re: 52% of women are now child free. Take that patriarchy!

quote:

---

More women, financially independent, don’t want to date the growing number of politics-complaining, lazy, underemployed, algorithm-trapped, angry men.

---

You make it sound like women are superhuman. They will die childless and miserable. Life is long. Old, disease riddled miserable women.

quote:

---

It certainly used to be that way.

---

It still is. Men have a monopoly on physical force, and rights are only as good as the force that defends them.

quote:

---

I’m 63 and never served. There is no draft

---

Currently, but you still had to sign up for selective services and could have been compelled to serve at any time. And guess what most people don't know? The Selective Services is not just a database in the event of a military draft. You can be compelled to serve for reasons other than being cannon fodder. Well, men can. Women can vote to create the situation that would necessitate it, then sit at home.

quote:

---

War is now being fought with drones

---

No, targeted military strikes are fought with drones.

quote:

---

We are in a major war with Iran

---

No, this is not a "major war." We've not been in a "major war" since Vietnam. We're bombing them, sure, but Iran is a country that can't defend itself against a military power like the US. It's why they fight by proxy exporting terrorism.

If we were in a "major war" with China, you'd see plenty of boots on the ground and plenty of casualties.

quote:

---

Women can fulfill most military roles as well as men.

---

No, they can't. Some, maybe. Not "most."

quote:

---

sitting on a ship looking at a screen?

---

You're proving my point.

Look, there's no point in arguing that women can compete with men when it comes to tasks that require physical power/strength. It's why a junior high boys soccer team beats the world champion women's Olympic team.

And still, the majority of necessary tasks in combat roles require physical power and endurance.

Put it this way, if we had to field a 100% female military, or an 80% female military, or even a 50% female military, we'd get our arse beat in combat. If you aren't willing to admit that, we don't have enough basis of good faith to continue the discussion, I don't think. And that's without bringing up the fact that the enemy torturing (raping) women soldiers would be a big psychological disadvantage.

quote:

---

a woman wants to be a warrior, so be it, so long as they have the wherewithal to fill the requirements.

---

Yeah, but women don't. They can't pass the physical boot camp requirements without "gender accommodations."

That's the point.

quote:

---

I don’t like that kind of pressure, neither against staying home, nor against having a career. Just let people do what they want.

---

This is the difference between you and I. I grew up leaning very libertarian, "Live and let live, freedom is the most important thing, etc., etc." and now that I'm 55 I can see that that mindset has greatly contributed to the narcissistic selfishness that pervades western society today.

We are a post-duty society now. All anyone thinks about or cares about is what they are entitled to, not what obligations they have to family or church or God or society or country. People really used to live by, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," that's why it resonated so well in that speech. Not everybody lived that way, of course, but I think a majority of Americans did.

The fact that hardly anyone does anymore is a problem. Like our debt, it's on an unsustainable course.

So I like social pressure, as long as it's pressure to do the things that lead to a better society and pressure to not do the things that undermine it.

I like it a lot, in fact. At my age now I can see that it is what has held societies together (or not, when it was missing) for thousands of years.

No one is talking about forcing women to have children, but two things:

1. I am talking about the social pressure switching back to what it used to be when the social pressure was for women to settle down, get married, raise children, and create a stable home. All the propaganda now is aimed at convincing women to tell everybody to frick off and to "get mine," as Low IQ Harris just told black women to do in her recent speech. And there's plenty of that kind of propaganda happening in current society...don't act like what we have now is a neutral context. It's not even close to being neutral. That's why you bristled when it was brought up. You're drinking that Kool-Aid.

2. I don't want it to be forgotten that you never addressed the fact that everyone recognizes that men have a duty based on their biological ontology—and it goes well beyond the military...if the boat is sinking, who gets on the lifeboats first? Women and children. Everyone intuitively knows that and follows it, without questioning it.

But nobody admits that women also have a duty based on their biological ontology. All the propaganda serves to deny it, in fact.

quote:

---

As you pointed out, nature will then sort things out.

---

Not as long as people like yourself continue to deny and/or ignore nature. And how many grandchildren you have is not what I'm talking about there. Acting like women are equal or even close to being equal when it comes to wielding physical force is what I'm talking about.

Could actually be a blessing in disguise. Not passing on those fricked up genes.

quote:

---

I’m talking particularly about the increase in stem cells and TRT being used to increase the quality of life amongst middle age groups. It’s happening as we speak.

---

I owned a clinic that used stem cell technology up until I sold it in 2024.

And I've had TRT as a patient (and we did that too).

I stopped the TRT because it didn't make any difference for me. Some people say it does for them, but it doesn't make them live longer. It just makes them feel better...and I'm not sure that most of that is not placebo based on my personal experience with it. (And incidentally, we stopped offering that service at the clinic too.)

Stem cells. We were using it as joint injections for people with degenerated joints who wanted to try to avoid surgery. I would say for about 30% of the people we gave injections it was like a miracle...in that joint. It still didn't rejuvenate someone's whole body. For another 40% it moved the needle slightly to moderately and people were still glad they got it after the fact (again, just for the joint that got injected). For the remaining 30% it made no difference at all.

Plus, when 70% of the adult population is overweight or obese, it only does so much good.

And again, I'm not aware of any application of stem cells that has been proven to extend life. I know of people (fellow clinic owners, in fact) who would get IV infusions once a month thinking that it was going to cause them to live longer and stay young longer, but I have seen no clinical evidence that they were doing anything other than wasting a lot of money.

I'm happy to stand corrected if you know of some, though.

quote:

---

50 years old today is not 50 years old during the 70’s.

---

Agreed, but I think that has to do more with the timeline when people in that age range were born. They experienced a lot of stress during the Depression, WWII, etc., something like over 50% of the population smoked in the 20s-40s, they didn't have clean water sometimes, etc., etc., etc.

quote:

---

You don’t agree that the life expectancy will increase in our lifetime?

---

Sure. It already has. By about nine years in my lifetime (55 years).

But even if we were to stay on that pace, we're still over a hundred years away from the average breaking a hundred, and I don't think we'll stay on the same pace.

For political reasons I don't think we'll stop eating badly in the US (and even in countries where they eat much better than we do and move much more, their life expectancy is only slightly above ours...a year or two...not ten or fifteen, so even if we did eat better and move more I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

The vaccination issue has pretty much been solved (if anything we're over vaccinated at this point), food access, clean water, etc.

I just don't know what's left to improve on that's going to keep us on that pace.

I have sons that are marrying age. We have had conversations about many of these modern “feminist” women. I basically told them to avoid these high achieving feminists who put career over everything else. Focus on the smaller percentage that still want to center their families. The ones who don’t are obvious if you pay attention. They are selfish and only care about what they get from men and society.

Yeah, that or 'milking' large fantasy Minotaur's. Screwed up dames.

quote:

---

But.

They.

Don't.

---

But they DO have the wherewithal to perform many military tasks.

You keep mischaracterizing things that I wrote in order to create a position you can successfully attack. I have never expressed any opinion about women’s ability to compete with men at strenuous things other than this: that there are a small number who are better than the average male. You keep trying to spin that as though I am of the opinion that there are oodles of woman equal to men physically.

You then claim I am contradicting myself when I say that we could field a military with 50% women. But it is no contradiction, because I plainly stated that there are enough non-strenuous roles in the military to achieve that. Then you ask about the chances of an operation if 50% of those executing it are women. Well, it depends on the operation. If it’s what we’re doing to Iran right now, we’d be fine. If it’s a special forces unit dropped behind enemy lines and having to sustain combat without support we’d be in trouble.

I wrote that there were a handful of females who could excel the average male. You asked for a link. I went to chatGPT and asked the question about recruits on fitness tests. Here was the result (it said there was no data directly available to answer the question)

Bottom line

* Yes, some female recruits outperform the average male
* But based on available military fitness data:
* It’s likely on the order of single digits to low teens (%)
* Not anywhere near parity or majority

Now, I would say that “single digits to low teens” is about equivalent to “a handful”.

I’m going to say this again, you make some very good points toward the end of this post. It comes down to this: would things work out if we removed the current social pressure that feminists have put on women to work, work, work instead of being moms? Or do we need to replace it with the pressure that used to exist? I suspect the answer is the former, but I can’t say so with certainty because it was never tried. We went from one extreme to the other in an eye blink.

You cloud the issue by attaching it to other things that are irrefutable common sense, such as that children should be pressured to work, etc. I reject the coupling. We freed women from laws that made them second class citizens and the United States went on to have the greatest period of growth in its history.

Things started to go very wrong about the turn of the century, and I think it’s primarily because of the pressure on women to have careers. (I think a secondary, but important, cause is that we stopped raising children with discipline.)

I think your draft scenario is a red herring. We are never going back to the draft nor should we. If we need more soldiers offer more pay. But we are fast transitioning to a robot/AI military in which we will have no soldiers performing strenuous combat roles.

I love your last two paragraphs!

quote:

---

But they DO have the wherewithal to perform many military tasks.

---

Not if they can't get in. Not if they can't pass boot camp. Which almost all of them can't unless they are given accommodations. Because boot camp is structured around abilities needed for combat.

quote:

---

Yes, some female recruits outperform the average male

---

With or without "gender grading" or other accommodations?

quote:

---

Now, I would say that “single digits to low teens” is about equivalent to “a handful”.

---

First—and I could be wrong—but I'd bet my last twenty that the women identified in that Chat GPT search were being graded with accommodations.

Even if they weren't...so what? That's YOUR red herring this whole time. Like I said before, it's never been my claim that not a single woman in the world can pass boot camp, nor has it been my claim that if a woman can, she shouldn't be allowed to join. If you take some of my statements literally and out of context it might look that way but I feel like I've provided enough clarification that no reasonable person could think that.

So...what? What is your point in harping on that? What difference do you think it makes to the actual claims I made?

quote:

---

You cloud the issue by attaching it to other things that are irrefutable common sense, such as that children should be pressured to work, etc. I reject the coupling.

---

Then you tell me who is going to have the children if women don't. Yeah, it's that common sense. In fact, it's the MOST common sense item I listed, because there's literally no alternative.

Again, you're proving my point. No one balks at women and children first in the lifeboats, but you're here telling me you reject the notion that it's common sense that women have to have children in order for society to survive.

And then you deny drinking the feminist Kool Aid.

quote:

---

I think your draft scenario is a red herring.

---

Well, you're entitled to be wrong, I guess.

quote:

---

We are never going back to the draft nor should we.

---

In 2010 if I had told you that in ten years there would be men playing on women's sports teams or that a virus would have shut down the whole world for over a year, you would have denied those things too.

"Ahh, that's a red herring. We're fast moving toward a society in which medical science would never allow a pandemic like that to spread."

You don't know any more about what the effects of AI are going to be or cause than anybody else. You also don't know whether something as unexpected as COVID could happen at any moment that would necessitate another draft.

And besides, on two counts it doesn't matter if we really do never have a draft again. The original point (if you can still remember what it is, since you're constantly straining to get away from it) doesn't depend on the practical likelihood of an actual draft. All it depends on is the acknowledgment that when the ship is sinking, everyone intuitively knows that women and children are getting on the lifeboats first. Everybody. Everybody knows it. No one questions it. It's regarded as obvious, because it should be, and it is.

And it's just as obvious that women's biological ontology is centered around procreation. Yet you deny that one.

Imagine saying some of the same things you've been saying about women, about men in the lifeboat scenario. "Well, there are some men who need to be on the lifeboats, because they are not able to survive on their own. We need to be looking for some above average women who can outperform men physically and they can give up their seats for these weaker men. After all, if the men want to get on the lifeboat, who am I to say they shouldn't? Now, now, everyone, let's have none of that pressure put on these gentlemen...if we just leave them alone, nature will sort it out."

It would be absurd, and you know it, and it's the same thing.

And secondly, there are about the same percentage of women in robotics fields as there are women in the military. You know why?

Because the research is very clear that men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people. And in the Scandinavian countries in which there is the LEAST amount of pressure for men and women to follow traditional career paths, there is even more segregation of careers than in countries like the US, which applies a great deal of pressure and propaganda pushing women toward STEM fields.

When left alone—even more women choose teaching and nursing and administrative support and counseling, etc., etc., etc. than they do in the US.

So for robotics to become the great equalizer, women's basic psychology is going to have to undergo some sort of overhaul. That's less likely than the draft being re-instituted.