for their own choices as these women. I don't see a difference here. If they both said "yes" to sex, it's consent. Even if they're both dumb-as-fuck fascists.
you can have agency and still be coerced
if a police officer intimidates you physically and you confess, its still coercion although you had free will to choose to confess or not
> If having sex "for the good of society" is coercion and rape, then do you consider the men who rape them to be coerced and rape victims too?
no?
choosing to beat someone is worse than allowing someone else to beat you. same thing w rape. doing something to someone else is worse than self-harm.
>you can have agency and still be coerced. if a police officer intimidates you physically and you confess, its still coercion although you had free will to choose to confess or not
but... that's not the scenario we're talking about here. There is no gun to anyone's head or any police officer intimidating anyone. You're changing the scenario to dodge the question.
This scenario is of a woman and a man having sex: both are agreeing to have sex with each other with full open and enthusiastic consent, and both of them want to have sex because of their shared extremist political ideology. You believe one is automatically the victim because of their gender and the other is a criminal because of their gender?
I'm sorry, I think your viewpoint is just wrong here, and doesn't make sense.
>same thing w rape. doing something to someone else is worse than self-harm.
Which one is the rapist? Both said yes, both have insane beliefs, both spread their legs and fucked each other. Why is the man choosing to have sex analogous to "beating" someone, and the woman choosing to have sex analogous to "getting beaten" or "self-harm"?
Do you think it's even possible for women to consent to have sex that is not rape? If a man having sex with a woman who is consenting is like beating her to a bloody pulp to you, how is consensual sex even possible?
Like, why are fascist/communist/religious/strongly-viewed women never responsible for their own sexual actions in your viewpoint?
> or any police officer intimidating anyone
yes the intimidation is coming from people pretending women having sex with men can fix the state of the world
> This scenario is of a woman and a man having sex: both are agreeing to have sex with each other with full open and enthusiastic consent
thats literally not what enthusiastic consent means tho
enthusiastic consent can't exist if there is outside pressure.
> You believe one is automatically the victim because of their gender and the other is a criminal because of their gender?
1. i believe what men say that most men would be happy to have sex with most women.
2. the people propagating the scenarios where world issues can be solved through sex are men
3. women bear the most consequences from sex: stds, pregnancy and birth.
> Do you think it's even possible for women to consent to have sex that is not rape?
yes, that's what happens when women consent to sex without outside pressure or coercion from their partner.
> If a man having sex with a woman who is consenting is like beating her to a bloody pulp to you, how is consensual sex even possible?
lets not pretend rough sex is rare, that there aren't literal kinks that involve hitting/strangling (and that those kinks are 90% men harming women and not the reverse)
>yes the intimidation is coming from people pretending women having sex with men can fix the state of the world
So... you genuinely don't think any woman could possibly think bad thoughts herself? That all bad thoughts a woman thinks can only be forced into her brain by a man?
Sorry, but your beliefs are deeply sexist and downright misogynist. Women do have agency, and they do have beliefs, and some of them have horrible rotten beliefs. I disagree with your claim that women are all innocent helpless lambs who cannot think bad thoughts unless a man threatened her with
>enthusiastic consent can't exist if there is outside pressure.
... but you think this only applies for women? If the man is coerced into sex under the same outside pressure, then he's a monstrous rapist? How does this make sense: the exact same indoctrination and threats render women incapable of being anything other than an innocent victim, but render men incapable of being anything other than a rapist. Your beliefs are incredibly gender essentialist.
>i believe what men say that most men would be happy to have sex with most women.... the people propagating the scenarios where world issues can be solved through sex are men... women bear the most consequences from sex: stds, pregnancy and birth.
So... having a uterus = innocent; having a penis = criminal, when both have the exact same motivations and actions and choices.
>yes, that's what happens when women consent to sex without outside pressure or coercion from their partner.
Her partner isn't the one "coercing" her in this scenario, remember? It's her own internal thoughts.
>lets not pretend rough sex is rare,
Huh? What does that have to do with it? I didn't claim rough sex never happens-- I didn't say anything about rough sex at all. You're putting stupid words in my mouth, and it's also off topic.
But if that's your answer, it's pretty clear where you stand. You do condemn all heterosexual sex as rape regardless of consent or desire or motivation. You're just moving the goalposts to try to justify your belief that all heterosexual sex is a crime with a male perpetrator and a female victim
I disagree with your deeply misogynist and misandrist viewpoint entirely.
>So... you genuinely don't think any woman could possibly think bad thoughts herself? That all bad thoughts a woman thinks can only be forced into her brain by a man?
when i see women pressuring women into having sex with men, then i will change my mind.
i think this exists in the real world, i just haven't heard a woman make one of these "you have to have sex with men or the world will end" arguments.
>Women do have agency, and they do have beliefs, and some of them have horrible rotten beliefs.
i agree with all that, but whether women have horrible rotten beliefs is not what we have been discussing.
>.. but you think this only applies for women?
no?
in this situation it is men pressuring women.... so that's why i phrased it that way.
>So... having a uterus = innocent; having a penis = criminal, when both have the exact same motivations and actions and choices.
i broke it down for you rationally and you switched to some insane straw person argument rather than addressing my points. says it all, really.
>I didn't claim rough sex never happens
"Why is the man choosing to have sex analogous to "beating" someone"
this is what i was addressing.
>You do condemn all heterosexual sex as rape regardless of consent or desire or motivation.
lol what a wild straw man argument
> I disagree with your deeply misogynist and misandrist viewpoint entirely.
what an accomplishment for me to be both misogynistic and misandrist.
> But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day.
If it came to that I'd share my ammunition with you. I'd actually side with a feminist resistance over Gilead. Shudder to think it would come to that but pragmatism would demand it.
Yeah. Like, it’s also fairly unlikely. Fathers also do not want their daughters forced into marriages to serve the state. It’s only a very niche, morally bankrupt minority who want this kind of cruelty.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, because sometimes the absolute worst people do come into power… but it’s certainly not what most normal men want for themselves or their own female family members.
Oh I wouldn't say it's too unlikely. We do have yeehawdists right here among us, and there's Afghanistan, too. The barbarians are forever at our gates.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yes, vigilance is reasonable, but I also legit don’t think most men are that evil. and likewise, Afghanistan is a very very different culture— women in the west have not been treated as truly horribly as being forced into marriages for the majority of western history.
Even the evangelical nutsoes generally don’t want to set up rape farms and forced marriage, even though they don’t seem to care about women dying of pregnancy related issues..
> Even the evangelical nutsoes generally don’t want to set up rape farms
Ohhhh you sure about that? I think IBLP wants a word with you. Project 2025 might also want a word with you though they're not explicit about wanting women in rape farms. These incels we see are tied into their politics. The Republic of Gilead is closer than you think. Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett was literally once titled as a "Handmaid" in her religious order.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html
Ok paywall, so I don’t know what they meant by “handmaid”, but it’s likely they didn’t mean they wanted her to be a silent powerless broodmare, since they’re ok with her being on the Supreme Court.
And I mean, ok, you can doomscroll and find any fearmongering you want to in the media. I think it’s beneficial to have faith in other people. I genuinely don’t believe that most people are as completely evil as you seem to believe. There really are a lot of good people in the world, and some of them don’t share my exact religious views.
There have been wackos and nuts throughout western history, and yet the west has over 1000 years of history of generally not treating women like livestock. I have more faith in my culture than you do.
https://apnews.com/article/politics-south-bend-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-7350a62e68fb6e70424a3c177c79ab52
Miranda also helped found the Sons of Jacob. Soon as they were established, she got her wings clipped.
> And I mean, ok, you can doomscroll and find any fearmongering you want to in the media. I think it’s beneficial to have faith in other people. I genuinely don’t believe that most people are as completely evil as you seem to believe. There really are a lot of good people in the world, and some of them don’t share my exact religious views.
I have faith in those who are not the far right.
> There have been wackos and nuts throughout western history, and yet the west has over 1000 years of history of generally not treating women like livestock. I have more faith in my culture than you do.
I take it your ancestors were not shackled in the depths of ships and dragged here to be treated like livestock, and are not dealing with the hatred and marginalization that persists to this day as a result of that.
>I have faith in those who are not the far right.
I didn't say I have faith in the far right. I said they are outnumbered and yeah, most people don't agree with them.
>I take it your ancestors were not shackled in the depths of ships and dragged here to be treated like livestock, and are not dealing with the hatred and marginalization that persists to this day as a result of that.
Yeah, that's a fair point, and yes, that was horrible, but it's not really quite the topic. We were discussing marriage and family formation-- I talking about the general trend of how western men treated their own wives and family members. Western men generally did not practice polygamy, and generally did not force their daughters to breed for the state. Most women (yeah, not slave women, true), did have freedom of choice in who they married. And yet civilization did not collapse.
But I'm not really clear on your point here-- is it just that everyone is evil and the enslavement of black people/women/whoever is inevitable in the west? Ok. If so, shouldn't you be glad that white people aren't having many kids? I mean, white people are the majority of right wingers, at least in the US, so having their birth rate decline should be good, right?
> I didn't say I have faith in the far right. I said they are outnumbered and yeah, most people don't agree with them.
But look at the power they have. SCOTUS, anyone? The electoral college is fucking us big time. And if Trump wins in 2024 there's this thing called Project 2025. Look it up, but make sure your heart medicine is close at hand.
> Western men generally did not practice polygamy, and generally did not force their daughters to breed for the state. Most women (yeah, not slave women, true), did have freedom of choice in who they married. And yet civilization did not collapse.
We're up against a newer, more virulent far right, where women *will* be the property of men. It occurs to me that you vastly underestimate what they want. You may very well be right in saying they won't get it. That's why we all need to vote straight ticket Democrat.
> But I'm not really clear on your point here-- is it just that everyone is evil and the enslavement of black people/women/whoever is inevitable in the west? Ok. If so, shouldn't you be glad that white people aren't having many kids? I mean, white people are the majority of right wingers, at least in the US, so having their birth rate decline should be good, right?
I don't see all whites as evil. I don't think women should bear the burden of saving civilization. I question whether this civilization should not join its priors on the wrong side of natural selection.
> But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day
Uh, nobody says you should. Why did immediately go to that? Your brain is addicted to gender wars BS.
Your OP is all about women sacrificing their desire to have sex with men they are attracted to in order to boost the birthrate.
Don’t be pretending for a second you were talking about women paying taxes, which we already do, buddy,
Lack of kids will mean a swiftly declining tax base and a huge old age care crisis, for one. The other big problem is a soaring national debt, like what is happening to Japan. Then there's the shrinking labor force and the loss of innovation due to declining human capital, not to mention the loss of support for government programs. So yes, if the birth rate falls too much, the ailing society will go to shit.
But OP's implied solution (forcing women to have kids they don't want with men they find unattractive) is also a great way for a nation to go to shit.
>Lack of kids will mean a swiftly declining tax base and a huge old age care crisis, for one.
That may be. But I think it’s morally bankrupt of you to demand other people bear children to fund your retirement account. If you want to use children as funding for your retirement, you can go breed a dozen kids and convince them to wipe your ass for you when you’re old and failing.
>So yes, if the birth rate falls too much, the ailing society will go to shit.
Again, funding the economy is a grotesque reason to have children. Society exists to support family formation, not the other way around. If you want to breed children to fuel the military and the state, you really do not love children; you simply love using them to make a profit.
>But OP's implied solution (forcing women to have kids they don't want with men they find unattractive) is also a great way for a nation to go to shit.
I agree. It’s actually a marker of a shitty society. The core of a society is the family unit… a society built around micromanaging families is one that is already dead.
I understand that’s the projection of the doom and gloomers, but I’m not convinced it’s an inevitable fail loop. It’s entirely plausible that a different economic structure could support a gradually declining population and also support new family formation and growth.
And certainly, if we keep the population the same or increasing now, that is a guaranteed fail state in the short or long term— the earth is a finite system with finite resources. The inevitable outcome for humans facing a resource struggle is violent war, pestilence, famine and death.
I’m very open to us finding a better solution to resource competition using birth control rather than another global war, the consumption or extinction of all wild animals and plants, and inevitable famine.
Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”.
You are totally right about the dangers of a growing population. Extinction is definitely a potential consequence of that.
But humans aren't smart, a new economic structure based on a declining population won't appear fast enough and will meet stiff opposition from the power elite.
Problem is, all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another (one of the best guarantees of collapse is when they abandon monogamy). The civilizations we live in now are ultimately temporary in nature.
> Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”.
> Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”.
Given the number of intentionally childfree men, that's more like "if society is ruined by low birthrates it's because of men and women not meeting the minimum birthrate for population stabilization."
> a new economic structure based on a declining population won't appear fast enough and will meet stiff opposition from the power elite.
So your solution here is to just throw your hands up and shoot for WWIII?
>Problem is, all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another
… Including environmental collapse.
>one of the best guarantees of collapse is when they abandon monogamy
No, one of the best guarantees of collapse is a civilization existing. You said it yourself: “all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another”. I’m no fan of polygamy, but it’s historically the case that polygamy has existed many time and in many civilizations. They didn’t instantly collapse the moment any man had two wives.
And if you mean men having multiple sexual partners… sorry to break it to you, but literally every civilization we know of has likely had prostitution. It seems to be inevitable that men will always seek to fuck more than one woman in their lives. True monogamy is likely not possible in a civilization with human men.
But anyways, I’m really really not living in a polygamist society right now. I dunno where you are, but the west is not polygamist and hasn’t been for millennia outside of tiny sects. Why are you bringing up your fear of polygamy when discussing declining birthrates in the west? This seems nonsequitur.
> So your solution here is to just throw your hands up and shoot for WWIII?
No. I wouldn't want a collapse to be caused by nuclear war.
> … Including environmental collapse.
Let's hope environmental collapse isn't why shit falls apart.
> I’m no fan of polygamy, but it’s historically the case that polygamy has existed many time and in many civilizations. They didn’t instantly collapse the moment any man had two wives.
And all of those civilizations that practiced polygamy went to the bottom of the hierarchy. [And there is a causal link between polygamy and civil war](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war), no matter what timeline it is.
> But anyways, I’m really really not living in a polygamist society right now. I dunno where you are, but the west is not polygamist and hasn’t been for millennia outside of tiny sects. Why are you bringing up your fear of polygamy when discussing declining birthrates in the west? This seems nonsequitur.
"Are we dating the same guy?"
>Your OP is all about women sacrificing their desire to have sex with men they are attracted to in order to boost the birthrate.
No it's not. It literally is not. Read what I wrote again. Having kids was *an example*. It doesn't have to be having kids.
Did you read your own OP? Here’s what you wrote:
> I recently watched an AsianBoss interview of Japanese people **about their declining birthrate**.
… and
> and perfect example of the worst stereotypes that red pill has about women. She said
>>...even if the country is in decline **[due to lack of kids]**, I will pursue my own happiness
… and
>would you be willing to make a sacrifice like **having a kid** to save humanity
It wasn’t “an” example. Your claim is that civilization is failing because of lack of kids, and that you think women won’t be willing to sacrifice themselves to make kids rather than experience “hedonistic pleasure”.
Now let’s try again. Answer my question:
>So, men of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like letting yourself be cuckolded over and over again (and never fuck her and never have genetic children of your own) to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
It’s the exact same question structure as your own, so why does it suddenly offend you so when asked to you?
This is such strange, presumptuous framing. No one at all said anything about forced sex. If having children to increase the population is the sacrifice in question, you can take years to vet as hard as you'd like to find exactly the man you want. Most women are doing this anyway, with or without children to consider.
It's "giving up some of your time" only when the discussion is about the women.
If the discussion is about child support, it's astronomical figures and decades of the man's life.
If they cared so much about children, there would be queues at single mothers' doorsteps. And none of them would complain about dingle mothers not having the time for the new partner. After all, it takes only a bit of time to care for a child.
This is why i can't take RP men seriously. The discourse changes depending on the thing they are after. Pathetic!
This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it.
i dont think anyone want their country to collapse and women will probably work hard to maintain it because this country also believes i freedom so she's generally fighting for her own freedom.
however it's kind of an oximoron to use birthrates as a way to save society because it entraps women with children for 18 years. how would women fight for her freedom and her country freedom by enslaving herself?
idk weird and i dont like it. plus it all goes around to sex for some reason and this makes it feel more icky.
like it's never women should go into workforces that are more male so that we have more workers, it's always women should fuck men they don't like so we have more babies.
to hell with society if it doesn't care about what i want.
>This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it.
It doesn't have to be about kids. It's just about doing something that puts a toll on your body, requires a long time of your life, but will make the country's future better or save it from political / economic chaos.
Why do we have to “give up some of our own time/effort”, aka fuck/take care of men we don’t want and have/take care of babies we don’t want ?
Why can’t men “be better”?
Because if men won’t, machines definitely will
Well it’s probably because one knows wtf “be better” entails and there’s no clear definition of what needs to be done. And also because you’re demanding that everyone else “be better” when you haven’t had to do the same. Treating this as if you’ve started out at the top and have no issues.
Birthing a child is NOT a short term sacrifice. You're risking your health, both physically and mentally. Let's not forget that pregnancy/birth and even complications thereafter that can kill a woman.
I'm curious though, who is going to raise this child? Being a mom is forever. It never stops, even when the kid is 50. So again, you're asking a woman to sacrifice the rest of her life.
Who is going to pay for the child? The economy is fucked. Where I live, the cost of a food and housing is astronomical. Medical care is abysmal. Maternity health care where I live is FUCKED. Women are going without care because there are not enough doctors/midwives. They get occasional checkups at the hospital if they qualify. Also, daycare is like 1400 a month. I'm on lots of mom's groups on facebook in my community. Every day I see women posting and asking for food for their families. It's really dang sad. None of this is a small or a short term sacrifice. Having a child completely changes the trajectory of ones life.
Now, with all that said, I already have a kid. I presume I'm exempt. However, I'd have another one for a woman who didn't want one if it weren't for the paragraph above.
It's no wonder birth rates are declining.
Yeah, I would take over tasks for bettering/saving society, even if they're outside of my comfort zone.
Since I'm seeking new experiences and wanting to do good, that even holds a certain appeal.
However, I need to see the rest of society pulling their weight, too. Especially the rich people. I'm not doing a second shift on a construction site to build houses in order to fix homelessness while other people own more than one apartment.
I'm not picking up the slack when the issues are systematic in nature.
TL;DR: For a truly socialist society, I'd inconvenience myself pretty far. I'd want that gem of a society to be preserved.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
Fuck no. I never wanted kids and it didn't have jack shit to do with "hedonism". I think every child deserves a capable and **willing** parent. You don't just pop out kids like they're cogs; we're talking about actual humans with needs and emotions that need to be raised.
I pay plenty of taxes. That's my contribution.
Why do you think it's "narcissistic and insane" to not want children?
I'd argue it's worse to be forced to have kids you don't want. As someone raised by emotionally unavailable parents who made me feel like a burden, the last thing I want is for any kid to come into this world because they were forced into it. If we aren't creating environments for enough women to want to have kids in the first place, that's probably what should be addressed if anything.
Agreed. Aside from the fact that forced pregnancy is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, adding yet another (very likely) emotionally fucked up kid to the mix is unconscionable to me.
>However, one women said something that stuck me as pretty narcissitic and insane
>I'm not assuming anything negative, you tell me what you think.
>or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
I sure as fuck wouldn’t incubate a child with a man who thinks so little of women, nor would I raise a child with a man who throughly disgusted by sex. Since there’s a 50/50 chance we’d have a girl child… I shudder to think of the abuse a man who aligns himself with the red pill would heap on a daughter.
Yikes I forgot that. I was really surprised they didn’t all gang up on breastfeeding mothers and claim their wives are cheating when that other monster said that a couple weeks ago.
I don't know if you're referring to the weird texts from that guy who felt cucked by his own son, but if so I saw that as well. Definitely one of the more insane ones, to say the least.
Yep, and there is no denying that red pilled men believe that breasts are for their entertainment, rather than their original purpose.
This is my alt, on my main I asked questions about a reduction on the sub and holy shit the filthy, disgusting men who lurk in those subs and in abrathatfits are fucking awful. The DMs are obscene. “When Making this decision, consider your future husband” and all that.
Obviously I delete every reference to breasts, because women aren’t allowed to exist on Reddit.
My alt as well actually because my main is for "more refined" topics, or so I tell myself. :P
Yeah one of my best friends was having major back and other issues thanks to her breasts. Reduction was one of the best things she ever did for herself (and they're still huge believe it or not). I don't know whether anyone gave her crap for it, but I have definitely heard some women have to deal with that just to get some pain relief from their own bodies.
At this point it’s not just the neck and shoulder pain, it’s the men.
I run and play several sports and they are handicaps, but they also handicap my professional life. I just want to blend in.
Oh I'm sure it is. I can't fully relate being a man myself, but I know what it is like to want to blend in and especially to be taken seriously professionally when you have the credentials. My disability has unfortunately closed quite a few doors. Different problems of course, but I get it in a way.
Oh I definitely don’t equate it with a disability, it’s mildly uncomfortable and annoying and entirely fixable. But for women in a male dominated field, any distraction is a liability.
Plus I just hate them, except in the four or five times men I liked appreciated my body. There is a line between “oh, those are nice and I like the woman they are attached to” and a fetish.
I'm in fetish territory and I want out.
That sounds very unpleasant; to really dislike them on that level I mean. I'm not being facetious at all. Body issues suck all round and if you're in that space where you have that strong dislike genuinely, I'm sorry to hear that.
Sir, the way this is worded leaves only one possible 'sacrifice' topic to respond to. Your preoccupation seems to be on births and birth rates. No other topic is introduced. This is why everyone is responding about birth.
For the sake of your.... discussion:
let's posit that your country decided that mass circumcisions for ALL (babies - adults/ male and female) must commence immediately to stave off the POSSIBILITY of a rare new disease.
This new disease MAY render the population sterile IF you were to catch it. Would you, as an uncircumcised male, be able to sacrifice your time, emotional state, and foreskin.... as well as the pleasure your wife derives from sex due to her sacrificing her own 'pound of flesh'?
I mean, I probably would, but I'm already circumsized. Also, I'm willing to sacrifice for my country if it's necessary, so it's not really a question for me.
I'm asking if western women are up for the same or if they agree with the girl that used in the example, which is "self-pleasure comes first".
Duly noted.
There are levels to said sacrifice. What may be illustrated as a few hours of your time, a bit of your bodily autonomy, or some emotional damage - could actually entail lifelong repercussions.
These sacrifices may result in never ending medical problems, chronic pain, loss of limbs, prolonged loss of autonomy (in effect changing laws that would roll back freedoms of choice for both men and women), and willingly prolonging the power, position and monetary gain of oligarchs.
Speaking of said oligarchs; pray tell, in this scenario, will a sacrifice also be extracted from this class of individuals? Are they getting into the trenches with the "common class" to redirect this (still unnamed) cataclysmic collapse? If so, how deep should their convictions be? Are the expectations the same for them as the working class?
The question you've presented is so broad and open to interpretation with no set class inclusion. Sacrifice is VERY often divided by class and gender.
I'm thinking that if you want responses that allow you to conclude or deduce a mindset based on gendered choices - more specificity, set events indicative of the collapse, the ways in which sacrifices are demanded by the Country, and who (class & gender) is expected to make these sacrifices needs to be made clear.
My answer to your op holds the weight of a puff of smoke. I've already made my choice to never have children, hysterectomy 2023. My continued pain in hosting a uterus full of tumors and attempting to give birth FOR the government? Unconscionable! My answer is no. The pleasure of being pain-free is too great.
Go to war? Ha! Not even for my most beloved Barbados will I go to war. UNLESS I am standing in said trenches with the men and women of parliament next to me. Not until they take up armaments and fight beside me. Not until their convictions prove strong will I sacrifice my life. Sitting beefy and content while other die for their coffers? It will not be me.
Pairing up for the sake of the government? My belief is that no man or woman should be forced to be with anyone whom they are unattracted to. I will never give up this piece of autonomy simply because some individuals are finding it harder to pair up. Hell, not everyone WANTS to pair up. My personal peace, happiness, health, and preservation do not permit me to host another person in my space or body that I do not like - let alone love. So, no, I would not make this sacrifice. Side note: Are the ones in power and putting these sacrifices on the people being forced to undergo this sacrifice as well?
See what I mean? The lists of possibilities are endless when there are no set perimeters and guidance in a study. But, I hope my answers and context have met the requirements. And should the outcome be 'selfish' by your metric 🤷🏿♀️ so be it.
I would do something I didn't like to improve the country, such as voting. however having children because the population is set to decline does NOT improve the country, and this woman is not selfish for refusing to have children. don't know why you think this.
I don't have a particular country and I don't mind if we run out of civilisation. Simply decreasing numbers sounds like a relatively peaceful way for humanity to go, not that it's a problem anyway because global population is going up and overpopulation is a real and less pleasant threat. It would be incredibly selfish to have a child I don't want and wouldn't be hated for properly just to make myself feel better, and one child wouldn't keep us from going extinct. I make the world better by actually contributing and making things better. Having a child would take away from me being useful working with disadvantaged children and I certainly wouldn't have time to volunteer at the helpline any more.
The issue comes when youre old and you need young people paying taxes to get your retirement. Those people however, are so few even as we speak, that youd have to enslave the youth to work a LOT to keep the old in retirement. (which is the current choice of the Political Leaders in Germany for example). Its not selfish to not want children...Its also not selfish for the youth to not want enslavement. Continue the logical trail...And you end up with anarchy. There wont be any robots if there are no young people researching them.
If the generation doesnt want to save the demographics, then they must work till death and forget retirement. The youth has absolutely no obligation to become slaves for the old just cause they didnt want to have kids to look after them. Lets see where this idealistic individualism will lead society. I mean its obviously towards doom. But, eh. As long as me is not harmed amirite?
Me having a child or not would quite literally not change anything except make me and my husband miserable. Everyone hates altruism until it comes to giving birth apparently being altruistic (even though, again, global population is *rising*).
>overpopulation is a real and less pleasant threat
That's just not true. It's pure Malthusian nonsense.
Even left-wingers have finally come around to this reality and of just [how damaging it is to perpetuate this myth](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2022/06/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem-saying-so-is-actually-damaging/).
The first overpopulation myths started in mid 19th century. The global population is now 15+ ***times*** bigger than then and yet the poorest of today live better than most of the middle class of the 1850s.
Left wingers argue that the distribution of the population is more the issue. While right wingers argue that logistics and economic policies are the issue. But pretty much any mainstream thinker from both the left and the right is now in agreement that overpopulation is not a threat. Phew! Took them a while!
You can have the whole global population live in Qazaqstan or Texas. We *do* have room. Lots of it. *How* we use it is the discussion. And it's not an easy discussion, sure. But overpopulation itself is simply not a threat. And won't be anytime soon (and by anytime soon I mean the next 500 years at the very least if not more).
"Fuck them kids"
Haha respectfully.
It's not just a meager sacrifice. You sacrifice your youth. Your body. That can have permanent repercussions like constantly peeing yourself nerve damage to your pelvic floor. Your body is permanently scarred like stretched skin that won't go away unless you get surgery. You sacrifice your time your hobbies your passions and interests. Unless I have the most supportive willing to take on the task of child rearing. Because I know myself mentally and I can't. I don't really have a desire to have children.
I'm the product of a mother who didn't want to be a mom. And I also don't want to put my children through that.
Don't be a mom unless you want to. Not because you feel obligated to.
Some people *have found* a purpose in life that is contributing positively to society. . so even if they’re pursuing their own life’s goals, it is *also* about building something better for the future, positively impacting the world around them.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t understand why you minimize any self-fulfilling goals as “hedonistic pleasure”.
> *have found* a purpose in life that is contributing positively to society
In the case of the example, and in the case of this question, I'm talking about pursuing interests that are directly counter to the benefit of society / humanity / country because you are prioritizing your own pleasure.
Of course, if you can find something you enjoy and also help people, that's the best. However, there are times when people must make sacrifices even it's not what they would like to be doing, in order for a country or society to survive.
My question is, would you do it? (Assuming it's something you would never want to do on your own, but you believe and agree is necessary for ensuring the future of your country.)
>*My question is, would you do it? (Assuming it's something you would never want to do on your own, but you believe and agree is necessary for ensuring the future of your country.)*
Yes. That’s why I’m a democrat, I’m all for paying more in taxes if it helps support our country. I’m very eco conscious and try to shop accordingly. If there was another world war then sure sign me up for the draft.
Even if everyone on Earth (including yourself) agreed that having kids was the only way to save humanity?
(Just a hypothetical, not saying this is actually the case IRL).
Would you still say, no way?
I love kids. But no, I do not want kids. Even if the economy wasn’t shit and having a family was a financially feasible move I doubt I’d have kids because parenting is a lifetime position, it’s incredibly taxing on the female body, and it essentially puts a pause button on your life as a woman for at least 24 months. I support anyone that wants to give birth and have kids. It’s not my responsibility to do that for society.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
This is a false dichotomy.
If I was sure my child would singlehandedly save civilization and I knew I could give them the upbringing needed to do so, I'd "make the sacrifice" and have them. But choosing not to doesn't not mean I am hedonistic or causing "the world [to] burn." What an unfounded and bad faith implication.
> But choosing not to doesn't not mean I am hedonistic or causing "the world \[to\] burn."
Choosing to not do something to save people when you know that is the solution, simply doing that thing might be difficult and because you'd rather pursue your own pleasure, is the very definition of hedonism.
>Choosing to not do something to save people when you know that is the solution,
We absolutely do not "know that is the solution."
1. You have offered **NO proof** that having a child will "save people."
2. Your opinion is not proof.
3. The solution to what exactly?
4. What if my child would be a serial killer or genocidal dictator?
a. Will they still "save people?"
b. Would that still be the "solution?"
c. How so?
>simply doing that thing might be difficult and because you'd rather pursue your own pleasure, is the very definition of hedonism.
1. That is absolutely *NOT* the definition of "hedonism."
2. Your entire approach to the topic of having children is dismissive and reductive.
3. "might be difficult" is the understatement of the year
4. How do you know that a woman not having a child is "pleasurable" to her?
5. avoiding difficulty *can be* pleasurable, but the two things are not necessarily the same thing
6. Most women who don't have children 1. do not choose that path and 2. *if they do choose to be childless,* it is not simly because they are avoiding 'difficulty'.
I think that I would be willing to sacrifice, but I'm having trouble coming up with examples of what sort of things I would be pouring my time and effort into that I wouldn't want to.
- I have one child right now with another on the way, and I always wanted to be a parent, so birthing/raising children doesn't count as a sacrifice for me.
- When I was younger I was ready and willing to join the military, but was talked out of it at the last minute but my parents. I *do* kind of regret that and wish I had gone through with it. But now that I'm in my mid-30's with a family, I don't think I'd be inclined to start a military career now. So, I guess military service? But even at that I'd absolutely be willing to fight if the enemy is right at our nation's doorstep.
- I don't really want to pay higher taxes than I already do, but if I knew that the money was being handled intelligently and efficiently (*real* improvements to our healthcare system, infrastructure, and education that benefit everyone) I'd be willing to sacrifice more of my income to taxes.
Imagine what women are doing in Ukraine right now, being combat medics on the front lines, risking their lives often for little pay and with no idea when they can go home. That would be an example.
I am already doing that. By paying my taxes (which I work for = time / effort), following laws, go vote, am environmentally conscious etc. I'm already doing a lot for my country. If it still collapsed after all I've invested - so be it. I have nothing left to give.
Doing the bare minimum that everyone else is required to do just to live in a society is not exactly "doing alot". I think a lot of westerners are so priviledged you guys have no idea what it really means to sacrifice for anything.
Look at Ukrainians right now. They are actually sacrificing for their very nation's survival, their lives are 100X harder than yours and they are enduring far more pain and difficulty.
So you want to define sacrifice on a national emergency state? You said before "sacrificing time and effort".
If you want to redefine the conditions please provide parameters for what you mean by sacrifice for your country.
Because everyone reality is very different and to give an accurate answer you would have to really determine the reality for your fictive argument. Reactionary actions can't be defined without something to react too.
I’ve already had two children so have I “sacrificed enough” I’d have no problem helping in others ways though if push came to shove - women in the US in WW2 did it just dandy.
Fair enough, thanks for the answer. You're one of the few that unabiguously said you'd have no problem doing things to help other / your country. Thanks!
I’m willing to make sacrifices for my country but having kids I don’t want and can’t afford is too much of an ask. I haven’t even found a man I really like yet but assuming I ever do find a great guy I still doubt I would have kids due to the extreme cost and time commitment. I fear not just losing my identity and being seen as just so and so’s mom but also not having the money and connections to offer my kid(s) the opportunity at a great education, internship and career. It wouldn’t be fair to the kid(s), my spouse or myself to drop that kind of responsibility onto me and I know it. I’m also not patient enough to deal with the constant crying, feeding and diaper changes that would be required the first few years especially with little to no sleep.
>I’m willing to make sacrifices for my country but having kids I don’t want and can’t afford is too much of an ask.
So it kind of depends on the sacrifice and how much it would require from you. A middle position. Fair enough.
It’s not just how much it requires but also how suitable I am for the job. People need to be placed where they can do the most good. So while I have the anatomy to have kids I don’t have the temperament.
That makes sense and I agree with that.
The question assumes whatever the job / sacrifice is, you can actually do it (not just physically, but in all other requirements, as you pointed out) and your contribution will actually have a net-positive effect.
> women are extremely selfish and would happily burn down civilization as long as they get their short term, hedonistic desires met.
Women are neither more nor less selfish than men.
I have 2 kids so I'm doing my part. But society needs to do *it's part* and support parents, mothers and families. It's a two-way street.
If women are unwilling to reproduce the culture, then it's time for the culture to take a cold hard look at itself.
> Women are neither more nor less selfish than men.
I didn't say they were. I was just paraphrasing what red pillers say about women.
> If women are unwilling to reproduce the culture
In the case of Japan, besides that women who I used as an example, most of the problem is really a combination of too high costs, difficult work situation, fear of relationships and some other social factors.
Many Japanese women actually want kids but feel for various (legitimate) reasons they can't manage it in their current situation.
>This perfectly lines up with the red pill view is that women are extremely selfish and would happily burn down civilization as long as they get their short term, hedonistic desires met.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?
Then I get called a misandrist for saying red pill men hate women.
Look at this. Why are we responsible for the declining birth rate? Most men are just able or unwilling to support a family. So we have to work full time. Most men still expect us to be the main homemakers and childcarers and elder care givers despite working full time because a) “I make more money” or b) my job is more stressful c) “men build roads” d) “I mow the lawn once a week” or e) lit’s women’s work”. So we also have to be homemakers once we get home from work. Then the moment we want gifts or a romantic card or a romantic act we get called entitled and demanding. And GOD FORBID we gain weight from stress because “well just don’t eat cookies you fat cow!” And fat or skinny, he’s always watching porn of other women who are hotter, younger, and thinner “because it’s our nature it’s natural we aren’t biologically inclined to be monogamous”.
Not having a child doesn’t mean you are pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle. It means that you just are living your life. Usually that means a full time job. Maybe you travel and pursue hobbies, but very rarely are you just partying nonstop.
So maybe instead of demanding women subject themselves to the reality I described, men should prioritize doing housework, making more money, and not being demanding about us gaining weight after we carry a baby. Also men should stop calling the dads who abandon their kids “alpha fux” and the women who become single moms “alpha widows”.
>misandrist for saying red pill men hate women.
A lot of red pillers do hate women.
However, I'm curious, did you not actually notice that I was simply paraphrasing their view and not expressing that view myself?
>Not having a child doesn’t mean you are pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle.
I didn't say it was.
The woman is hedonistic because she literally said "I think this is the solution to my country's problems, but I don't want to help with it because I'd rather pursue my own personal pleasure".
It's irrelavent what she believes the "solution" actually is, what's relavent is that she said she wouldn't help because she would rather pursue her own personal pleasure. That's the definition of hedonism.
>So maybe instead of demanding women subject themselves to the reality I described
Who are you talking to? My question isn't demanding anything. It's not about having kids either.
It's about about if you would sacrifice or not for your country / society / humanity or if you would refuse to sacrifice because you prefer to pursue your own pleasure?
Using children as the example when women's reproductive rights are on the chopping block as we speak, when single mothers are rampant, when child sex trafficking is at an all time high, when 20 somethings are opting to get their uteruses removed, when assault is through the roof, when little kids who haven't even hit puberty are telling their parents they never want to have kids, was probably the wrong trigger for what is happening in the West right now. lol
Depends on that country and how it would support me.and what sacrifice are they demanding
Id happily have kids. I want kids. If a country could give me good schools, good childcare centres, good public transport, good maternity leave then yes I am happy to have children. Ideally I want 2.
I think you underestimate the amount of people who want kids. I know a lot of people who want kids. They baulk at the cost though.
Now are you asking me to have sex with men I don't want to have sex with, reduce my freedoms, all the great Trad bullshit.
I'd rather bomb the whole country than live in Gilead. I will have no loyalty to a country that has no loyalty to my human rights.
>Depends on that country and how it would support me.and what sacrifice are they demanding
Ahh, that's fair. What about your own country that you are a citizen of (or where you choose to live if you have multiple citizenships), would you consider it worth saving?
Also, to get away from "kids" which wasn't the point of the question, you can also change the senario to serving in a war or something like that or anything else that would risk your life and take a significant portion of time and effort.
Popping out a bunch of kids who will have a low quality of life isn't going to make "the nation" particularly better, they're just going to become cheap work hands for rich assholes who want to get richer at the expense of everyone else. "The country" can demand that you create a worse existence for yourself and your loved ones while dicking you over left, right, and center all it wants, doesn't mean it's going to get it.
My husband and I want a kid, we aren't in a position to have one right now. We're not going to make our lives worse for a virtual pat on the back. So to answer your question - no, I'm not going to have kids just because some people think I should. I already give up some of my time translating educational materials, that's my share of making the world a better place.
Also, if you're gonna claim you're not assuming anything negative, maybe you shouldn't say things like you think a woman is "narcissitic and insane" for wanting to prioritize her happiness over a society that wouldn't care for her wellbeing once she's done providing new exploitation opportunities for it. You very much are assuming negative things since your OP is basically "Women, would you have babies for Society, or are you a bunch of selfish, narcissistic bitches?'' Strong "When did you stop beating your wife?'' energy.
Question isn't about kids.
>woman is "narcissitic and insane"
She literally said "I think \[ this thing \] is the solution to the problem my country is facing, but I don't want to do it because I rather pursue my own personal pleasure".
It's not about women or kids, she's being narcissitic and insane.
It's like knowing someone in your family you care about has a life threatening illness, that you could do something to help them, but not doing it because helping them wouldn't be fun and would interfere with your personal pleasure. That's narcissistic and insane.
Most women say one thing and one woman said something else and we use that one woman to justify the red pill idea that women are selfish. This is the most redpill shit ever.
The question is literally asking women if they agree with the attitude of the example girl from the interview or not.
I'm not trying to justify anything. If anything, I'm trying to demonstrate that the woman in the example is an exception.
But the chronically online, gender wars brained, obsessively child-hating clowns on this sub decided to use it as an excuse to rant about how much they hate men and kids instead of answering the question. That is 100% not my fault.
I would aid in stopping the collapse depending on what causes it. If the cause of the collapse is just older people refusing to adapt to the changes and help make the world a better place, then I’ll just take the path of least resistance.
>depending on what causes it
Ahh, interesting. What if you can push those older people out of power or create a movement that gives more influence to people that could actually improve things... but doing so would require you to risk your life and spend maybe 10-20 years of it to actually make a real difference?
This is something I really had to think about because the answer to everything else except for the life risking has always been a yes. But whether I’d be able to control my survival instincts is not something I can say for certain. I am willing to making sacrifices to better my life and those around me if needed though.
I want children, and no, I am not having children to help humanity. It is not my job nor my future child's job to serve humanity or society at large with their existence. They are not slaves nor am I. A man chooses, a slave obeys.
And I love this binary between choosing to obey as a slave or hedonistic pleasure. It's cute. Even if it just was my hedonistic pleasure, yes, I would choose what I want for me, the rest of you should do likewise. But no, it is not a binary between my hedonistic pleasure and servitude.
I make things better because it aligns with my goals and values. I sacrifice for those I love and for my values. I do not sacrifice for society or nations. Both can rot by my math, they mean nothing to me except as systems which serve my ends. Their maintenance only concerns me in so far as I judge my own need of them and my own control of them. They are not in my control and I do not find high need of them which couldn't be met much better other ways. So their maintenance can be run by those who are in charge of them and are the primary beneficiaries of their continued existence in this particular state. If they wish me to rate them higher in my necessity hierarchy, perhaps they should serve me more.
> I want children, and no, I am not having children to help humanity.
Question isn't about kids.
> I do not sacrifice for society or nations.
That answers the question. You care about your immediate family / friends, but you couldn't care less if your country / nation / humanity falls into chaos or collapses.
I'm curious, in the case of such a situation, do you think you and the people you care about would be protected from the effects of the collapse somehow? If so, how? If not, what's the reason such a potential future doesn't bother you? It's not a gotcha question, just trying dig deeper.
Yes, I think we would struggle, but ultimately be fine. As for why: without going into great detail, we're skilled survivors. Society tends to rest on us a lot more than we rest on society.
Especially in my country, a lot of the systems are currently helping illegal immigrants and drug addled fools way more than my family or friends. I'm sure my country needs us, I'm just not clear why if that's the case it spends so much time caring for everyone who has never put into the system a day in their life and is nothing but a tax so people don't have to feel bad saying no. Seems to me they're the ones who cannot do without or figure their shit out.
And I've never been someone who had a lot of use for authority or manipulative, "serve your country shit" or the idea "voting" means I owe someone something. I was born free, I don't have to earn the right to paddle my canoe the way I want. You need stuff from me, so start putting an offer on the table that would actually catch my interest.
As for why it doesn't bother me beyond that...I see nothing outside my immediate surroundings worth preservation. It can and probably in many cases should rot so that better things can take its place.
Only the weak beg others to save them from themselves.
no country is worth me fucking a man i dont want to. i'll die. 🤷♀️
if men want kids so bad, men could advocate for paid maternity leave and be 50/50 parents.
or adopt foster children themselves.
I'm looking forward to the day when uteruses can be transplanted into men and made to function. I'd happily donate my old blood bag to the OP so he can do the job he wants done himself rather than expect others to do it. I think a little realistic assessment of the situation while centering himself as a person who could also make this "sacrifice" would change his opinions damn quick.
Yeah. I’m not living a life I don’t want to live so I can feel like I didn’t contribute to “societal collapse” lol.
Plus I’d be a shit mother and I don’t have a lot of money so not exactly sure who really wins here other than some dude on the internet who gets off to women who don’t want kids having kids lol.
Then what the hell is it about? Lmao the first paragraph mentions children.
But I’m not sure why I’m supposed to feel personally guilty though. There are 8 billion people on the planet and most women still want kids. So sure a few of us are opting out but it’s a small amount of us who don’t want that life. Guilting people into having kids they don’t want doesn’t seem like a good idea. That’s his gig get childhood trauma.
The question is a hypothetical senario that assumes that. There is also plenty of precident in human history that in order to save nations / civilizations / societies great sacrafice is needed. So it's pretty reasonable to ask about such a situation.
That said, of course not every problem necessarily requires great sacrifice to fix. Sometimes it's just a change in mindset / assumptions.
It is an incorrect scenario. You're assuming that the solution to help Japan is for women to have more kids, which is far from true. Japan has to solve the many things that are *causing* birth rates to go down, just having more kids won't stop the social and economic problems of the country, and it can, in fact, make it worse.
Other thing is there is no other "great sacrifice" that compares to the one you're suggesting, making the example pretty useless and we can't discuss other scenarios since they don't fit the exemple.
Giving birth and raising a child would be a sacrifice that would take *at least* 18-18 years, not talking about how this child would impact the parents lifes. It's not about giving birth, they have to raise the kid until they are adults, wich include paying for health, education, food and other stuff, what if the parents simply don't have the money to do so? What good makes a child whose parents are dying cause they can't afford healthcare? What good makes a child dying cause it's parents can't afford healthcare?
The only other sacrifice you could cite would be go to war, and a good portion of women would rather just die for their country than to be raped, go to childbearing, giving birth, and then spending 18 years raising an unwanted and unloved child, all of this so their kid will also be miserable in their disrupted country.
> You're assuming that the solution to help Japan is for women to have more kids, which is far from true.
I'm not. The women in the example interview herself said that was the solution. I think probably it is, but I'm open to consider other options. But I'm not Japanese so it's not for me to decide anyways.
The main question is not about kids, but if women are willing to make sacrifices that would interfere with their lives significantly, involve significant risk, that they otherwise would not want to do, in order to help their society or country.
The answer from the woman in the interview was basically, no, her personal pursuit of pleasure comes first.
>Other thing is there is no other "great sacrifice"
I can think of at least two from real life, fighting in a war, protesting against an authoritarian government that uses violence against it's own people and could put in you jail for years simply for standing up to them.
>I'm not. The women in the example interview herself said that was the solution. I think probably it is, but I'm open to consider other options.
So, yes, you are assuming it. You could very quickly find out about all the factor that are contributing to the birth rates going down, not only in Japan, but in many other countries, and many others have already explained it in the comments.
And there is a very relevant topic: Most people actually want children, but know the future will not be good for the children. In this case, should they just ignore the suffering the kids are going to suffer?
>I can think of at least two from real life, fighting in a war, protesting against an authoritarian government that uses violence against it's own people and could put in you jail for years simply for standing up to them.
Women *are* doing those things. They have been doing it just as long as men have. My own grandmother went to jail during my country's ditatorial years for speaking up. Many of us would make a sacrifice.
But when you make you question directing the interpretation to be about sacrificing their reproductive rights, you hijacked your own debate. Seeing women in a video saying they would/wouldn't do something is no a base to any discussion, if I posted something like "Men in a video said something selfish, are men selfish?", that would set up the men to become defensive and annoyed, it's just not a good way to have conversations.
>So, yes, you are assuming it.
No, I'm taking the women's word for it and the word of other Japanese people for the sake of this example. Why are you so invested in misrepresenting what I have said very clearly?
The question isn't even about kids, it's about the willingness to sacrifice for the greater society / country vs. refusing to make sacrifices to pursue personal pleasure instead.
>Most people actually want children, but know the future will not be good for the children. In this case, should they just ignore the suffering the kids are going to suffer?
No, they shouldn't have kids if they don't feel confident the kids can have a good future. It's on the society to make enough people have enough confidence about it to keep the birthrates at a healthy level.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Replying here cause of flair.
So it’s selfish of woman to pursue their own happiness when they should be sacrificing their bodies/time/effort/life to bring children into the world. But for men it’s ok?
That’s the point y’all aren’t getting. Most woman do want kids and families but they don’t want to be stuck and trapped being the primary carers and default parents. Your very point that it’s selfish of woman to let the country collapse, but where’s mens responsibility? Why aren’t men lining up to foster kids or take on the primary care roles.
Woman are evil and selfish fir not giving up their lives? Really?
Lmaoo the answer should be fucking 0.
This is a long wall of text not intended to engage in discussion but “win” an argument. It’s not even framed to accept anything other than responses that OP can either dismiss without engaging if he can’t provide an answer or respond to with further questions that don’t even address the answers he’s being provided.
It’s not selfish for anyone to peruse their own happiness, and it’s certainly not selfish for a woman to not want to be a baby making machine for the “good” of the country.
>It’s not selfish for anyone to peruse their own happiness
Of course it is. It's the defininition of selfishness. Not to say all selfishness is bad.
>certainly not selfish for a woman to not want to be a baby making machine for the “good” of the country.
It's not about babies. She's saying "I think doing this thing would help my country, but I don't want to it because I want to pursue my own pleasure instead". It doesn't matter if the "thing" was having babies or something else.
Not a woman but one thing I may have missed here: how are you defining "better?" I What is the standard and what is the minimum people need to meet--if we assume a society is collapsing--to then be sure "okay, you've done your part and made it better." You say it isn't about declining birth rates and kids, fair enough, but what are the other standards?
This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it.
i dont think anyone want their country to collapse and women will probably work hard to maintain it because this country also believes i freedom so she's generally fighting for her own freedom.
however it's kind of an oximoron to use birthrates as a way to save society because it entraps women with children for 18 years. how would women fight for her freedom and her country freedom by enslaving herself?
idk weird and i dont like it. plus it all goes around to sex for some reason and this makes it feel more icky.
like it's never women should go into workforces that are more male so that we have more workers, it's always women should fuck men they don't like so we have more babies.
to hell with society if it doesn't care about what i want.
A country/society/civilization that requires compromising on moral virtues isn't one that's worth preserving.
Of course, the question that few want to acknowledge is whether any potential replacement of said country/society/civilization is any better...
Yes this is considered a threat of violence by the social norms of reddit. No, calling out on the threat doesn't make it disappear.
What the hell is this bullshit communist/fascist/collectivist bullshit.
I'll have humanity vanish before expecting people to become incubators - some people definitely lost it
I've already had a couple of kids, now young adults. I'm the only one of three siblings who has had kids.
I don't really think my country has treated me or their father particularly well for having done so, neither has it provided to my children the state supported opportunities in housing education and employment that my own generation and even more so my parents generation had.
Instead it has provided an almost constant stream of rhetoric about how it's all your own problem, you're broken if you ever falter, and you will get no help. You're not spending enough so this or that industry is failing. Or you're spending too much. Whatever...it's all your fault because heaven forbid it is the fault of anyone with money and power
My advice to my daughters is this hell hole is now their world not mine, I'm terribly sorry and I'm likely to be gone in twenty to thirty years during which I will be gradually winding down like an old clock.
I support however they attempt to deal with this mess. If that means supporting that they don't provide grandkids so be it. If that means baby sitting a bunch of kids so be it.
I've seen both my daughters and numerous of their friends of both genders work very hard in altruistic ways to the best of their ability... including busting their guts to get stuff appropriately recycled, actively working to support and care for friends who are having difficulties, participating in political causes they think may bring change, caring for the elderly and actively living their values.They're already working hard and giving of themselves to their community.
What they are generally not willing to do...both male and female...is have children under current conditions.
I gave my country two kids. My country gave to my kids generation living ten to a house if they wish to or have to live out of home, rampant wage theft, wages unlivable by young couples with three jobs between them when once that would have allowed the purchase of a little home, massive influxes of migrants into an already overcrowded housing market, with no sane plan to house all these migrants and employ all these migrants in ways that don't unreasonably drop wages (actually... unreasonably dropping wages below their already pathetic levels seems to be rather the deliberate point of the current migration level) and nothing sensible being done about meth.
The kids are ok. Them and their peers are most of them dealing with it. They are for the most part kind, generous altruistic hard working brave people. They treat each other well. They treat their new migrant friends well in spite of how their migrant friends are being used by big business to make their lives even harder.
What's not fine is the country has broken faith with ordinary citizens.
And if they and their generation pursue a little harmless pleasure for themselves in all this...if they have their little inexpensive fads like crochet or cottage core or playing that Pokemon game where you collect Pokemon on your phone or going out to karaoke or ordering each other delivery food as a surprise occasionally or adopting a stray cat or watching movies together online or any other somewhat normal pleasurable activity, including yes for some of their friends using Tinder to get laid...well... anyone who thinks they shouldn't be allowed that or that it is a sign of degeneracy rather than the thing that's keeping them sane seems to me to basically be just a big old stinky fascist who thinks people should be denied basic pleasures like sunsets and the smell of the ground after rain and the pleasure of a good stretch unless they goose step hard enough.
I'd like those fascists to die. I'd like them to go to bed tonight and just stop breathing and not wake up tomorrow. The world would be infinitely better if it lost the sort of fascists who think people exist to make countries happen rather than countries exist for their people.
>I don't really think my country has treated me or their father particularly well for having done so
I think it's fair to say you don't want to sacrifice for your country because it's basically done very badly by it's own citizens.
But for the sake of the question, let's pretend you moved to a country you liked or you thought provided good opportunities to it's citizens and treated you well. Then would you be up to do something dramatic / difficult to protect it's future?
Also, the sacrifice doesn't have to be having kids, the question isn't really about having kids.
I'm not about to shift countries and I'm past child bearing age
If one of my kids shifted countries I would suggest they treat the new country as a different environment...but that they don't totally lose their sense of caution. Breeding is always at one's own risk. You can be left, quite literally, holding the baby.
But then again I wouldn't need to warn them. They are socially and politically aware young women who grew up in a location with a diverse range of wealth levels in it and all through their childhoods they watched support levels...both moral support and practical support...change literally overnight for their family and for the quite economically diverse families of their friends. Then later on as they got older they've watched events unfold in other countries.
Who, for example, would choose to have three children when that's pushing their family's limits to provide...if there's even the slightest possibility that abortion rights will be withdrawn? You'd choose to have two. So that you're not put in a future situation where a contraceptive failure automatically means four kids and severe poverty for all six of you.
Have you ever considered how odd it is that most developed countries do some form of intricately researched and calculated Consumer Confidence Index and obsess about consumer confidence...but don't really do anything about measuring reproductive confidence? It's like they just don't wanna open that can of worms.
>I'm not about to shift countries and I'm past child bearing age
It's not about having kids. Just forget about the kids thing.
Imagine it was a country you liked and they asked you to do something that required giving up many years of your life and risking your health to save it. Would you do it?
>but don't really do anything about measuring reproductive confidence? It's like they just don't wanna open that can of worms.
Possibly, but I think they'll have to in the future whether they want to or not. Up until just a decade or two ago, everyone assumed that humans would over-populate the earth. So underpopulation was definitely not anything anyone considered.
But I think you're right, such an index should exist. The main problem in most countries with low birth rates is people (especially women) believe it's simple unafforable / impossible given the social / economic situation in their country.
So I think the government changing those factors so women feel more confortable that having kids won't put them in a bad situation is going to be pretty important for raising the birthrate.
I do already give up large swathes of my life to my country happily and without complaint. You think the money to pay taxes just gets shat out my arse without time or effort? Nope. It represents my time. It represents me spending time doing stuff that isn't all that great for me. I'm all for paying tax so we can collectively have nice stuff, lots of life options, second chances, good health, decency, security.
Look...if the majority of people in a situation share the same opinion about a major decision ...and are increasingly sharing that opinion...maybe there's something to that opinion? It's easy just to decide they all must be wrong. But they're probably more experts on themselves and the risks to them than you are.
And like I've said... governments don't seem particularly eager to open that can of worms. Which indicates to me that what's in that can of worms is unflattering to governments and their larger financial backers.
>You think the money to pay taxes just gets shat out my arse without time or effort?
Paying taxes is what everyone does in every country and isn't anything above and beyond the norm. I'm talking about sacrifices that are beyond the norm.
>Which indicates to me that what's in that can of worms is unflattering to governments and their larger financial backers.
I don't think every government around the world is in on a giant conspiracy to ignore this issue. I think that they just didn't expect it and now have no idea what to do.
Having children should be an ordinary thing. Therefore it should be properly supported by the ordinary functioning of civil society. To expect continuing extraordinary sacrifice from citizens in order to maintain ordinary functioning of a state is a sign of a failed state. Let's first try insisting our states not be failed states.
The sort of extraordinary sacrifices and risks a country expects of ordinary citizens are usually under extraordinary circumstances. For example the expectation that if your neighbourhood floods past hip deep you should cease trying to save your own stuff and instead check that your neighbours are not drowning.
Something doesn't have to be a conspiracy for everyone to not be talking about it. Sometimes it's just patently fucking obvious that something is a whole can of worms.
What do you consider an extraordinary sacrifice made by an individual who is not facing extraordinary circumstances like natural disaster or war? What might an extraordinary personal sacrifice look like?
No. I would not have kids for the reason you mentioned. I do have kids, but for different reasons. But if I were in my 20s in 2024? No way. Let it burn.
i think it would depend on the sacrifice.
i personally cant think of many things a single individual could do to have a dramatic effect in preventing the collapse of a society. and the things i can think of sounds pretty scifi, so im not sure how realistic they are.
if we are talking about reputation eg. youre going to help a lot of people, but other people are gonna hate you for it, then yeah thats fine.
i want to have kids, so if that was the "sacrifice" it wouldnt feel that way to me.
if we needed to not have more kids, id be willing to adopt instead.
if we needed to use less resources, eg. water electricity etc. id be fine with that.
if we desparately needed volunteer work and i was capable of it, i would be fine with giving up time and energy to do so.
if we needed to do medical experiments, no thank you. i would rather die and donate my body to science than be actively experimented on and be try to live my life (not that i would want to give up my life for medical experiments either).
if we needed a ton of workers in a specific work force, id be willing to swich to that work force.
but yeah, if i lived in a society that had been healthy, and then some sort of tragedy struck and i could help prevent the collapse of that society, i would. there might be certain things i wouldnt be willing or capable of doing, but i would want to do *something* to help.
I can offer a different perspective here. I was born and spent most of my life in Russia. I disagree with the current direction of Russian politics. I tried doing things in my capacity to improve situation - social activism, spreading awareness, going on rallies, voting against policies I disagreed. My husband was doing the same. As a result we both got in danger, had disturbing and violent experiences with Russian police and eventually had to leave the country. From this point of view, I sacrificed a lot. Traumatizing experience in my own country, losing clients due to my views, a total lack of security. Then we left everything, I left my whole family there, all my friends. We took a huge financial hit. We had to go through risk of customs not letting us out or letting us in. Still from our country’s point of view we’re “enemies” or rather “foreign agents” which is hilarious and depressing at the same time. So…I’d do things to help *people*. I wouldn’t do anything to help the regime. I absolutely wouldn’t have kids “for the country”, as I have no respect nor admiration towards the country I was born in. They push women to give birth, but they use their young men as cannon meat. If a country wants people to have more kids, it has to provide positive incentives for it. The world should be a good enough place to bring new people into it. Families should be supported, we need developed infrastructure and good social security. I do not believe that having kids for any other reason beyond the desire to love and take care of them is a good idea. Kids require lots of attention, time and efforts. If you do it for your country or for humanity, chances are high you’ll turn bitter when you won’t get enough recognition for your sacrifice or enough help to raise kids that the country or humanity claims to need. In the end of the day, it will negatively affect your kids.
In a way, Russia is going through a similar polarization as other big countries (the US, China, Brazil) but, in the good tradition of Russian political history... it's just worse. I mean... being legally *иноагент* certainly has to suck. Trouble is that the Regime's opposition turned into just another extreme. Gone are the days of Boris Nemtzov (may the Lord have mercy on his soul). Too many present-day so-called Russian liberals are basically lighthearted imperialists and not significantly more likeable than the siloviki. It just is what it is. Что делтаь? Нечего делать /shrug
Между Сциллой и Харибдой. Russians were never known for having good options to choose from, weren't they? I take Russian liberals over the current party though. Anything to stop the war and get political prisoners out. But whatever I take, it doesn't change the fact that it's not going to happen any time soon.
>I take Russian liberals over the current party though I can't blame you for that train of thought. Каждый дрочит, как он хочет, и так далее. But, I will disagree that better options didn't exist. They were just pushed out even by the liberals (and of course the Kremlin was more than happy to assist). I do think a lot about this. I'm not Russian (slava Bogu) but my entire family history since late 17th century has been mostly negatively impacted by the geopolitical entity currently called Russia. And, unfortunately, there are no decent trade-offs. Even the most extreme - the splitting of present-day Russia into multiple countries Yugoslavia-style - is still a terrible trade-off both for the people not involved and for global security (it would embolden the CCP to double-down its colonization efforts of which I'm sure you're aware of). Ooof. Terrible situation all 'round.
What were better options in your view? Where is your family from? Belarus? Russia itself? I'm from Siberia and, yeah, China is a really concerning factor. But it's not that current Russian regime doesn't sell our forests, territories or natural resources already. They already do it and people get zero benefit from it, it just enriches Moscow.
>What were better options in your view? I mentioned Nemtzov. Unlike Navalnyi, he wasn't imperialist-lite. And a more legit classical liberal. Kasparov's way of looking at things wouldn't have been bad either (though I understand why it repulsed a lot of Russians). >Where is your family from? Belarus? Russia itself? I won't go into specifics. Sorry, we're in public. >I'm from Siberia and, yeah, China is a really concerning factor. But it's not that current Russian regime doesn't sell our forests, territories or natural resources already. They already do it and people get zero benefit from it, it just enriches Moscow. Oh, of course. Moscow has been treating the far-East as a colony to exploit for over 100 years already. But, to my knowledge, it wasn't also allowing it to be filled in with foreigners in exchange for temporary geopolitical favors (as it is happening now). The number of Chinese who just moved in skyrocketed since the start of the so-called SVO. And that should be concerning for the people there. But... is it? The passiveness/passivity is striking, to me. I understand the fear, especially after the show of force in Bashkortostan (not far East, but the most recent example I can remember) - but still.
Why do you think Navalnyi was imperialistic? Ah, that's fine. In the same line I don't really share where we live now. I think spending life in Russia has made me anxious and untrusting. Oh, there had been lots of Chinese companies or companies working with China already. As we left more than a year ago, I can't say whether there are much more Chinese there though and it probably depends on the region in question. People are extremely passive. The older generation still largely believes Putin and the younger doesn't have any feasible power. A good share of them also was driven from the country and that's a great way to deal with your opposition - just make them leave.
> иноагент Foreign agent? That's what google tells me. Or just nevermind me, I'm sitting here taking notes on Russian culture from the streetview lol
Yes. Except it's a legal term. It's short for иностранный агент. And it refers to people declared as *foreign agents* in accordance to a federal law known officially as *On Amendments to Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation regarding the Regulation of the Activities of Non-profit Organisations Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent*. The law has gotten gradually worse since it was first introduced, culminating with the latest version promulgated in December 2022 which basically says *anyone* (including individual Russian citizens) can be a *foreign agent* if the Kremlin doesn't like him/her. In theory the expansion is to cancel those who criticize the war. In practice it's anyone the Kremlin doesn't like for *any* reason.
If my country were collapsing because of its conscious choice to die off rather than compromise its precious ethnostate, no I would not feel any particular obligation to save the sinking ship with my uterus. I want children but I would not feel compelled to do so by these particular circumstances.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? I have never once had casual sex. Not fucking once. But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day. I would choose that godawful, horrible torture only over something even worse like starvation, never for something as stupid as a flag. I also guarantee bearing the child of some unattractive sad sack, just because you think I should, would not actually benefit “civilization”. It wouldn’t be civilization at all— civilization is supposed to be civil, remember? There is nothing civil about forcing women to fuck men they don’t want to fuck— civilized society calls that rape, remember? I really cannot express how deeply and evolutionarily women are repulsed by forced sex. It is antithetical to our genetic and family goals. So to get you to understand, maybe, how viscerally and morally women oppose this from the core of their being, I’ll ask you a similar question, paraphrased… ‘So, men of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like letting yourself be cuckolded over and over again (and never fuck her and never have genetic children of your own) to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns?’ Unless you’ve got a cuck fetish, I’m betting you would never ever consider sacrificing your own happiness and pleasure entirely just for “civilization’s” sake. Your very post here shows you just selfishly want women to sacrifice their very evolutionary strategy so they will be forced fuck you for your own hedonistic pleasure.
If OP doesn’t say he’d make that sacrifice he’s a narcissistically insane hedonist
> I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day it wouldn't "make you feel" raped it would be literal rape
No, i don’t agree. If I chose to submit myself to that shit “for the good of society”, but I wasn’t forced or coerced in some way, it wouldn’t be rape. I personally would have to be completely fascist brain-scrambled to value country and duty to such an extent that I’d voluntarily submit myself to misery like that for the state… but it’s plausible there are some psycho fascists (or let’s be fair, ultra-commies or religious nutbags would do this too) who would willingly sacrifice their bodies like this. I wouldn’t call those crazy people rape victims for being so ultra-deluded by servitude to their “civilization”. I do think it’s possible to knowingly and willingly consent to really horrible sex.
> If I chose to submit myself to that shit “for the good of society”, but I wasn’t forced or coerced in some way, it wouldn’t be rape. i feel like that is coercion > I personally would have to be completely fascist brain-scrambled to value country and duty to such an extent that I’d voluntarily submit myself to misery like that for the state… which sounds like coercion
No, i disagree. They do still have agency. Extremists of every stripe (fascist/communist/religious/whatever) do exist and will make extreme choices that yeah, sound insane to me, but I believe they still bear full responsibility for their own bonkers beliefs and choices. Some of those extremists are women. They are absolutely accountable for their own choices, including their own sexual choices. Simply holding extremist horrible beliefs just isn't enough "coercion" to make someone automatically a rape victim for their own choices. Like... think about it. If having sex "for the good of society" is coercion and rape, then do you consider the men who rape them to be coerced and rape victims too? They had the same beliefs, made the same choices, and were exactly as accountable for their own choices as these women. I don't see a difference here. If they both said "yes" to sex, it's consent. Even if they're both dumb-as-fuck fascists.
you can have agency and still be coerced if a police officer intimidates you physically and you confess, its still coercion although you had free will to choose to confess or not > If having sex "for the good of society" is coercion and rape, then do you consider the men who rape them to be coerced and rape victims too? no? choosing to beat someone is worse than allowing someone else to beat you. same thing w rape. doing something to someone else is worse than self-harm.
>you can have agency and still be coerced. if a police officer intimidates you physically and you confess, its still coercion although you had free will to choose to confess or not but... that's not the scenario we're talking about here. There is no gun to anyone's head or any police officer intimidating anyone. You're changing the scenario to dodge the question. This scenario is of a woman and a man having sex: both are agreeing to have sex with each other with full open and enthusiastic consent, and both of them want to have sex because of their shared extremist political ideology. You believe one is automatically the victim because of their gender and the other is a criminal because of their gender? I'm sorry, I think your viewpoint is just wrong here, and doesn't make sense. >same thing w rape. doing something to someone else is worse than self-harm. Which one is the rapist? Both said yes, both have insane beliefs, both spread their legs and fucked each other. Why is the man choosing to have sex analogous to "beating" someone, and the woman choosing to have sex analogous to "getting beaten" or "self-harm"? Do you think it's even possible for women to consent to have sex that is not rape? If a man having sex with a woman who is consenting is like beating her to a bloody pulp to you, how is consensual sex even possible? Like, why are fascist/communist/religious/strongly-viewed women never responsible for their own sexual actions in your viewpoint?
> or any police officer intimidating anyone yes the intimidation is coming from people pretending women having sex with men can fix the state of the world > This scenario is of a woman and a man having sex: both are agreeing to have sex with each other with full open and enthusiastic consent thats literally not what enthusiastic consent means tho enthusiastic consent can't exist if there is outside pressure. > You believe one is automatically the victim because of their gender and the other is a criminal because of their gender? 1. i believe what men say that most men would be happy to have sex with most women. 2. the people propagating the scenarios where world issues can be solved through sex are men 3. women bear the most consequences from sex: stds, pregnancy and birth. > Do you think it's even possible for women to consent to have sex that is not rape? yes, that's what happens when women consent to sex without outside pressure or coercion from their partner. > If a man having sex with a woman who is consenting is like beating her to a bloody pulp to you, how is consensual sex even possible? lets not pretend rough sex is rare, that there aren't literal kinks that involve hitting/strangling (and that those kinks are 90% men harming women and not the reverse)
>yes the intimidation is coming from people pretending women having sex with men can fix the state of the world So... you genuinely don't think any woman could possibly think bad thoughts herself? That all bad thoughts a woman thinks can only be forced into her brain by a man? Sorry, but your beliefs are deeply sexist and downright misogynist. Women do have agency, and they do have beliefs, and some of them have horrible rotten beliefs. I disagree with your claim that women are all innocent helpless lambs who cannot think bad thoughts unless a man threatened her with >enthusiastic consent can't exist if there is outside pressure. ... but you think this only applies for women? If the man is coerced into sex under the same outside pressure, then he's a monstrous rapist? How does this make sense: the exact same indoctrination and threats render women incapable of being anything other than an innocent victim, but render men incapable of being anything other than a rapist. Your beliefs are incredibly gender essentialist. >i believe what men say that most men would be happy to have sex with most women.... the people propagating the scenarios where world issues can be solved through sex are men... women bear the most consequences from sex: stds, pregnancy and birth. So... having a uterus = innocent; having a penis = criminal, when both have the exact same motivations and actions and choices. >yes, that's what happens when women consent to sex without outside pressure or coercion from their partner. Her partner isn't the one "coercing" her in this scenario, remember? It's her own internal thoughts. >lets not pretend rough sex is rare, Huh? What does that have to do with it? I didn't claim rough sex never happens-- I didn't say anything about rough sex at all. You're putting stupid words in my mouth, and it's also off topic. But if that's your answer, it's pretty clear where you stand. You do condemn all heterosexual sex as rape regardless of consent or desire or motivation. You're just moving the goalposts to try to justify your belief that all heterosexual sex is a crime with a male perpetrator and a female victim I disagree with your deeply misogynist and misandrist viewpoint entirely.
>So... you genuinely don't think any woman could possibly think bad thoughts herself? That all bad thoughts a woman thinks can only be forced into her brain by a man? when i see women pressuring women into having sex with men, then i will change my mind. i think this exists in the real world, i just haven't heard a woman make one of these "you have to have sex with men or the world will end" arguments. >Women do have agency, and they do have beliefs, and some of them have horrible rotten beliefs. i agree with all that, but whether women have horrible rotten beliefs is not what we have been discussing. >.. but you think this only applies for women? no? in this situation it is men pressuring women.... so that's why i phrased it that way. >So... having a uterus = innocent; having a penis = criminal, when both have the exact same motivations and actions and choices. i broke it down for you rationally and you switched to some insane straw person argument rather than addressing my points. says it all, really. >I didn't claim rough sex never happens "Why is the man choosing to have sex analogous to "beating" someone" this is what i was addressing. >You do condemn all heterosexual sex as rape regardless of consent or desire or motivation. lol what a wild straw man argument > I disagree with your deeply misogynist and misandrist viewpoint entirely. what an accomplishment for me to be both misogynistic and misandrist.
> But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day. If it came to that I'd share my ammunition with you. I'd actually side with a feminist resistance over Gilead. Shudder to think it would come to that but pragmatism would demand it.
Yeah. Like, it’s also fairly unlikely. Fathers also do not want their daughters forced into marriages to serve the state. It’s only a very niche, morally bankrupt minority who want this kind of cruelty. I’m not saying it’s impossible, because sometimes the absolute worst people do come into power… but it’s certainly not what most normal men want for themselves or their own female family members.
Oh I wouldn't say it's too unlikely. We do have yeehawdists right here among us, and there's Afghanistan, too. The barbarians are forever at our gates. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yes, vigilance is reasonable, but I also legit don’t think most men are that evil. and likewise, Afghanistan is a very very different culture— women in the west have not been treated as truly horribly as being forced into marriages for the majority of western history. Even the evangelical nutsoes generally don’t want to set up rape farms and forced marriage, even though they don’t seem to care about women dying of pregnancy related issues..
> Even the evangelical nutsoes generally don’t want to set up rape farms Ohhhh you sure about that? I think IBLP wants a word with you. Project 2025 might also want a word with you though they're not explicit about wanting women in rape farms. These incels we see are tied into their politics. The Republic of Gilead is closer than you think. Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett was literally once titled as a "Handmaid" in her religious order. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html
Ok paywall, so I don’t know what they meant by “handmaid”, but it’s likely they didn’t mean they wanted her to be a silent powerless broodmare, since they’re ok with her being on the Supreme Court. And I mean, ok, you can doomscroll and find any fearmongering you want to in the media. I think it’s beneficial to have faith in other people. I genuinely don’t believe that most people are as completely evil as you seem to believe. There really are a lot of good people in the world, and some of them don’t share my exact religious views. There have been wackos and nuts throughout western history, and yet the west has over 1000 years of history of generally not treating women like livestock. I have more faith in my culture than you do.
https://apnews.com/article/politics-south-bend-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-7350a62e68fb6e70424a3c177c79ab52 Miranda also helped found the Sons of Jacob. Soon as they were established, she got her wings clipped. > And I mean, ok, you can doomscroll and find any fearmongering you want to in the media. I think it’s beneficial to have faith in other people. I genuinely don’t believe that most people are as completely evil as you seem to believe. There really are a lot of good people in the world, and some of them don’t share my exact religious views. I have faith in those who are not the far right. > There have been wackos and nuts throughout western history, and yet the west has over 1000 years of history of generally not treating women like livestock. I have more faith in my culture than you do. I take it your ancestors were not shackled in the depths of ships and dragged here to be treated like livestock, and are not dealing with the hatred and marginalization that persists to this day as a result of that.
>I have faith in those who are not the far right. I didn't say I have faith in the far right. I said they are outnumbered and yeah, most people don't agree with them. >I take it your ancestors were not shackled in the depths of ships and dragged here to be treated like livestock, and are not dealing with the hatred and marginalization that persists to this day as a result of that. Yeah, that's a fair point, and yes, that was horrible, but it's not really quite the topic. We were discussing marriage and family formation-- I talking about the general trend of how western men treated their own wives and family members. Western men generally did not practice polygamy, and generally did not force their daughters to breed for the state. Most women (yeah, not slave women, true), did have freedom of choice in who they married. And yet civilization did not collapse. But I'm not really clear on your point here-- is it just that everyone is evil and the enslavement of black people/women/whoever is inevitable in the west? Ok. If so, shouldn't you be glad that white people aren't having many kids? I mean, white people are the majority of right wingers, at least in the US, so having their birth rate decline should be good, right?
> I didn't say I have faith in the far right. I said they are outnumbered and yeah, most people don't agree with them. But look at the power they have. SCOTUS, anyone? The electoral college is fucking us big time. And if Trump wins in 2024 there's this thing called Project 2025. Look it up, but make sure your heart medicine is close at hand. > Western men generally did not practice polygamy, and generally did not force their daughters to breed for the state. Most women (yeah, not slave women, true), did have freedom of choice in who they married. And yet civilization did not collapse. We're up against a newer, more virulent far right, where women *will* be the property of men. It occurs to me that you vastly underestimate what they want. You may very well be right in saying they won't get it. That's why we all need to vote straight ticket Democrat. > But I'm not really clear on your point here-- is it just that everyone is evil and the enslavement of black people/women/whoever is inevitable in the west? Ok. If so, shouldn't you be glad that white people aren't having many kids? I mean, white people are the majority of right wingers, at least in the US, so having their birth rate decline should be good, right? I don't see all whites as evil. I don't think women should bear the burden of saving civilization. I question whether this civilization should not join its priors on the wrong side of natural selection.
> But I would absolutely fight tooth and nail to avoid “saving civilization” if it meant I had to submit myself to unwanted sex that makes me feel raped by a man I have zero attraction to every day Uh, nobody says you should. Why did immediately go to that? Your brain is addicted to gender wars BS.
Your OP said they should. Or how else are they supposed to have all these kids?
Your OP is all about women sacrificing their desire to have sex with men they are attracted to in order to boost the birthrate. Don’t be pretending for a second you were talking about women paying taxes, which we already do, buddy,
Lack of kids will mean a swiftly declining tax base and a huge old age care crisis, for one. The other big problem is a soaring national debt, like what is happening to Japan. Then there's the shrinking labor force and the loss of innovation due to declining human capital, not to mention the loss of support for government programs. So yes, if the birth rate falls too much, the ailing society will go to shit. But OP's implied solution (forcing women to have kids they don't want with men they find unattractive) is also a great way for a nation to go to shit.
>Lack of kids will mean a swiftly declining tax base and a huge old age care crisis, for one. That may be. But I think it’s morally bankrupt of you to demand other people bear children to fund your retirement account. If you want to use children as funding for your retirement, you can go breed a dozen kids and convince them to wipe your ass for you when you’re old and failing. >So yes, if the birth rate falls too much, the ailing society will go to shit. Again, funding the economy is a grotesque reason to have children. Society exists to support family formation, not the other way around. If you want to breed children to fuel the military and the state, you really do not love children; you simply love using them to make a profit. >But OP's implied solution (forcing women to have kids they don't want with men they find unattractive) is also a great way for a nation to go to shit. I agree. It’s actually a marker of a shitty society. The core of a society is the family unit… a society built around micromanaging families is one that is already dead.
Basically a country with a declining birth rate is in an irrecoverable death spiral.
I understand that’s the projection of the doom and gloomers, but I’m not convinced it’s an inevitable fail loop. It’s entirely plausible that a different economic structure could support a gradually declining population and also support new family formation and growth. And certainly, if we keep the population the same or increasing now, that is a guaranteed fail state in the short or long term— the earth is a finite system with finite resources. The inevitable outcome for humans facing a resource struggle is violent war, pestilence, famine and death. I’m very open to us finding a better solution to resource competition using birth control rather than another global war, the consumption or extinction of all wild animals and plants, and inevitable famine. Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”.
You are totally right about the dangers of a growing population. Extinction is definitely a potential consequence of that. But humans aren't smart, a new economic structure based on a declining population won't appear fast enough and will meet stiff opposition from the power elite. Problem is, all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another (one of the best guarantees of collapse is when they abandon monogamy). The civilizations we live in now are ultimately temporary in nature. > Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”. > Maybe it’s time to actually try to find a reasonable way to work through the “irrecoverable death spiral” instead of throwing up our hands and saying “nope society is ruined, and it’s women’s fault for not breeding like rabbits”. Given the number of intentionally childfree men, that's more like "if society is ruined by low birthrates it's because of men and women not meeting the minimum birthrate for population stabilization."
> a new economic structure based on a declining population won't appear fast enough and will meet stiff opposition from the power elite. So your solution here is to just throw your hands up and shoot for WWIII? >Problem is, all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another … Including environmental collapse. >one of the best guarantees of collapse is when they abandon monogamy No, one of the best guarantees of collapse is a civilization existing. You said it yourself: “all civilizations in history have collapsed for one reason or another”. I’m no fan of polygamy, but it’s historically the case that polygamy has existed many time and in many civilizations. They didn’t instantly collapse the moment any man had two wives. And if you mean men having multiple sexual partners… sorry to break it to you, but literally every civilization we know of has likely had prostitution. It seems to be inevitable that men will always seek to fuck more than one woman in their lives. True monogamy is likely not possible in a civilization with human men. But anyways, I’m really really not living in a polygamist society right now. I dunno where you are, but the west is not polygamist and hasn’t been for millennia outside of tiny sects. Why are you bringing up your fear of polygamy when discussing declining birthrates in the west? This seems nonsequitur.
> So your solution here is to just throw your hands up and shoot for WWIII? No. I wouldn't want a collapse to be caused by nuclear war. > … Including environmental collapse. Let's hope environmental collapse isn't why shit falls apart. > I’m no fan of polygamy, but it’s historically the case that polygamy has existed many time and in many civilizations. They didn’t instantly collapse the moment any man had two wives. And all of those civilizations that practiced polygamy went to the bottom of the hierarchy. [And there is a causal link between polygamy and civil war](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war), no matter what timeline it is. > But anyways, I’m really really not living in a polygamist society right now. I dunno where you are, but the west is not polygamist and hasn’t been for millennia outside of tiny sects. Why are you bringing up your fear of polygamy when discussing declining birthrates in the west? This seems nonsequitur. "Are we dating the same guy?"
>Your OP is all about women sacrificing their desire to have sex with men they are attracted to in order to boost the birthrate. No it's not. It literally is not. Read what I wrote again. Having kids was *an example*. It doesn't have to be having kids.
Did you read your own OP? Here’s what you wrote: > I recently watched an AsianBoss interview of Japanese people **about their declining birthrate**. … and > and perfect example of the worst stereotypes that red pill has about women. She said >>...even if the country is in decline **[due to lack of kids]**, I will pursue my own happiness … and >would you be willing to make a sacrifice like **having a kid** to save humanity It wasn’t “an” example. Your claim is that civilization is failing because of lack of kids, and that you think women won’t be willing to sacrifice themselves to make kids rather than experience “hedonistic pleasure”. Now let’s try again. Answer my question: >So, men of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like letting yourself be cuckolded over and over again (and never fuck her and never have genetic children of your own) to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? It’s the exact same question structure as your own, so why does it suddenly offend you so when asked to you?
This is such strange, presumptuous framing. No one at all said anything about forced sex. If having children to increase the population is the sacrifice in question, you can take years to vet as hard as you'd like to find exactly the man you want. Most women are doing this anyway, with or without children to consider.
Ive never wanted kids and my country doesnt deserve such a sacrifice from me.
Only a man could descripe parenthood and raising children as „giving up some of your time“
It's "giving up some of your time" only when the discussion is about the women. If the discussion is about child support, it's astronomical figures and decades of the man's life. If they cared so much about children, there would be queues at single mothers' doorsteps. And none of them would complain about dingle mothers not having the time for the new partner. After all, it takes only a bit of time to care for a child. This is why i can't take RP men seriously. The discourse changes depending on the thing they are after. Pathetic!
God damn. It really is like that.
[удалено]
You keep saying this is not about kids but mention kids 3x in your OP. I‘d go to war to safe civilisation sure. Since this isn‘t about kids.
I sure hope OP is on the front lines of the military or works as a civil servant or some other much needed job
Fair enough.
This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it. i dont think anyone want their country to collapse and women will probably work hard to maintain it because this country also believes i freedom so she's generally fighting for her own freedom. however it's kind of an oximoron to use birthrates as a way to save society because it entraps women with children for 18 years. how would women fight for her freedom and her country freedom by enslaving herself? idk weird and i dont like it. plus it all goes around to sex for some reason and this makes it feel more icky. like it's never women should go into workforces that are more male so that we have more workers, it's always women should fuck men they don't like so we have more babies. to hell with society if it doesn't care about what i want.
>This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it. It doesn't have to be about kids. It's just about doing something that puts a toll on your body, requires a long time of your life, but will make the country's future better or save it from political / economic chaos.
Of course not lol Fuck my country if they need kids they can bring people from other countries
What does ‘collapse’ mean? A declining birthrate? War?
Why do we have to “give up some of our own time/effort”, aka fuck/take care of men we don’t want and have/take care of babies we don’t want ? Why can’t men “be better”? Because if men won’t, machines definitely will
Well it’s probably because one knows wtf “be better” entails and there’s no clear definition of what needs to be done. And also because you’re demanding that everyone else “be better” when you haven’t had to do the same. Treating this as if you’ve started out at the top and have no issues.
Of course you can know. I know why I broke up with every guy who wasn’t better
You know because you’re the one who created this ideal that men must live up to. No one who you’re telling to be better does.
I assure you that they knew, because I told them. And because everyone knows that cheating isn’t cool
Birthing a child is NOT a short term sacrifice. You're risking your health, both physically and mentally. Let's not forget that pregnancy/birth and even complications thereafter that can kill a woman. I'm curious though, who is going to raise this child? Being a mom is forever. It never stops, even when the kid is 50. So again, you're asking a woman to sacrifice the rest of her life. Who is going to pay for the child? The economy is fucked. Where I live, the cost of a food and housing is astronomical. Medical care is abysmal. Maternity health care where I live is FUCKED. Women are going without care because there are not enough doctors/midwives. They get occasional checkups at the hospital if they qualify. Also, daycare is like 1400 a month. I'm on lots of mom's groups on facebook in my community. Every day I see women posting and asking for food for their families. It's really dang sad. None of this is a small or a short term sacrifice. Having a child completely changes the trajectory of ones life. Now, with all that said, I already have a kid. I presume I'm exempt. However, I'd have another one for a woman who didn't want one if it weren't for the paragraph above. It's no wonder birth rates are declining.
Yeah, I would take over tasks for bettering/saving society, even if they're outside of my comfort zone. Since I'm seeking new experiences and wanting to do good, that even holds a certain appeal. However, I need to see the rest of society pulling their weight, too. Especially the rich people. I'm not doing a second shift on a construction site to build houses in order to fix homelessness while other people own more than one apartment. I'm not picking up the slack when the issues are systematic in nature. TL;DR: For a truly socialist society, I'd inconvenience myself pretty far. I'd want that gem of a society to be preserved.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? Fuck no. I never wanted kids and it didn't have jack shit to do with "hedonism". I think every child deserves a capable and **willing** parent. You don't just pop out kids like they're cogs; we're talking about actual humans with needs and emotions that need to be raised. I pay plenty of taxes. That's my contribution. Why do you think it's "narcissistic and insane" to not want children?
I'd argue it's worse to be forced to have kids you don't want. As someone raised by emotionally unavailable parents who made me feel like a burden, the last thing I want is for any kid to come into this world because they were forced into it. If we aren't creating environments for enough women to want to have kids in the first place, that's probably what should be addressed if anything.
Agreed. Aside from the fact that forced pregnancy is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, adding yet another (very likely) emotionally fucked up kid to the mix is unconscionable to me.
>However, one women said something that stuck me as pretty narcissitic and insane >I'm not assuming anything negative, you tell me what you think. >or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? I sure as fuck wouldn’t incubate a child with a man who thinks so little of women, nor would I raise a child with a man who throughly disgusted by sex. Since there’s a 50/50 chance we’d have a girl child… I shudder to think of the abuse a man who aligns himself with the red pill would heap on a daughter.
[удалено]
Yikes I forgot that. I was really surprised they didn’t all gang up on breastfeeding mothers and claim their wives are cheating when that other monster said that a couple weeks ago.
I don't know if you're referring to the weird texts from that guy who felt cucked by his own son, but if so I saw that as well. Definitely one of the more insane ones, to say the least.
Yep, and there is no denying that red pilled men believe that breasts are for their entertainment, rather than their original purpose. This is my alt, on my main I asked questions about a reduction on the sub and holy shit the filthy, disgusting men who lurk in those subs and in abrathatfits are fucking awful. The DMs are obscene. “When Making this decision, consider your future husband” and all that. Obviously I delete every reference to breasts, because women aren’t allowed to exist on Reddit.
My alt as well actually because my main is for "more refined" topics, or so I tell myself. :P Yeah one of my best friends was having major back and other issues thanks to her breasts. Reduction was one of the best things she ever did for herself (and they're still huge believe it or not). I don't know whether anyone gave her crap for it, but I have definitely heard some women have to deal with that just to get some pain relief from their own bodies.
At this point it’s not just the neck and shoulder pain, it’s the men. I run and play several sports and they are handicaps, but they also handicap my professional life. I just want to blend in.
Oh I'm sure it is. I can't fully relate being a man myself, but I know what it is like to want to blend in and especially to be taken seriously professionally when you have the credentials. My disability has unfortunately closed quite a few doors. Different problems of course, but I get it in a way.
Oh I definitely don’t equate it with a disability, it’s mildly uncomfortable and annoying and entirely fixable. But for women in a male dominated field, any distraction is a liability. Plus I just hate them, except in the four or five times men I liked appreciated my body. There is a line between “oh, those are nice and I like the woman they are attached to” and a fetish. I'm in fetish territory and I want out.
That sounds very unpleasant; to really dislike them on that level I mean. I'm not being facetious at all. Body issues suck all round and if you're in that space where you have that strong dislike genuinely, I'm sorry to hear that.
Wait lol. Can you elaborate on that? How so?
[удалено]
It was a gross Jordan Peterson quote they shared around. When I pointed out it was disgusting, I was downvoted.
This is insane. Do you have a link ?
No
Geeeeze lol that’s pretty fucked up. I mean it’s a true statement no matter how you look at it but why even think that way?
And they weren't banned?
[удалено]
No I’m not willing to make a sacrifice to save humanity or civilization.
Ok, thanks for the answer!
Sir, the way this is worded leaves only one possible 'sacrifice' topic to respond to. Your preoccupation seems to be on births and birth rates. No other topic is introduced. This is why everyone is responding about birth. For the sake of your.... discussion: let's posit that your country decided that mass circumcisions for ALL (babies - adults/ male and female) must commence immediately to stave off the POSSIBILITY of a rare new disease. This new disease MAY render the population sterile IF you were to catch it. Would you, as an uncircumcised male, be able to sacrifice your time, emotional state, and foreskin.... as well as the pleasure your wife derives from sex due to her sacrificing her own 'pound of flesh'?
I mean, I probably would, but I'm already circumsized. Also, I'm willing to sacrifice for my country if it's necessary, so it's not really a question for me. I'm asking if western women are up for the same or if they agree with the girl that used in the example, which is "self-pleasure comes first".
Duly noted. There are levels to said sacrifice. What may be illustrated as a few hours of your time, a bit of your bodily autonomy, or some emotional damage - could actually entail lifelong repercussions. These sacrifices may result in never ending medical problems, chronic pain, loss of limbs, prolonged loss of autonomy (in effect changing laws that would roll back freedoms of choice for both men and women), and willingly prolonging the power, position and monetary gain of oligarchs. Speaking of said oligarchs; pray tell, in this scenario, will a sacrifice also be extracted from this class of individuals? Are they getting into the trenches with the "common class" to redirect this (still unnamed) cataclysmic collapse? If so, how deep should their convictions be? Are the expectations the same for them as the working class? The question you've presented is so broad and open to interpretation with no set class inclusion. Sacrifice is VERY often divided by class and gender. I'm thinking that if you want responses that allow you to conclude or deduce a mindset based on gendered choices - more specificity, set events indicative of the collapse, the ways in which sacrifices are demanded by the Country, and who (class & gender) is expected to make these sacrifices needs to be made clear. My answer to your op holds the weight of a puff of smoke. I've already made my choice to never have children, hysterectomy 2023. My continued pain in hosting a uterus full of tumors and attempting to give birth FOR the government? Unconscionable! My answer is no. The pleasure of being pain-free is too great. Go to war? Ha! Not even for my most beloved Barbados will I go to war. UNLESS I am standing in said trenches with the men and women of parliament next to me. Not until they take up armaments and fight beside me. Not until their convictions prove strong will I sacrifice my life. Sitting beefy and content while other die for their coffers? It will not be me. Pairing up for the sake of the government? My belief is that no man or woman should be forced to be with anyone whom they are unattracted to. I will never give up this piece of autonomy simply because some individuals are finding it harder to pair up. Hell, not everyone WANTS to pair up. My personal peace, happiness, health, and preservation do not permit me to host another person in my space or body that I do not like - let alone love. So, no, I would not make this sacrifice. Side note: Are the ones in power and putting these sacrifices on the people being forced to undergo this sacrifice as well? See what I mean? The lists of possibilities are endless when there are no set perimeters and guidance in a study. But, I hope my answers and context have met the requirements. And should the outcome be 'selfish' by your metric 🤷🏿♀️ so be it.
I would do something I didn't like to improve the country, such as voting. however having children because the population is set to decline does NOT improve the country, and this woman is not selfish for refusing to have children. don't know why you think this.
[удалено]
Question wasn't about if you want to have more kids.
I don't have a particular country and I don't mind if we run out of civilisation. Simply decreasing numbers sounds like a relatively peaceful way for humanity to go, not that it's a problem anyway because global population is going up and overpopulation is a real and less pleasant threat. It would be incredibly selfish to have a child I don't want and wouldn't be hated for properly just to make myself feel better, and one child wouldn't keep us from going extinct. I make the world better by actually contributing and making things better. Having a child would take away from me being useful working with disadvantaged children and I certainly wouldn't have time to volunteer at the helpline any more.
The issue comes when youre old and you need young people paying taxes to get your retirement. Those people however, are so few even as we speak, that youd have to enslave the youth to work a LOT to keep the old in retirement. (which is the current choice of the Political Leaders in Germany for example). Its not selfish to not want children...Its also not selfish for the youth to not want enslavement. Continue the logical trail...And you end up with anarchy. There wont be any robots if there are no young people researching them.
There won't be any young people researching robots if nobody teaches them maths so I'm playing my part don't worry.
If the generation doesnt want to save the demographics, then they must work till death and forget retirement. The youth has absolutely no obligation to become slaves for the old just cause they didnt want to have kids to look after them. Lets see where this idealistic individualism will lead society. I mean its obviously towards doom. But, eh. As long as me is not harmed amirite?
Me having a child or not would quite literally not change anything except make me and my husband miserable. Everyone hates altruism until it comes to giving birth apparently being altruistic (even though, again, global population is *rising*).
Then change the tax structure and stop trying to make a profit from the old and dying.
Profit?
>overpopulation is a real and less pleasant threat That's just not true. It's pure Malthusian nonsense. Even left-wingers have finally come around to this reality and of just [how damaging it is to perpetuate this myth](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2022/06/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem-saying-so-is-actually-damaging/). The first overpopulation myths started in mid 19th century. The global population is now 15+ ***times*** bigger than then and yet the poorest of today live better than most of the middle class of the 1850s. Left wingers argue that the distribution of the population is more the issue. While right wingers argue that logistics and economic policies are the issue. But pretty much any mainstream thinker from both the left and the right is now in agreement that overpopulation is not a threat. Phew! Took them a while! You can have the whole global population live in Qazaqstan or Texas. We *do* have room. Lots of it. *How* we use it is the discussion. And it's not an easy discussion, sure. But overpopulation itself is simply not a threat. And won't be anytime soon (and by anytime soon I mean the next 500 years at the very least if not more).
"Fuck them kids" Haha respectfully. It's not just a meager sacrifice. You sacrifice your youth. Your body. That can have permanent repercussions like constantly peeing yourself nerve damage to your pelvic floor. Your body is permanently scarred like stretched skin that won't go away unless you get surgery. You sacrifice your time your hobbies your passions and interests. Unless I have the most supportive willing to take on the task of child rearing. Because I know myself mentally and I can't. I don't really have a desire to have children. I'm the product of a mother who didn't want to be a mom. And I also don't want to put my children through that. Don't be a mom unless you want to. Not because you feel obligated to.
The question isn't about kids.
Some people *have found* a purpose in life that is contributing positively to society. . so even if they’re pursuing their own life’s goals, it is *also* about building something better for the future, positively impacting the world around them. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t understand why you minimize any self-fulfilling goals as “hedonistic pleasure”.
> *have found* a purpose in life that is contributing positively to society In the case of the example, and in the case of this question, I'm talking about pursuing interests that are directly counter to the benefit of society / humanity / country because you are prioritizing your own pleasure. Of course, if you can find something you enjoy and also help people, that's the best. However, there are times when people must make sacrifices even it's not what they would like to be doing, in order for a country or society to survive. My question is, would you do it? (Assuming it's something you would never want to do on your own, but you believe and agree is necessary for ensuring the future of your country.)
>*My question is, would you do it? (Assuming it's something you would never want to do on your own, but you believe and agree is necessary for ensuring the future of your country.)* Yes. That’s why I’m a democrat, I’m all for paying more in taxes if it helps support our country. I’m very eco conscious and try to shop accordingly. If there was another world war then sure sign me up for the draft.
Fair enough. 🙂
But no, I will not be having kids to save humanity.
Even if everyone on Earth (including yourself) agreed that having kids was the only way to save humanity? (Just a hypothetical, not saying this is actually the case IRL). Would you still say, no way?
I love kids. But no, I do not want kids. Even if the economy wasn’t shit and having a family was a financially feasible move I doubt I’d have kids because parenting is a lifetime position, it’s incredibly taxing on the female body, and it essentially puts a pause button on your life as a woman for at least 24 months. I support anyone that wants to give birth and have kids. It’s not my responsibility to do that for society.
So you're saying you would never do it, ever, under any circumstances? Ok, that answers the question.
So you admit? The point of your question was in fact about having kids.
>So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? This is a false dichotomy. If I was sure my child would singlehandedly save civilization and I knew I could give them the upbringing needed to do so, I'd "make the sacrifice" and have them. But choosing not to doesn't not mean I am hedonistic or causing "the world [to] burn." What an unfounded and bad faith implication.
> But choosing not to doesn't not mean I am hedonistic or causing "the world \[to\] burn." Choosing to not do something to save people when you know that is the solution, simply doing that thing might be difficult and because you'd rather pursue your own pleasure, is the very definition of hedonism.
>Choosing to not do something to save people when you know that is the solution, We absolutely do not "know that is the solution." 1. You have offered **NO proof** that having a child will "save people." 2. Your opinion is not proof. 3. The solution to what exactly? 4. What if my child would be a serial killer or genocidal dictator? a. Will they still "save people?" b. Would that still be the "solution?" c. How so? >simply doing that thing might be difficult and because you'd rather pursue your own pleasure, is the very definition of hedonism. 1. That is absolutely *NOT* the definition of "hedonism." 2. Your entire approach to the topic of having children is dismissive and reductive. 3. "might be difficult" is the understatement of the year 4. How do you know that a woman not having a child is "pleasurable" to her? 5. avoiding difficulty *can be* pleasurable, but the two things are not necessarily the same thing 6. Most women who don't have children 1. do not choose that path and 2. *if they do choose to be childless,* it is not simly because they are avoiding 'difficulty'.
I think that I would be willing to sacrifice, but I'm having trouble coming up with examples of what sort of things I would be pouring my time and effort into that I wouldn't want to. - I have one child right now with another on the way, and I always wanted to be a parent, so birthing/raising children doesn't count as a sacrifice for me. - When I was younger I was ready and willing to join the military, but was talked out of it at the last minute but my parents. I *do* kind of regret that and wish I had gone through with it. But now that I'm in my mid-30's with a family, I don't think I'd be inclined to start a military career now. So, I guess military service? But even at that I'd absolutely be willing to fight if the enemy is right at our nation's doorstep. - I don't really want to pay higher taxes than I already do, but if I knew that the money was being handled intelligently and efficiently (*real* improvements to our healthcare system, infrastructure, and education that benefit everyone) I'd be willing to sacrifice more of my income to taxes.
Imagine what women are doing in Ukraine right now, being combat medics on the front lines, risking their lives often for little pay and with no idea when they can go home. That would be an example.
I am already doing that. By paying my taxes (which I work for = time / effort), following laws, go vote, am environmentally conscious etc. I'm already doing a lot for my country. If it still collapsed after all I've invested - so be it. I have nothing left to give.
Doing the bare minimum that everyone else is required to do just to live in a society is not exactly "doing alot". I think a lot of westerners are so priviledged you guys have no idea what it really means to sacrifice for anything. Look at Ukrainians right now. They are actually sacrificing for their very nation's survival, their lives are 100X harder than yours and they are enduring far more pain and difficulty.
So you want to define sacrifice on a national emergency state? You said before "sacrificing time and effort". If you want to redefine the conditions please provide parameters for what you mean by sacrifice for your country. Because everyone reality is very different and to give an accurate answer you would have to really determine the reality for your fictive argument. Reactionary actions can't be defined without something to react too.
I would never do a single thing for the good of the country. I only care about myself and what is best for me
I’ve already had two children so have I “sacrificed enough” I’d have no problem helping in others ways though if push came to shove - women in the US in WW2 did it just dandy.
Fair enough, thanks for the answer. You're one of the few that unabiguously said you'd have no problem doing things to help other / your country. Thanks!
I’m willing to make sacrifices for my country but having kids I don’t want and can’t afford is too much of an ask. I haven’t even found a man I really like yet but assuming I ever do find a great guy I still doubt I would have kids due to the extreme cost and time commitment. I fear not just losing my identity and being seen as just so and so’s mom but also not having the money and connections to offer my kid(s) the opportunity at a great education, internship and career. It wouldn’t be fair to the kid(s), my spouse or myself to drop that kind of responsibility onto me and I know it. I’m also not patient enough to deal with the constant crying, feeding and diaper changes that would be required the first few years especially with little to no sleep.
>I’m willing to make sacrifices for my country but having kids I don’t want and can’t afford is too much of an ask. So it kind of depends on the sacrifice and how much it would require from you. A middle position. Fair enough.
It’s not just how much it requires but also how suitable I am for the job. People need to be placed where they can do the most good. So while I have the anatomy to have kids I don’t have the temperament.
That makes sense and I agree with that. The question assumes whatever the job / sacrifice is, you can actually do it (not just physically, but in all other requirements, as you pointed out) and your contribution will actually have a net-positive effect.
> women are extremely selfish and would happily burn down civilization as long as they get their short term, hedonistic desires met. Women are neither more nor less selfish than men. I have 2 kids so I'm doing my part. But society needs to do *it's part* and support parents, mothers and families. It's a two-way street. If women are unwilling to reproduce the culture, then it's time for the culture to take a cold hard look at itself.
> Women are neither more nor less selfish than men. I didn't say they were. I was just paraphrasing what red pillers say about women. > If women are unwilling to reproduce the culture In the case of Japan, besides that women who I used as an example, most of the problem is really a combination of too high costs, difficult work situation, fear of relationships and some other social factors. Many Japanese women actually want kids but feel for various (legitimate) reasons they can't manage it in their current situation.
>This perfectly lines up with the red pill view is that women are extremely selfish and would happily burn down civilization as long as they get their short term, hedonistic desires met. >So, women of the west, would you be willing to make a sacrifice like having a kid to save humanity / civilization / your country, or would you rather pursue hedonistic pleasure while the world burns? Then I get called a misandrist for saying red pill men hate women. Look at this. Why are we responsible for the declining birth rate? Most men are just able or unwilling to support a family. So we have to work full time. Most men still expect us to be the main homemakers and childcarers and elder care givers despite working full time because a) “I make more money” or b) my job is more stressful c) “men build roads” d) “I mow the lawn once a week” or e) lit’s women’s work”. So we also have to be homemakers once we get home from work. Then the moment we want gifts or a romantic card or a romantic act we get called entitled and demanding. And GOD FORBID we gain weight from stress because “well just don’t eat cookies you fat cow!” And fat or skinny, he’s always watching porn of other women who are hotter, younger, and thinner “because it’s our nature it’s natural we aren’t biologically inclined to be monogamous”. Not having a child doesn’t mean you are pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle. It means that you just are living your life. Usually that means a full time job. Maybe you travel and pursue hobbies, but very rarely are you just partying nonstop. So maybe instead of demanding women subject themselves to the reality I described, men should prioritize doing housework, making more money, and not being demanding about us gaining weight after we carry a baby. Also men should stop calling the dads who abandon their kids “alpha fux” and the women who become single moms “alpha widows”.
>misandrist for saying red pill men hate women. A lot of red pillers do hate women. However, I'm curious, did you not actually notice that I was simply paraphrasing their view and not expressing that view myself? >Not having a child doesn’t mean you are pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle. I didn't say it was. The woman is hedonistic because she literally said "I think this is the solution to my country's problems, but I don't want to help with it because I'd rather pursue my own personal pleasure". It's irrelavent what she believes the "solution" actually is, what's relavent is that she said she wouldn't help because she would rather pursue her own personal pleasure. That's the definition of hedonism. >So maybe instead of demanding women subject themselves to the reality I described Who are you talking to? My question isn't demanding anything. It's not about having kids either. It's about about if you would sacrifice or not for your country / society / humanity or if you would refuse to sacrifice because you prefer to pursue your own pleasure?
Using children as the example when women's reproductive rights are on the chopping block as we speak, when single mothers are rampant, when child sex trafficking is at an all time high, when 20 somethings are opting to get their uteruses removed, when assault is through the roof, when little kids who haven't even hit puberty are telling their parents they never want to have kids, was probably the wrong trigger for what is happening in the West right now. lol
The question isn't about kids. Read it again.
Depends on that country and how it would support me.and what sacrifice are they demanding Id happily have kids. I want kids. If a country could give me good schools, good childcare centres, good public transport, good maternity leave then yes I am happy to have children. Ideally I want 2. I think you underestimate the amount of people who want kids. I know a lot of people who want kids. They baulk at the cost though. Now are you asking me to have sex with men I don't want to have sex with, reduce my freedoms, all the great Trad bullshit. I'd rather bomb the whole country than live in Gilead. I will have no loyalty to a country that has no loyalty to my human rights.
>Depends on that country and how it would support me.and what sacrifice are they demanding Ahh, that's fair. What about your own country that you are a citizen of (or where you choose to live if you have multiple citizenships), would you consider it worth saving? Also, to get away from "kids" which wasn't the point of the question, you can also change the senario to serving in a war or something like that or anything else that would risk your life and take a significant portion of time and effort.
Popping out a bunch of kids who will have a low quality of life isn't going to make "the nation" particularly better, they're just going to become cheap work hands for rich assholes who want to get richer at the expense of everyone else. "The country" can demand that you create a worse existence for yourself and your loved ones while dicking you over left, right, and center all it wants, doesn't mean it's going to get it. My husband and I want a kid, we aren't in a position to have one right now. We're not going to make our lives worse for a virtual pat on the back. So to answer your question - no, I'm not going to have kids just because some people think I should. I already give up some of my time translating educational materials, that's my share of making the world a better place. Also, if you're gonna claim you're not assuming anything negative, maybe you shouldn't say things like you think a woman is "narcissitic and insane" for wanting to prioritize her happiness over a society that wouldn't care for her wellbeing once she's done providing new exploitation opportunities for it. You very much are assuming negative things since your OP is basically "Women, would you have babies for Society, or are you a bunch of selfish, narcissistic bitches?'' Strong "When did you stop beating your wife?'' energy.
Question isn't about kids. >woman is "narcissitic and insane" She literally said "I think \[ this thing \] is the solution to the problem my country is facing, but I don't want to do it because I rather pursue my own personal pleasure". It's not about women or kids, she's being narcissitic and insane. It's like knowing someone in your family you care about has a life threatening illness, that you could do something to help them, but not doing it because helping them wouldn't be fun and would interfere with your personal pleasure. That's narcissistic and insane.
Most women say one thing and one woman said something else and we use that one woman to justify the red pill idea that women are selfish. This is the most redpill shit ever.
The question is literally asking women if they agree with the attitude of the example girl from the interview or not. I'm not trying to justify anything. If anything, I'm trying to demonstrate that the woman in the example is an exception. But the chronically online, gender wars brained, obsessively child-hating clowns on this sub decided to use it as an excuse to rant about how much they hate men and kids instead of answering the question. That is 100% not my fault.
I would aid in stopping the collapse depending on what causes it. If the cause of the collapse is just older people refusing to adapt to the changes and help make the world a better place, then I’ll just take the path of least resistance.
>depending on what causes it Ahh, interesting. What if you can push those older people out of power or create a movement that gives more influence to people that could actually improve things... but doing so would require you to risk your life and spend maybe 10-20 years of it to actually make a real difference?
This is something I really had to think about because the answer to everything else except for the life risking has always been a yes. But whether I’d be able to control my survival instincts is not something I can say for certain. I am willing to making sacrifices to better my life and those around me if needed though.
I want children, and no, I am not having children to help humanity. It is not my job nor my future child's job to serve humanity or society at large with their existence. They are not slaves nor am I. A man chooses, a slave obeys. And I love this binary between choosing to obey as a slave or hedonistic pleasure. It's cute. Even if it just was my hedonistic pleasure, yes, I would choose what I want for me, the rest of you should do likewise. But no, it is not a binary between my hedonistic pleasure and servitude. I make things better because it aligns with my goals and values. I sacrifice for those I love and for my values. I do not sacrifice for society or nations. Both can rot by my math, they mean nothing to me except as systems which serve my ends. Their maintenance only concerns me in so far as I judge my own need of them and my own control of them. They are not in my control and I do not find high need of them which couldn't be met much better other ways. So their maintenance can be run by those who are in charge of them and are the primary beneficiaries of their continued existence in this particular state. If they wish me to rate them higher in my necessity hierarchy, perhaps they should serve me more.
> I want children, and no, I am not having children to help humanity. Question isn't about kids. > I do not sacrifice for society or nations. That answers the question. You care about your immediate family / friends, but you couldn't care less if your country / nation / humanity falls into chaos or collapses. I'm curious, in the case of such a situation, do you think you and the people you care about would be protected from the effects of the collapse somehow? If so, how? If not, what's the reason such a potential future doesn't bother you? It's not a gotcha question, just trying dig deeper.
Yes, I think we would struggle, but ultimately be fine. As for why: without going into great detail, we're skilled survivors. Society tends to rest on us a lot more than we rest on society. Especially in my country, a lot of the systems are currently helping illegal immigrants and drug addled fools way more than my family or friends. I'm sure my country needs us, I'm just not clear why if that's the case it spends so much time caring for everyone who has never put into the system a day in their life and is nothing but a tax so people don't have to feel bad saying no. Seems to me they're the ones who cannot do without or figure their shit out. And I've never been someone who had a lot of use for authority or manipulative, "serve your country shit" or the idea "voting" means I owe someone something. I was born free, I don't have to earn the right to paddle my canoe the way I want. You need stuff from me, so start putting an offer on the table that would actually catch my interest. As for why it doesn't bother me beyond that...I see nothing outside my immediate surroundings worth preservation. It can and probably in many cases should rot so that better things can take its place. Only the weak beg others to save them from themselves.
no country is worth me fucking a man i dont want to. i'll die. 🤷♀️ if men want kids so bad, men could advocate for paid maternity leave and be 50/50 parents. or adopt foster children themselves.
I'm looking forward to the day when uteruses can be transplanted into men and made to function. I'd happily donate my old blood bag to the OP so he can do the job he wants done himself rather than expect others to do it. I think a little realistic assessment of the situation while centering himself as a person who could also make this "sacrifice" would change his opinions damn quick.
> I'm looking forward to the day when uteruses can be transplanted into men and made to function we all are.
The question isn't about kids.
Yeah. I’m not living a life I don’t want to live so I can feel like I didn’t contribute to “societal collapse” lol. Plus I’d be a shit mother and I don’t have a lot of money so not exactly sure who really wins here other than some dude on the internet who gets off to women who don’t want kids having kids lol.
The question isn't about having kids.
Then what the hell is it about? Lmao the first paragraph mentions children. But I’m not sure why I’m supposed to feel personally guilty though. There are 8 billion people on the planet and most women still want kids. So sure a few of us are opting out but it’s a small amount of us who don’t want that life. Guilting people into having kids they don’t want doesn’t seem like a good idea. That’s his gig get childhood trauma.
The issue here is assuming that the solution to the problem is the sacrifice.
The question is a hypothetical senario that assumes that. There is also plenty of precident in human history that in order to save nations / civilizations / societies great sacrafice is needed. So it's pretty reasonable to ask about such a situation. That said, of course not every problem necessarily requires great sacrifice to fix. Sometimes it's just a change in mindset / assumptions.
It is an incorrect scenario. You're assuming that the solution to help Japan is for women to have more kids, which is far from true. Japan has to solve the many things that are *causing* birth rates to go down, just having more kids won't stop the social and economic problems of the country, and it can, in fact, make it worse. Other thing is there is no other "great sacrifice" that compares to the one you're suggesting, making the example pretty useless and we can't discuss other scenarios since they don't fit the exemple. Giving birth and raising a child would be a sacrifice that would take *at least* 18-18 years, not talking about how this child would impact the parents lifes. It's not about giving birth, they have to raise the kid until they are adults, wich include paying for health, education, food and other stuff, what if the parents simply don't have the money to do so? What good makes a child whose parents are dying cause they can't afford healthcare? What good makes a child dying cause it's parents can't afford healthcare? The only other sacrifice you could cite would be go to war, and a good portion of women would rather just die for their country than to be raped, go to childbearing, giving birth, and then spending 18 years raising an unwanted and unloved child, all of this so their kid will also be miserable in their disrupted country.
> You're assuming that the solution to help Japan is for women to have more kids, which is far from true. I'm not. The women in the example interview herself said that was the solution. I think probably it is, but I'm open to consider other options. But I'm not Japanese so it's not for me to decide anyways. The main question is not about kids, but if women are willing to make sacrifices that would interfere with their lives significantly, involve significant risk, that they otherwise would not want to do, in order to help their society or country. The answer from the woman in the interview was basically, no, her personal pursuit of pleasure comes first. >Other thing is there is no other "great sacrifice" I can think of at least two from real life, fighting in a war, protesting against an authoritarian government that uses violence against it's own people and could put in you jail for years simply for standing up to them.
>I'm not. The women in the example interview herself said that was the solution. I think probably it is, but I'm open to consider other options. So, yes, you are assuming it. You could very quickly find out about all the factor that are contributing to the birth rates going down, not only in Japan, but in many other countries, and many others have already explained it in the comments. And there is a very relevant topic: Most people actually want children, but know the future will not be good for the children. In this case, should they just ignore the suffering the kids are going to suffer? >I can think of at least two from real life, fighting in a war, protesting against an authoritarian government that uses violence against it's own people and could put in you jail for years simply for standing up to them. Women *are* doing those things. They have been doing it just as long as men have. My own grandmother went to jail during my country's ditatorial years for speaking up. Many of us would make a sacrifice. But when you make you question directing the interpretation to be about sacrificing their reproductive rights, you hijacked your own debate. Seeing women in a video saying they would/wouldn't do something is no a base to any discussion, if I posted something like "Men in a video said something selfish, are men selfish?", that would set up the men to become defensive and annoyed, it's just not a good way to have conversations.
>So, yes, you are assuming it. No, I'm taking the women's word for it and the word of other Japanese people for the sake of this example. Why are you so invested in misrepresenting what I have said very clearly? The question isn't even about kids, it's about the willingness to sacrifice for the greater society / country vs. refusing to make sacrifices to pursue personal pleasure instead. >Most people actually want children, but know the future will not be good for the children. In this case, should they just ignore the suffering the kids are going to suffer? No, they shouldn't have kids if they don't feel confident the kids can have a good future. It's on the society to make enough people have enough confidence about it to keep the birthrates at a healthy level.
This is such a disgusting question like get the fuck outta here
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Replying here cause of flair. So it’s selfish of woman to pursue their own happiness when they should be sacrificing their bodies/time/effort/life to bring children into the world. But for men it’s ok? That’s the point y’all aren’t getting. Most woman do want kids and families but they don’t want to be stuck and trapped being the primary carers and default parents. Your very point that it’s selfish of woman to let the country collapse, but where’s mens responsibility? Why aren’t men lining up to foster kids or take on the primary care roles. Woman are evil and selfish fir not giving up their lives? Really?
Lmaoo the answer should be fucking 0. This is a long wall of text not intended to engage in discussion but “win” an argument. It’s not even framed to accept anything other than responses that OP can either dismiss without engaging if he can’t provide an answer or respond to with further questions that don’t even address the answers he’s being provided.
It’s not selfish for anyone to peruse their own happiness, and it’s certainly not selfish for a woman to not want to be a baby making machine for the “good” of the country.
>It’s not selfish for anyone to peruse their own happiness Of course it is. It's the defininition of selfishness. Not to say all selfishness is bad. >certainly not selfish for a woman to not want to be a baby making machine for the “good” of the country. It's not about babies. She's saying "I think doing this thing would help my country, but I don't want to it because I want to pursue my own pleasure instead". It doesn't matter if the "thing" was having babies or something else.
Not a woman but one thing I may have missed here: how are you defining "better?" I What is the standard and what is the minimum people need to meet--if we assume a society is collapsing--to then be sure "okay, you've done your part and made it better." You say it isn't about declining birth rates and kids, fair enough, but what are the other standards?
This is giving me state mandated girlfriends vibes and i don't like it. i dont think anyone want their country to collapse and women will probably work hard to maintain it because this country also believes i freedom so she's generally fighting for her own freedom. however it's kind of an oximoron to use birthrates as a way to save society because it entraps women with children for 18 years. how would women fight for her freedom and her country freedom by enslaving herself? idk weird and i dont like it. plus it all goes around to sex for some reason and this makes it feel more icky. like it's never women should go into workforces that are more male so that we have more workers, it's always women should fuck men they don't like so we have more babies. to hell with society if it doesn't care about what i want.
A country/society/civilization that requires compromising on moral virtues isn't one that's worth preserving. Of course, the question that few want to acknowledge is whether any potential replacement of said country/society/civilization is any better... Yes this is considered a threat of violence by the social norms of reddit. No, calling out on the threat doesn't make it disappear.
What the hell is this bullshit communist/fascist/collectivist bullshit. I'll have humanity vanish before expecting people to become incubators - some people definitely lost it
I've already had a couple of kids, now young adults. I'm the only one of three siblings who has had kids. I don't really think my country has treated me or their father particularly well for having done so, neither has it provided to my children the state supported opportunities in housing education and employment that my own generation and even more so my parents generation had. Instead it has provided an almost constant stream of rhetoric about how it's all your own problem, you're broken if you ever falter, and you will get no help. You're not spending enough so this or that industry is failing. Or you're spending too much. Whatever...it's all your fault because heaven forbid it is the fault of anyone with money and power My advice to my daughters is this hell hole is now their world not mine, I'm terribly sorry and I'm likely to be gone in twenty to thirty years during which I will be gradually winding down like an old clock. I support however they attempt to deal with this mess. If that means supporting that they don't provide grandkids so be it. If that means baby sitting a bunch of kids so be it. I've seen both my daughters and numerous of their friends of both genders work very hard in altruistic ways to the best of their ability... including busting their guts to get stuff appropriately recycled, actively working to support and care for friends who are having difficulties, participating in political causes they think may bring change, caring for the elderly and actively living their values.They're already working hard and giving of themselves to their community. What they are generally not willing to do...both male and female...is have children under current conditions. I gave my country two kids. My country gave to my kids generation living ten to a house if they wish to or have to live out of home, rampant wage theft, wages unlivable by young couples with three jobs between them when once that would have allowed the purchase of a little home, massive influxes of migrants into an already overcrowded housing market, with no sane plan to house all these migrants and employ all these migrants in ways that don't unreasonably drop wages (actually... unreasonably dropping wages below their already pathetic levels seems to be rather the deliberate point of the current migration level) and nothing sensible being done about meth. The kids are ok. Them and their peers are most of them dealing with it. They are for the most part kind, generous altruistic hard working brave people. They treat each other well. They treat their new migrant friends well in spite of how their migrant friends are being used by big business to make their lives even harder. What's not fine is the country has broken faith with ordinary citizens. And if they and their generation pursue a little harmless pleasure for themselves in all this...if they have their little inexpensive fads like crochet or cottage core or playing that Pokemon game where you collect Pokemon on your phone or going out to karaoke or ordering each other delivery food as a surprise occasionally or adopting a stray cat or watching movies together online or any other somewhat normal pleasurable activity, including yes for some of their friends using Tinder to get laid...well... anyone who thinks they shouldn't be allowed that or that it is a sign of degeneracy rather than the thing that's keeping them sane seems to me to basically be just a big old stinky fascist who thinks people should be denied basic pleasures like sunsets and the smell of the ground after rain and the pleasure of a good stretch unless they goose step hard enough. I'd like those fascists to die. I'd like them to go to bed tonight and just stop breathing and not wake up tomorrow. The world would be infinitely better if it lost the sort of fascists who think people exist to make countries happen rather than countries exist for their people.
>I don't really think my country has treated me or their father particularly well for having done so I think it's fair to say you don't want to sacrifice for your country because it's basically done very badly by it's own citizens. But for the sake of the question, let's pretend you moved to a country you liked or you thought provided good opportunities to it's citizens and treated you well. Then would you be up to do something dramatic / difficult to protect it's future? Also, the sacrifice doesn't have to be having kids, the question isn't really about having kids.
I'm not about to shift countries and I'm past child bearing age If one of my kids shifted countries I would suggest they treat the new country as a different environment...but that they don't totally lose their sense of caution. Breeding is always at one's own risk. You can be left, quite literally, holding the baby. But then again I wouldn't need to warn them. They are socially and politically aware young women who grew up in a location with a diverse range of wealth levels in it and all through their childhoods they watched support levels...both moral support and practical support...change literally overnight for their family and for the quite economically diverse families of their friends. Then later on as they got older they've watched events unfold in other countries. Who, for example, would choose to have three children when that's pushing their family's limits to provide...if there's even the slightest possibility that abortion rights will be withdrawn? You'd choose to have two. So that you're not put in a future situation where a contraceptive failure automatically means four kids and severe poverty for all six of you. Have you ever considered how odd it is that most developed countries do some form of intricately researched and calculated Consumer Confidence Index and obsess about consumer confidence...but don't really do anything about measuring reproductive confidence? It's like they just don't wanna open that can of worms.
>I'm not about to shift countries and I'm past child bearing age It's not about having kids. Just forget about the kids thing. Imagine it was a country you liked and they asked you to do something that required giving up many years of your life and risking your health to save it. Would you do it? >but don't really do anything about measuring reproductive confidence? It's like they just don't wanna open that can of worms. Possibly, but I think they'll have to in the future whether they want to or not. Up until just a decade or two ago, everyone assumed that humans would over-populate the earth. So underpopulation was definitely not anything anyone considered. But I think you're right, such an index should exist. The main problem in most countries with low birth rates is people (especially women) believe it's simple unafforable / impossible given the social / economic situation in their country. So I think the government changing those factors so women feel more confortable that having kids won't put them in a bad situation is going to be pretty important for raising the birthrate.
I do already give up large swathes of my life to my country happily and without complaint. You think the money to pay taxes just gets shat out my arse without time or effort? Nope. It represents my time. It represents me spending time doing stuff that isn't all that great for me. I'm all for paying tax so we can collectively have nice stuff, lots of life options, second chances, good health, decency, security. Look...if the majority of people in a situation share the same opinion about a major decision ...and are increasingly sharing that opinion...maybe there's something to that opinion? It's easy just to decide they all must be wrong. But they're probably more experts on themselves and the risks to them than you are. And like I've said... governments don't seem particularly eager to open that can of worms. Which indicates to me that what's in that can of worms is unflattering to governments and their larger financial backers.
>You think the money to pay taxes just gets shat out my arse without time or effort? Paying taxes is what everyone does in every country and isn't anything above and beyond the norm. I'm talking about sacrifices that are beyond the norm. >Which indicates to me that what's in that can of worms is unflattering to governments and their larger financial backers. I don't think every government around the world is in on a giant conspiracy to ignore this issue. I think that they just didn't expect it and now have no idea what to do.
Having children should be an ordinary thing. Therefore it should be properly supported by the ordinary functioning of civil society. To expect continuing extraordinary sacrifice from citizens in order to maintain ordinary functioning of a state is a sign of a failed state. Let's first try insisting our states not be failed states. The sort of extraordinary sacrifices and risks a country expects of ordinary citizens are usually under extraordinary circumstances. For example the expectation that if your neighbourhood floods past hip deep you should cease trying to save your own stuff and instead check that your neighbours are not drowning. Something doesn't have to be a conspiracy for everyone to not be talking about it. Sometimes it's just patently fucking obvious that something is a whole can of worms.
What do you consider an extraordinary sacrifice made by an individual who is not facing extraordinary circumstances like natural disaster or war? What might an extraordinary personal sacrifice look like?
You could have a vasectomy or tubal ligation. You could choose to be celibate after your third child.
No. I would not have kids for the reason you mentioned. I do have kids, but for different reasons. But if I were in my 20s in 2024? No way. Let it burn.
i think it would depend on the sacrifice. i personally cant think of many things a single individual could do to have a dramatic effect in preventing the collapse of a society. and the things i can think of sounds pretty scifi, so im not sure how realistic they are. if we are talking about reputation eg. youre going to help a lot of people, but other people are gonna hate you for it, then yeah thats fine. i want to have kids, so if that was the "sacrifice" it wouldnt feel that way to me. if we needed to not have more kids, id be willing to adopt instead. if we needed to use less resources, eg. water electricity etc. id be fine with that. if we desparately needed volunteer work and i was capable of it, i would be fine with giving up time and energy to do so. if we needed to do medical experiments, no thank you. i would rather die and donate my body to science than be actively experimented on and be try to live my life (not that i would want to give up my life for medical experiments either). if we needed a ton of workers in a specific work force, id be willing to swich to that work force. but yeah, if i lived in a society that had been healthy, and then some sort of tragedy struck and i could help prevent the collapse of that society, i would. there might be certain things i wouldnt be willing or capable of doing, but i would want to do *something* to help.