Fertility problems in the 21st century

[Lyanna Stark]

On the larger issue, that of somehow getting people to have kids when they're not likely to need fertility treatments - what is that age range anyway? I thought it was 35 and under, but people in this thread seem to think it's under 30. Getting people to have kids before they're 35 is probably not really all that difficult, but trying to get people to have kids before they're 30 would be tough, given that, for example, my husband and I weren't even out of school until we were 28, and it'll be at least one, probably two more years before we're in a financial position to have kids. In the other emotional sense, I'm nowhere near actually wanting children yet. I've never been sure whether this is a "maturity" thing, or if it's just that I'm never going to want to have kids.

I think I read somewhere that the best "biological age" to have kids for women is around 18-19. That's when we have the lowest risk of producing babies with disabilities.

The reason why 35 is trotted out is because on the "statistical probability for genetical abnormalities" there is a steep increase in the curve for around 35, but the risk increases all the time once you are past your "prime years" (i.e. late teenage years).

Article with the standard graph

You can see on the graph that around 30, the risk for Downs Syndrome increases somewhat, but the steeper climb does not start until 35.

As an aside, I got an estimate on "Downs Syndrome risk" on my first scan as "this has been decrease to X" which the midwife then said "this is a very good estimate, you run the same average risk as a 19 year old to produce a Downs Syndrome baby".

Only in the very long term. Governments refuse to think in the long-term (as well as businesses, apparantly) because it doesnt effect them. Creating a social structure for young working women to have children doesnt benefit them. I'm pessimistic.

A lot of European countries already have pretty good policies in place for parents and they're not falling to pieces because of them. Sweden is a great case in point, where parental leave is also shared between the parents.

I've actually worked for companies who preferred parents to singles working for them as they tended to be less likely to leave and a better long term investment for the company, plus might be less likely to complain about lower raises etc. and take stability before advancement.

While overpopulation is a great problem, minimising support to new parents will only mean that the population will get older without a new young generation to help generate tax income for a multitude of pensioners.

This needs to be balanced by planning.

Not to mention that following Iskaral's "Suck it up bitchez" philosophy of women being told to be careful and choose a husband to provide for them is sexist, backwards and really unpalatable to a huge majority of modern women, who're used to make our own way in life and have our own income. Suddenly we need to find someone who can support us while we reduce ourselves to cattle?

In today's age, there is just no excuse why companies cannot support parents better with flexible working, working from home etc. especially considering how cheap remote access technology is. The old "omg face time" mantra is tiresome and it doesn't help anybody. If you get the work done, and you are reachable via email and phone, why do you have to be in your office?

Hell, it's CHEAPER for companies to have less permanent office space and more workers only coming in when they need to. The only thing standing in the way of more flexible thinking is tradition.

[Galactus]

I'll just like to trot something out here:

The european median age for first marriage has traditionally (IE: late middle-ages, when we start getting some kind of stats, to the 19th century when the industrial revolution CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!!) been around 24 for women and 28 for men. This is very high for women, but men tends to marry at around that age in most cultures. (Hence western europeans have traditionally had less of an age-difference between spouses)

There's all sorts of reasons for this, but the *basic* reason comes down to primogeniture and a relatively large class of freeholding peasants. Basically, if we have a family of peasants, the elder son is going to get the farm. The younger sons are going to have to work so that they can buy (or at least rent) their own farm. This means they'll spend a good decade or so (from around age 15-25) working as agricultural laborers. Hoping for both to get enough payment to be able to buy or rent land, or at least wait for someone to die so that a "spot" opens up for them in society. Now, a single income does NOT allow you to do that in this kind of society, so women has to work too, again as agricultural servants. (This incidentally is also a good way to meet prospective marriage partners) usually both of these were for year-long contracts, and in eg. Sweden it was actually a crime to be about if you weren't hired. (That's the purpose of vagrancy laws, basically)

Note that in some areas there was a way around this: For younger men to marry older, already landed, widows. Then once their wives died they'd marry a younger wife, who would in turn outlive them and remarry with the next generation of young men...

Now, in the 18th century things change. We get the agricultural Revolution, which is really complicated, but essentially this is the first stage of the Demographic Transition. For the first time in history we get sustained population growth in an agricultural society. This means that the chance of people actually being able to afford a farm, or even a rent-contract, starts to rapidly diminish as demand outstrips supply: Many young men and women start to realize that they might be stuck doing wage-labour for their entire life, without ever getting the option to buy their own land.

Now, all these people sloshing around will eventually be caught up by the industrialists, who need people to work. But they still won't be able to "become independent", they're now to use the marxist term proletarians. This actually *lowers* the age of marriage: If you have no chance to get anything by saving, why postpone marriage? So in the 19th century marriage age goes down a bit. (around 20-ish for women, around 25 for men, IIRC) This in turn increases fertility and thus the entire population boom.

Enter the 20th century. We start getting agitation for planned parenthood, at first it is often persecuted, but later on it is largely embraced. At the same time as prosperity increases (there's some argument of how this is related to demographic trends) people start having things to save up for again: Not land so much this time, they're still proletarians, and not even a business usually, but things like houses, a car... High-value consumer goods. Since it's now possible to save again, it becomes more attractive to wait with marriage and childbearing. So people do.

[Mentat]

A very interesting post. Makes you think how the age at which people get married and have kids is influenced by things like the price of real estate, the leniency with which banks will grant mortgages, the interest rate, etc.

All these economic reasons seem much more convincing than blaming a perceived negative demographic growth on people being bland and immature because of the influence of modern society.

Regardless, marriage has changed a lot. Many people will now enter a relationship without bothering with marriage, and producing offspring has certainly moved down as a priority for a lot of married people.

[Minaku]

A very interesting post. Makes you think how the age at which people get married and have kids is influenced by things like the price of real estate, the leniency with which banks will grant mortgages, the interest rate, etc.

All these economic reasons seem much more convincing than blaming a perceived negative demographic growth on people being bland and immature because of the influence of modern society.

Regardless, marriage has changed a lot. Many people will now enter a relationship without bothering with marriage, and producing offspring has certainly moved down as a priority for a lot of married people.

Aren't you claiming to be one of the people who doesn't want to grow up? It's possible to play video games and have fun as an adult. Just act like an adult, not a child or a teenager.

At any rate, it's not bubkis to claim that there has been a maturity shift. School is extended now. Priorities are different. Children strike out on their own later. There is an emphasis on the career as opposed to the family.

[litechick]

This thread is too far gone for me to pretend to join the conversation but I'm not going to let that stop me from jizzing my rambling thoughts all over it. :P If you think I've got no business, just scroll on by.

***Lately it seems like the answer to every problem is "the government should provide..." and I'm fucking sick of it. Ffs, figure it out for yourself.

***We have sacrificed a lot of stability for freedom. That is not a bad thing. With freedom comes responsibility and the first thing people usually do with freedom is behave badly. ('Look at me, I can drive! [smash] 'No one can tell me to do my homework!' [drop slip] 'I can buy all the beer I want! [puke])

Forty years ago it was all kinds of bad for people to have sex outside of marriage (which is not to say that it didn't happen but that there were severe societal consequences) and women were expected to be sahm. This led to people getting married young because then they could have all the sex they wanted and it was a given that the salary the man was capable of bringing home was what they had to live on and they budgeted accordingly. (Ergo men look for thrifty women with homemaking skills, mitigating the model ideal and the work ethic is stronger because they feel the weight of the family.)

Now we can have all the sex we want without marriage and with very little social stigma and everybody can work for money and be independant.

It seems perfectly natural to me that under the current circumstances, people choose not to struggle. They don't struggle with guilt about wanting sex, they don't struggle with the burden of financially carrying the family alone, they don't struggle with one car two toddlers and a mortgage payment. (Yes, of course some people do struggle with these things. I'm talking about trends, not absolutes.)

It seems to me that we have traded the claustrophobia of the 50's for a sort of rudderless adolescence where we are free to do anything and we have no idea what to do.

That's it. The price of freedom is having to figure this stuff out. Historically, society had much more control over young people. Instead of having an abortion and going to college you had a shotgun wedding or got sent to 'visit relatives' then go husband hunting. Either figure it out or do it the old fashioned way but don't piss and moan that society needs to provide for your paid parental leave/IVF/day care/blah, blah, blah.

***I hate it when people say that two incomes are a necessity. It is only a necessity in terms of living up to a certain standard. Most parents can testify that day care for young children mostly cancels out one of the paychecks anyway.

***I'm frustrated because I think that if people just looked at it as 'this freedom leads to this responsibility' people would whine less and might actually make the world a better place.

[Mentat]

Aren't you claiming to be one of the people who doesn't want to grow up? It's possible to play video games and have fun as an adult. Just act like an adult, not a child or a teenager.

Are you seriously telling me how I should behave? How patronizing! You don't even know me!

I strongly disagree with this post of yours:

Instead of encouraging women to reproduce earlier, perhaps the better thing to do would be to encourage men to be men, and tell them it is not a significant loss to be a responsible member of society. Am I straying off the path here? Maybe I need to start a thread on re-empowering men.

because its a silly and, again, patronizing (at least to me) view of what it is to be a man, to be responsible and to be empowered all in one go. To me being a man is merely being an adult of the male gender, being empowered is being free to make your own decisions and being responsible is taking responsibility for those decisions you do make.

Right. Because isn't that the mark of a man? Someone who is financially independent and stable, responsible for his actions and his words, and carries himself with dignity and integrity? That's the kind of person I want to be the father of my children. By re-empowering men I don't mean we should return to the wife-beating days of yore, but rather that those good qualities that women have come to value and desire in themselves should likewise be found in men. Egads, an egalitarian society.

This too I dislike. Yet another silly and patronizing view of what being a man implies. The part about being financially independent I find specially disagreeable, though the part about male re-empowerment meaning adopting those qualities that women perceive as positive is not much better...

[Zoë Sumra]

***I hate it when people say that two incomes are a necessity. It is only a necessity in terms of living up to a certain standard. Most parents can testify that day care for young children mostly cancels out one of the paychecks anyway.

... I'm going to assume you're not British. A single income here can pay for, at max, a one-bedroom flat. Two bedrooms, i.e. enough room to house a child, requires one of the following:

1) Two incomes at approaching the national average rate or a few K below

2) One income at double the national average rate (higher tax burden on high income, so a single salary would have to be more than two smaller salaries in order to equal the same take-home money)

3) Inheritance

4) Lottery win

5) Housing lottery win, i.e. some serious luck and/or good judgement exercised in when to buy and sell property over the past fifteen years

6) Other source of lump sum (metal detecting? or is that Treasure Trove, reverting to the Crown?)

You're dead right about the day care and paycheques thing; but when people like Isk are hanging around claiming that it's not possible for someone who's been out of the workforce for a few years raising a pre-school-age child to get up to speed with work (despite all the studies showing it takes only about six to ten weeks before someone who's been out of the workforce gets back up to the same level as if they'd never been away), if a woman wants to be able to work after her kids are at school, which I assume is what you're proposing, she'll have to go back to work as soon as possible.

[TerraPrime]

... I'm going to assume you're not British. A single income here can pay for, at max, a one-bedroom flat. Two bedrooms, i.e. enough room to house a child, requires one of the following:

We need a whole separate bedroom dedicated to a child in order to raise it properly? Really? By my guess, much, if not most, of the world (considering the population of China and India alone), fails this standard.

I think children can grow up quite well without as much of the material commodity as people think they need to provided for the children. In fact, millions of cases in the positive sense pretty much prove it. That is not to say that some parents' concerns about offering a standard of living for their children that they think is necessary (though, in this case, it's more about their preference, not necessity) isn't an important one, especially considering the socio-economic implication in modern, westernized societies.

[Chaldanya]

We need a whole separate bedroom dedicated to a child in order to raise it properly? Really? By my guess, much, if not most, of the world (considering the population of China and India alone), fails this standard.

IIRC, past a certain age they most certainly do need a room of their own by law.

Clarification: I was misrembering. Past a certain age (puberty) you need to ensure that if you have 2+ children of mixed sex, the different genders must have separate bedrooms - altho' these are guidelines and not law (unless fostering...)

N

[Lyanna Stark]

***I hate it when people say that two incomes are a necessity. It is only a necessity in terms of living up to a certain standard. Most parents can testify that day care for young children mostly cancels out one of the paychecks anyway.

***I'm frustrated because I think that if people just looked at it as 'this freedom leads to this responsibility' people would whine less and might actually make the world a better place.

You may hate it as much as you want, come to the UK and try to get a mortgage for a small, tiny shoebox house/flat on one income and see how far you get. It's not about "struggling", it's about the banks laughing at you.

This just proves you have no clue what it is like to live in many areas of the world. We will have to eat into our savings to manage during the time we have a child under 1 yr for certain, hence why we've done our best to put money aside. Even if we don't ever go out and only buy the bare minimum of what we need, we WILL struggle, and I say that as somebody who grew up in a far from gold coated family.

I feel personally offended that you think we'll manage fine on one income, no probs, and that it is our own fault for just not being able to budget.

A one bedroom flat in London, median price £220,000. Median salary in the country: £25.000 a year. Do the frickin math already. I chose a one bedroom flat since you obviously think people are over reaching if they want a 2 bedroom place for their family since we should all suffer for our "freedom" (whatever that means). If you can "budget" this on a £25.000 a year salary and make it work, please let me know. I'd love to know your fantastic secret to budgeting, since I have obviously failed at it all my life.

Oh and by the way, this is MID RECESSION, meaning it was at least 15% more around 2 years ago.

As for freedom leeds to responsibility, what freedom are you talking about? Freedom to have sex? Freedom to get an education? As was pointed out above, unless you want to be laid off every recession from the factory floor, a long education is necessary today. You will not get very far without an education, and an education takes time, and money.

The facts of the matter is: income levels have not risen enough for people to manage on one income and not feel extremely insecure, or deprived, in most cases. I'm sorry this annoys you, but it is a fact in many places. Cost of living is just too high.

We need a whole separate bedroom dedicated to a child in order to raise it properly? Really? By my guess, much, if not most, of the world (considering the population of China and India alone), fails this standard.

Depends again on your housing standard. I don't think we could fit a cot in our bedroom unless my husband and I slept in a single bed. Yes, the rooms in the UK are SMALL.

[Silverstar]

For the benefit of those getting offended by the immaturity comments in this thread, I’m going to try to explain my feelings on the matter in such a way that hopefully, it won’t offend anyone else.

If anyone, male or female, doesn’t want kids, then there really isn’t an issue here. Everyone should be able to live their lives exactly as they wish. One issue comes when someone who doesn’t want kids is in a relationship with someone who does, but that’s a different matter.

The problems I’m talking about come more when you have a couple who do want kids, but choose to put it off and put it off because of all the myriad other things they want to do first, and the lifestyle they want to achieve before having children, and the amount of money they want to have put away. Sometimes it’s both partners, sometimes it’s one partner who puts it off until they’ve done everything they want to do, while the other one waits impatiently. In situations like this, people need to be a bit more mature about things and realise that they don’t have endless amounts of time to wait if they do want kids, because expensive fertility treatments shouldn’t really be handed out willy-nilly to anyone who wants them just because they decided to postpone having kids until it wasn’t able to happen naturally anymore.

Now, women are bombarded with information from all angles about their biological clocks and how they shouldn’t wait, and I think every woman I know is well aware of these time limits, and that’s partly why, more often than not, it’s the female partner who wants to start trying for a baby earlier than the male partner does. I think men should be made just as aware of this kind of thing as women are, particularly when you realise that there have been studies recently that show that men’s fertility also declines as they get older, and they are more likely to contribute to a child with birth defects as they get older. Yes, men may still easily be able to father children well into their forties, fifties, sixties and even beyond, but I don't think that in many cases, it’s any more desirable to have a much older father than it is to have a much older mother. And I don’t know if this will come across as naive or offensive or whatever, but it really isn’t fair for a male partner in an otherwise great relationship to put off having the children that they both want until the female partner’s fertility has declined, just because he could always go off and find someone else to have those children he desires when he gets around to it.

I don’t know if that makes any more sense at all, or whether I’ve just managed to offend more people, but I hope it does.

[TerraPrime]

Depends again on your housing standard. I don't think we could fit a cot in our bedroom unless my husband and I slept in a single bed. Yes, the rooms in the UK are SMALL.

I grew up in HK. Our family's last flat had no bedrooms. My sister and I shared a bunk bed, which is a dresser's width away from my parents queen-sized platform bed. That's pretty standard government-assisted housing for a family of 4. I've seen families with less space than that. My aunt's family in Beijing lived in a one-bedroom place, with 4 kids. Growing up, my female cousin will share the parent's bed, in the bedroom, while the three male cousins will one bed that is put up during the evening in the living room.

I'm just saying that expectation of privacy and personal space is a learned trait. Children don't "need" a separate bedroom. We'd like to provide that living standard to our kids, for sure, but it's by no means a need, even in modern westernized parts of the world, imo.

[Minaku]

Are you seriously telling me how I should behave? How patronizing! You don't even know me!

Um, no. I have not made any statements as to how you should behave. What you choose to do with your life is none of my business. It's possible that I may not approve of what you're doing, but that's not going to make me tell you to do any differently. You are, after all, an adult.

because its a silly and, again, patronizing (at least to me) view of what it is to be a man, to be responsible and to be empowered all in one go. To me being a man is merely being an adult of the male gender, being empowered is being free to make your own decisions and being responsible is taking responsibility for those decisions you do make.

A 30 year old male who lives, by choice, in his mother's basement, who has a steady job and income, yet spends his money on luxuries instead of saving, prefers to sit at home and watch TV in his downtime, who does not even give his mother rent, is by your definition a man. That same person is by my definition a teenager. He has made his decisions and is living out the consequences of those decisions (of course, one of the consequences of those decisions is that he just lost his longtime girlfriend and almost-fiancée to another man of the same age who has done better in life).

This too I dislike. Yet another silly and patronizing view of what being a man implies. The part about being financially independent I find specially disagreeable, though the part about male re-empowerment meaning adopting those qualities that women perceive as positive is not much better...

I was unaware that it was considered a BAD thing to be financially independent. The qualities that women have adopted through the feminist movement are qualities that were often found in men: assertiveness, or aggressiveness; being career-minded; being financially independent, even wealthy; being successful in traditionally male-dominated fields. Some women bring home the largest paycheck in the house and work high-powered jobs with long hours that used to be in the domain of men only.

Now, lest someone misunderstands me, I don't have a problem with these scenarios. I love them. I like taking accepted paradigms and turning them on their heads so much that the opposite becomes just as widely accepted. However, some men, and the media would especially have us believe this, have become lazy, complacent, "whipped", and downright useless. Many commercials nowadays feature men who are goofy and dumb, who are out with their patient and long-suffering wives and children. It wouldn't go amiss if we as a society encouraged them not to be wastes of space.

I have to go back to the financially independent thing - Lord above, this is a bad thing now? Should I help you find a sugar momma?

[Minaku]

I grew up in HK. Our family's last flat had no bedrooms. My sister and I shared a bunk bed, which is a dresser's width away from my parents queen-sized platform bed. That's pretty standard government-assisted housing for a family of 4. I've seen families with less space than that. My aunt's family in Beijing lived in a one-bedroom place, with 4 kids. Growing up, my female cousin will share the parent's bed, in the bedroom, while the three male cousins will one bed that is put up during the evening in the living room.

I'm just saying that expectation of privacy and personal space is a learned trait. Children don't "need" a separate bedroom. We'd like to provide that living standard to our kids, for sure, but it's by no means a need, even in modern westernized parts of the world, imo.

The apartment where my mom grew up was much the same way. Less, MUCH less than 1000 sq. feet. No bedrooms, only dividers. Family of 6. One bathroom to service everyone's needs, with simply a bathtub, toilet, and sink. I've lived in that same apartment for long enough to know that it is not torture or deprivation to be there.

Word, Terra.

Edit:

Now, women are bombarded with information from all angles about their biological clocks and how they shouldn’t wait, and I think every woman I know is well aware of these time limits, and that’s partly why, more often than not, it’s the female partner who wants to start trying for a baby earlier than the male partner does. I think men should be made just as aware of this kind of thing as women are, particularly when you realise that there have been studies recently that show that men’s fertility also declines as they get older, and they are more likely to contribute to a child with birth defects as they get older. Yes, men may still easily be able to father children well into their forties, fifties, sixties and even beyond, but I don't think that in many cases, it’s any more desirable to have a much older father than it is to have a much older mother. And I don’t know if this will come across as naive or offensive or whatever, but it really isn’t fair for a male partner in an otherwise great relationship to put off having the children that they both want until the female partner’s fertility has declined, just because he could always go off and find someone else to have those children he desires when he gets around to it.

I came to the conclusion that it was okay to get pregnant because I didn't want my husband's biological clock to tick any further. He's six years older than I, and I didn't want him to be well into his 30s before having his first child. So, I'll be having my first child at 25 and he at 31. Sure, it's inconvenient. I am going to be limited in what I can do, where I can go, how much work I can take on (because I naturally enjoy lots of work, and thrive in a stressful environment) but I'm getting this over with now so that I can have more time later. The kids will leave eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, and then my husband and I will get to take the money that we have saved up and go gallivanting across the globe with nary a care.

[Lyanna Stark]

I grew up in HK. Our family's last flat had no bedrooms. My sister and I shared a bunk bed, which is a dresser's width away from my parents queen-sized platform bed. That's pretty standard government-assisted housing for a family of 4. I've seen families with less space than that. My aunt's family in Beijing lived in a one-bedroom place, with 4 kids. Growing up, my female cousin will share the parent's bed, in the bedroom, while the three male cousins will one bed that is put up during the evening in the living room.

I'm just saying that expectation of privacy and personal space is a learned trait. Children don't "need" a separate bedroom. We'd like to provide that living standard to our kids, for sure, but it's by no means a need, even in modern westernized parts of the world, imo.

Well, a couple of things:

* Houses in the UK don't really have kitchens. You can cook in them, but generally there is no place to have a table and sit down. Hence you can't have "one room", since that one tiny room would be where you eat and where you sleep and it would simply be impossible unless you want to eat standing.

* Our "second bedroom" is about the size of an average bathroom. We will get a cot and bookshelf in there. Our "main bedroom" is large enough for a bookshelf and a queensize bed, if we walk sideways next to our bed, which we do.

* Two bathrooms are extremely rare and mostly for more expensive properties.

* We don't even live in London proper, where rooms are even smaller and more expensive.

Also, the "advisory standard" is hardly in effect everywhere either. It's what the authorities consider a good idea, but I think in the future, we'll see far more families crowded into a tiny two bedroom flat.

My one bedroom flat in Sweden was larger than our two bedroom house in the UK by the way. :) And cost less than 1/3 of what we pay for our current place.

Naturally, space will be limited in more densely populated areas, that goes without saying. However, you can't get anything smaller than a 1 bedroom/studio flat here, and I just can't imagine how a family of 4 could even get 2 bunk beds in most of the 1 bedroom flats here. Unless you sleep in shifts, I just can't see how you can do it.

Even so, that flat would most likely cost you a sweet £180.000 or more here. As it's really hard to get a mortgage here without more than 10% deposit (apparently you have to be Jesus himself nowadays to get something with less than 15% deposit. :P ) it puts a lot of families in a dilemma.

Your best bet is to try and get something with a housing association or through the council, but that varies a lot with area how easy it is to get something. In some areas it's basically reserved for people with special needs, like people on benefit, widows etc.

I came to the conclusion that it was okay to get pregnant because I didn't want my husband's biological clock to tick any further. He's six years older than I, and I didn't want him to be well into his 30s before having his first child.

That seems to be fairly unusual thinking though, as most men don't seem to consider themselves as having any sort of biological clock, while a majority of women are very aware of theirs.

[Galactus]

I have to go back to the financially independent thing - Lord above, this is a bad thing now? Should I help you find a sugar momma?

The problem is treating "financially independent" as a *requirement* for manhood (if you will). It is something that is only availible to a very small portion of the population after all.

EDIT: I just figured we might mean totally different things by "financially independent". To me (and I guess most europeans) that essentially means "independently wealthy", IE: You don't have to work to support yourself.

[Minaku]

The problem is treating "financially independent" as a *requirement* for manhood (if you will). It is something that is only availible to a very small portion of the population after all.

EDIT: I just figured we might mean totally different things by "financially independent". To me (and I guess most europeans) that essentially means "independently wealthy", IE: You don't have to work to support yourself.

Financially independent in the US means simply to earn a living and not have to borrow money regularly (such as from parents ore siblings) in order to get the usual things done, such as paying bills and living expenses. Independently wealthy is nice but a dream most of us cannot achieve without a great deal of luck, savvy, or both!

Cerys -

My clock hadn't started ticking, and it seems like it probably wouldn't have started for quite a while. But seeing as there is a significant enough age difference between Schnee and myself, I didn't want him to be in his late 50s and attending his child's high school graduation, and neither did he. That was really what kickstarted the procreating - we didn't want to be too old when our children grew up, because there is life beyond children, and we want to live that life.

[MinDonner]

I'm a little baffled at how "wanting a less discriminatory social setup" is so easily (and often) twisted into "whining for handouts". Yes, of course people CAN carry on producing and raising children in the existing circumstances (or even in much, much worse ones) but why does that mean it's whiny to suggest improvements? :huh:

Yeah, some people might lose a few of their existing privileges, like eg. being able to let your wife do all the career-sacrificing while you still get to be a daddy, or letting the hordes of unpaid mothers produce the kids who will eventually pay for your old age without inconveniencing yourself in any way, but frankly if someone's got to suck it up, I'd rather it be the ones with the most privilege to spare.

[Lyanna Stark]

Min,

I agree. I don't understand this "Glory in suffering" thing that seems to be going on. Suffering and misery are not something that makes you a more valiant or better human being. It's nothing to be proud over or strive for: instead, why not strive for making things better, easier and more streamlined?

There are lots of things in life you don't HAVE to have, like running water, or the internet, or access to education, but it sure does help.

I've never in my life complained that my taxes go to provide for old people, the sick and small children: on the contrary, I have been upset when I've seen it spent on pointless stuff, like financing royals or bailing out rich bankers.

Maybe "freedom" is the lack of taxation, in which case that country would not be somewhere I'd like to live. I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes if it would make where I live a better place with more security and stability for all, higher pensions, more childcare tax credits, better health care etc etc.

but frankly if someone's got to suck it up, I'd rather it be the ones with the most privilege to spare.

Totally.

[Mentat]

Um, no. I have not made any statements as to how you should behave. What you choose to do with your life is none of my business. It's possible that I may not approve of what you're doing, but that's not going to make me tell you to do any differently. You are, after all, an adult.

Good. I guess I took this:

Aren't you claiming to be one of the people who doesn't want to grow up? It's possible to play video games and have fun as an adult. Just act like an adult, not a child or a teenager.

the wrong way.

A 30 year old male who lives, by choice, in his mother's basement, who has a steady job and income, yet spends his money on luxuries instead of saving, prefers to sit at home and watch TV in his downtime, who does not even give his mother rent, is by your definition a man. That same person is by my definition a teenager.

You see, my definition of whether a man is an adult or a teenager rests on his age, while yours rests on the way he behaves, the things he does, where he lives, what he decides to spend his money on, etc. I think mine is objective and yours is judgmental.

He has made his decisions and is living out the consequences of those decisions (of course, one of the consequences of those decisions is that he just lost his longtime girlfriend and almost-fiancée to another man of the same age who has done better in life).

Ooooh, so you're thinking of someone in particular? Well if you want to trade your old boyfriend for a newer, more successful one you're certainly entitled to, but what you may find attractive in a man does not equate manhood.

I was unaware that it was considered a BAD thing to be financially independent.

It's not BAD with capital letters to be financially independent, it's bad to use it as a measuring yard with which to judge other people. A stay at home dad might not be financially independent, an unemployed worker might not be either, or a franciscan monk, a mentally handicapped adult, etc. Does this mean they are not men?

The qualities that women have adopted through the feminist movement are qualities that were often found in men: assertiveness, or aggressiveness; being career-minded; being financially independent, even wealthy; being successful in traditionally male-dominated fields. Some women bring home the largest paycheck in the house and work high-powered jobs with long hours that used to be in the domain of men only.

A woman may adopt for herself whatever qualities she chooses, and if this leads her to live a happy life then that's great. Deciding what qualities other people should have for them, and judging their manliness (one could almost say their adequacy) based on that... not so great.

Now, lest someone misunderstands me, I don't have a problem with these scenarios. I love them. I like taking accepted paradigms and turning them on their heads so much that the opposite becomes just as widely accepted. However, some men, and the media would especially have us believe this, have become lazy, complacent, "whipped", and downright useless. Many commercials nowadays feature men who are goofy and dumb, who are out with their patient and long-suffering wives and children. It wouldn't go amiss if we as a society encouraged them not to be wastes of space.

I'm with you here, I agree about turning paradigms on their heads and a negative portrayal of men in the media. Yet to me many of these men's problems to me is precisely the lack of more traditionally feminine qualities. Men like Homer Simpson and Peter Griffith both are economically independent and support their households, yet they should be more attentive and caring with their wives, help with the housework, learn how to cook, etc.

I have to go back to the financially independent thing - Lord above, this is a bad thing now? Should I help you find a sugar momma?

I don't even know what a sugar momma is, but I think you judge me unfairly. Again, you don't know me.