PDA

View Full Version : How many children do you want?



Pages : [1] 2 3

jerney
11-12-2010, 04:30 AM
Assuming you don't have them already. And if you do, did you end up having the number you originally planned?

I definitely want 2, maybe 3, but that also depends the gender the first two.

Debaser11
11-12-2010, 04:39 AM
I used to say "one or *maybe* two" (when my politics were vastly different). Now I say "two or *maybe* three." If I were to become really wealthy (from scratch-offs, heheh), I'd gladly push my luck a bit further.

Arne
11-12-2010, 04:40 AM
I don´t really support having a Child with a Wog.
The idea is not healthyy..

jerney
11-12-2010, 04:44 AM
I used to say one or *maybe* two (when my politics were vastly different). Now I say "two or *maybe* three." If I were really wealthy, I'd gladly push my luck a bit further.

Three actually seems like a lot today, but then I think about how many siblings I grew up with (four) and I realize how weird it is to imagine only having one sibling. It almost seems like it would be kind of lonely.

whirlwind
11-12-2010, 04:44 AM
I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
But I can definitely imagine that after I have my first child with someone I love, I'd keep wanting more kids.

Debaser11
11-12-2010, 04:53 AM
Three actually seems like a lot today, but then I think about how many siblings I grew up with (four) and I realize how weird it is to imagine only having one sibling. It almost seems like it would be kind of lonely.

Yeah, and I think having children (provided you do it the proper way) is a grand thing.

I'm the oldest of four, myself. I remember people sort of regarding my mother as a nut. She did all right, though.

Debaser11
11-12-2010, 04:55 AM
I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
But I can definitely imagine that after I have my first child with someone I love, I'd keep wanting more kids.

Hmmmm...I don't want to dismiss this, but I think there is a lot more to the story than this. The same crowd that says that kind of thing also strikes me as the same people who were saying absorbing classical music while in the womb and during infancy made kids into geniuses. Now that's been almost utterly discredited. I think much of a child's potential is laced within their DNA. And many psychologists think so too. Google "Hans Eysenck," for example. He was one of the most famous in his day.

la bombe
11-12-2010, 04:59 AM
1-4 depending on the father and the situation. But 3 sounds perfect really.

Sahson
11-12-2010, 05:04 AM
2 or 3 ideally. but that's being an idealist. I don't actually understand the importance of siblings, since I was an only child. step-sisters that lived in a different country, yes. but not blood related siblings.

Alison
11-12-2010, 05:39 AM
I voted 3 - 4. I have 3 children, two sons and a daughter, and they are very precious to me.

Bloodeagle
11-12-2010, 05:40 AM
I have 3 kids with 2 different mothers and another baby on the way. :D
Four children will be enough for me. Funny thing is that my oldest will be 20 when the baby is born. :)

jerney
11-12-2010, 05:41 AM
I voted 3 - 4. I have 3 children, two sons and a daughter, and they are very precious to me.

In what order did you have them? I know in reality you can't control things, but if I could choose, I'd really, really prefer to have a boy first

Alison
11-12-2010, 05:55 AM
The oldest is my daughter, then the sons. I didn't think about what gender I would have prefered first. It was just so exciting being pregnant and bonding with that baby before she was born, as it was with the other two. We're a very close family, and the siblings adore each other.

Brynhild
11-12-2010, 08:53 AM
To be honest, three is a somewhat harder number to deal with, but it does depend on how closely you have them, especially when the arguments kick in. I have two boys and a girl in the middle. I wanted a boy first but it wouldn't have mattered how it came about. I had my brood within five years, the eldest two being 22 months apart, with the middle and third child three years apart. It would've been closer, if it weren't for a miscarriage between the second and third.

I would've liked four but my back was giving out with each birth and I feared the worst in that department, as my tailbone was misaligned. I wouldn't have it any other way now, despite the earlier difficulties with juggling it all and the youngest being autistic - who is a great kid and getting better by the day. They're all great kids and I love them with my every being.

Alison
11-12-2010, 08:58 AM
Aww, Brynhild. You're awesome. :) Hugs.

Vasconcelos
11-12-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm hoping for 2, perferably 3, hopefully not all of the same gender. I think it will depend on how wealthy we'll be in the future, I need them to have the best education possible, I suppose growing up one child is already pretty hard on family budget :)

whirlwind
11-12-2010, 11:28 AM
Hmmmm...I don't want to dismiss this, but I think there is a lot more to the story than this. The same crowd that says that kind of thing also strikes me as the same people who were saying absorbing classical music while in the womb and during infancy made kids into geniuses. Now that's been almost utterly discredited. I think much of a child's potential is laced within their DNA. And many psychologists think so too. Google "Hans Eysenck," for example. He was one of the most famous in his day.

I don't think I expressed myself adequately.
First off, I'm a psychology major, and one of the rigors of that at my uni is that we are made to take several child/developmental psychology courses [didn't think it would interest me that much but it's actually VERY interesting]. I am currently taking a course in childhood psychopathology, and my professor and his wife had triplets.
As we were going over the section on learning disabilities, particularly communication disorders, we were informed that often times multiples develop comm. d's as a result of having other babies to communicate with all the time, which can tend to delay the progress they make in learning to speak properly.
It's not a grave threat or anything, 99% of the time it does no harm whatsoever and in fact there are other benefits to being a multiple.
But I tend to notice that only children are a bit more precocious, as they have to try and keep up with the adults in their family rather than siblings of a similar age. Certainly this isn't the rule, it's just an observation I've made. I'm an only child in effect, even though I have a half brother, because we were raised essentially in different households.
My cousin and I are like brother and sister as well, but again, we were raised for the most part in separate households. He and my brother have no other siblings, and they are both way ahead of their age in intellect and self-expression. They are also very self-assured and not at all concerned with "fitting in."
There isn't necessarily a causal relationship between being an only child and being bright/expressive, but it's just an observation I've made. I'm sure, however, that since it's pretty typical for our species to have more than one offspring, the more natural thing is for humans to grow up having siblings and so there are probably more benefits to it than drawbacks.
Personally, having one child only feels comfortable to me because it's even a leap for me to imagine having such a deeply intimate relationship [mother-child]. The idea of spreading that love and closeness to multiple children entirely dependent on me is intimidating :/

Fortis in Arduis
11-12-2010, 12:20 PM
I want an abortion. :evil


:swl

Heretik
11-12-2010, 12:31 PM
My woman said 3 or 5. I don't know what's wrong with 4? :D

Pallantides
11-12-2010, 12:58 PM
4+

Monolith
11-12-2010, 01:29 PM
I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
You can surround a dozen of children with adults. ;)

Anyway, I want 3-4 children. I myself was raised in a family with three other siblings, and I think it's a huge advantage for a child to live in such an environment.

Юbermensch
11-12-2010, 02:08 PM
3-4

whirlwind
11-12-2010, 02:30 PM
4+

If they're lucky they will get your looks :thumb001:

Megrez
11-12-2010, 02:46 PM
If they're lucky they will get your looks :thumb001:
If they are even luckier they will be born in Japan to a jap mother.

Turkophagos
11-12-2010, 10:54 PM
http://politicarock.cl/wp-content/uploads/GrPh192-ex.jpg



6.

jerney
11-12-2010, 10:59 PM
6.

Good luck with that one

Germanicus
11-12-2010, 11:02 PM
I have 2 adult sons 32....28..i do not plan on having any more children..............................ever. :)

Turkophagos
11-12-2010, 11:02 PM
Good luck with that one

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/funny.jpg?w=420&h=500


You will have 6 kids and you're gonna like it.

Detfri
11-12-2010, 11:25 PM
3-4, but the important is not only the quantity, also the quality.
4 dickheads more would be too much for the world .... :D

Pallantides
11-13-2010, 12:11 AM
If they are even luckier they will be born in Japan to a jap mother.

Surely there are many beautiful Japanese girls, but I have my eye on a Norwegian lass.

Svanhild
11-13-2010, 12:13 AM
Two sounds fine to me. I'm an only child, it has advantages and disadvantages. But I'd imagine siblings have it easier sometimes.

Osweo
11-13-2010, 12:19 AM
Three actually seems like a lot today, but then I think about how many siblings I grew up with (four) and I realize how weird it is to imagine only having one sibling. It almost seems like it would be kind of lonely.
There's three of us, and it's great for mutual support in many areas of life. These are people who will stick with you no matter what. Friends, even partners can come and go, but you're always a brother. It's like your own little tribe. Two seems riskier, as there could be fallings out or personality clashes, but these get evened out with three or more. When we fought as little kids, the alliances regularly shifted, so there was a nice dynamic. :D I wonder what it would have been like with four. Seems to me that every extra sibling brings that bit more.

Still as children, it's always nice to have a little 'army' to back you up. And it goes without saying that there's always somebody to play with, even on holiday. As for later life I'm actually in 'business' with mine - in terms of pooling capital, that is. A single child is seriously disadvantaged here, I reckon. Damn... if there were five of us we could get a mortgage on a property quite a few steps up the ladder! :eek: Bloody useless parents!

It's good for the parents too in later life. More kids means more potential support. You might fall out with one kid, but there'll always be at least one in three that will be good. :p And when there are fallings out between a parent and a child, at least there's still another link that keeps a family from completely disintegrating.

I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
Weird. :ohwell: Adults aren't much use when there's playground feuds. And the prospective loneliness after the death of parents would be terrible too. As far as I see it, the more interaction the better. And a sibling is always around, unlike friends and more distant relatives. That you said about triplets and so on speaking baby talk to each other - socialising each other, indeed - is a pretty anomalous case. I doubt serious 'damage' is done anyway. Childhood development shouldn't be a 'race'!

Ojáncanu
11-13-2010, 12:40 AM
I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
But I can definitely imagine that after I have my first child with someone I love, I'd keep wanting more kids.

don't believe everything psychologists say...:thumbs up

before, when my politics were different , I thought that maybe the best was to have 0 or to adopt an orphan kid. I thought that humans should depopulate the world. That we were far too many.

But then I realized, that, realistically, westerners already have too little children and that some other areas of the world breed heavily.

I don't want our societies to be swapped by legions of over-breeding aliens from other civilizations. It wouldn't help solve the problem of overpopulation, It would only mean a horrible fate for our ethnicities and culture.

So I will have as many children as I can as long as I can provide them with a loving family , a healthy home and a good education. Be it one, or ten only time will tell

Debaser11
11-13-2010, 08:39 AM
I don't think I expressed myself adequately.
First off, I'm a psychology major, and one of the rigors of that at my uni is that we are made to take several child/developmental psychology courses [didn't think it would interest me that much but it's actually VERY interesting]. I am currently taking a course in childhood psychopathology, and my professor and his wife had triplets.
As we were going over the section on learning disabilities, particularly communication disorders, we were informed that often times multiples develop comm. d's as a result of having other babies to communicate with all the time, which can tend to delay the progress they make in learning to speak properly.
It's not a grave threat or anything, 99% of the time it does no harm whatsoever and in fact there are other benefits to being a multiple.

^All of this seems interesting and valid as far as I can tell. Thanks for sharing.


But I tend to notice that only children are a bit more precocious, as they have to try and keep up with the adults in their family rather than siblings of a similar age. Certainly this isn't the rule, it's just an observation I've made. I'm an only child in effect, even though I have a half brother, because we were raised essentially in different households.
My cousin and I are like brother and sister as well, but again, we were raised for the most part in separate households. He and my brother have no other siblings, and they are both way ahead of their age in intellect and self-expression. They are also very self-assured and not at all concerned with "fitting in."

Yeah, it's hard to separate personality development from raw intelligence. And I don't want to rule out environmental factors totally (because I don't, I just think we place too much emphasis on them), but here's some food for thought:

I don't want to speak authoritatively on the subject, but it's possible you may be reversing cause and effect a bit. It's very likely that children that keep up with adults are doing so because of their genetics rather than because they are absorbing more precociousness around them, so to speak. I have three siblings. Getting attention was difficult and although my parents were not dumb, we were not raised in a particularly "smart" environment. (My parents are not well-read people and their vocabulary is not large by any stretch. Often times my mother had to sit us in front of the television and hope we didn't kill each other while she tended to stuff like paying the bills, maintaining the house, and preparing other events like birthdays for us and such. She was never engaging us the way I think a lot of child development people who think everything should be hyper micromanaged on almost impossible levels to ensure geniusness think you're supposed to even though she was ANYTHING but a deadbeat, negligent parent. She just wasn't a superhero though she came as close as anyone with us. She just couldn't be in five places at once.) Each of us, despite being raised in the same environment, by the same parents, have very different personalities, interests, and subjects where we excelled academically.

I actually probably got the most attention being the oldest. And I did fairly well in school but I was nothing to write home about. My younger sister and twin brothers (who were so close in age people thought they were triplets), were all within the top twenty or thirty of their graduating classes out of a class of close to a thousand students.

English/writing was my stronger subject. My sister was decent at math but probably tended more toward English. She was just a good all around student/achiever. My brothers had insanely good math skills relative to both me and my sister. They also were fiercely competitive and didn't help each other (twin complex). I can remember some of their Asian friends who'd come by the house being almost incredulous that a couple of unassuming honky goofs were setting the curve in class and beating them. It was quite amusing. They treated my brothers like some cartel "holding back" on the rest of the brains in the class even though that wasn't the case at all.

And again, that being said, we all have different interests. One of my brothers today has a geology degree, my sister has a marketing degree, another brother has a biology degree, and I have an English degree. My parents, having never been to college, hardly influenced our choices and I think they realized their influence over our interests was limited anyways after witnessing child development themselves for twenty some odd years.
You hear stories all the time where parents try to steer their kids in directions and they fail miserably.
Our hobbies and interests outside of school also vary quite a bit.

The same observations can be seen with my mother's siblings and my father's siblings. One of my mother's brothers was a big stud alpha male type and the other was a nerd. Today, the big stud is a plumber and the nerd works for NASA (well, as a contracted engineer, but still). Same environment. My father is a deeply reserved man. His younger brother is a huge extrovert, partying type.

I have also taught younger children (5-6 years of age) overseas and noticed that some kids just seem to excel in certain areas while other kids, despite me giving them more attention, still lagged behind. Of course, there could be other factors going on outside the school environment. And there are also different learning techniques which are emphasized to teachers now. However, I am again skeptical that these valid concerns (ex. dyslexia) account for the whole story. In the education field, people are fanatical about the idea of equality (at least implicitly). If the results come out largely unequal, it's the teacher's fault. They realize that's nonsense in a less PC place like South Korea. In the U.S., they don't. And the resulting strains that that places on teachers basically scared me off. I want to be a good teacher and learn my craft and my subject. Not sit through hours of "classroom management" (i.e. glorified babysitting techniques).

Sorry if wondered too much there.


There isn't necessarily a causal relationship between being an only child and being bright/expressive, but it's just an observation I've made.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? If you haven't, watch the first five minutes of it on youtube. (It's there last I checked.) It's likely that smart people of an educated, professional background would be more likely to produce an only child these days. (Two professional types aren't breeding out of control the way some trailer trash is likely to be doing.) Of course, going by the concept of inheritance, there would be a good chance that that only child would be precocious as well. Certainly the genetic odds would seem likely to work out that way.

There are political motivations that run really deep which in my estimation deliberately de-emphasize such considerations. Everything within our education field and other fields within institutions of higher learning basically assume a child is a blank slate.


I'm sure, however, that since it's pretty typical for our species to have more than one offspring, the more natural thing is for humans to grow up having siblings and so there are probably more benefits to it than drawbacks.

Certainly for an ethnic group it's a good thing. I think as to whether or not it's good for a child in question to have siblings or not depends on the nature of his parents, I would think. But I don't think the same child with no siblings who becomes a physicist would, in another life, with say four siblings only amount to something along the lines of a clerk or a garbageman due to some intellectual limitation.


Personally, having one child only feels comfortable to me because it's even a leap for me to imagine having such a deeply intimate relationship [mother-child]. The idea of spreading that love and closeness to multiple children entirely dependent on me is intimidating :/

Hehe....Well, you know yourself and your limitations better than anyone. You're already showing the instincts of a good mother by erring on the side of caution and undershooting rather than overshooting and screwing up innocent lives in the process.

As I mentioned, my mother had four children which was seen as a lot even back in the late eighties.

Someone gave a her a clipping from the Family Circus with two mothers speaking to one another.

Lady A: How do you divide you love among four children?
Lady B: I don't divide it. I multiply it.

I used to find it very sappy and stupid. While still very sappy, I don't find it to be stupid anymore.

Brynhild
11-13-2010, 09:25 AM
I don´t really support having a Child with a Wog.
The idea is not healthyy..

Then don't. It couldn't be any simpler, could it?


I would like an only child because a lot of psychologists say it helps to develop their intellect by surrounding them with adults, to raise the bar somewhat.
But I can definitely imagine that after I have my first child with someone I love, I'd keep wanting more kids.

Have these psychologists also told you that there are rights of passage that children should go through? Far too much time can be spent with adults and that sort of interaction and nothing else has its detriments also. There's also no guarantee an only child will grow up to be any smarter than the others who have siblings. I know only children who are stupid, I know others again who are spoilt and rotten to the core, and others who have grown up well-balanced and virtuous. The same can be said again for the kids with siblings growing up this way.

How a child develops is dependant upon certain factors: Genetics certainly plays a part, but I wouldn't say a major one. Environmental factors play a big part, along with parental involvement. Giving your child freedom of expression and interaction is crucial, but remembering that they're kids and their limitations is also important. Only parents can have any understanding of their child's development by spending time with them and judging for themselves what that's to be. It's all trial and error and a shitload of mistakes are made, lessons learned. If only parenting came with a manual! :)


Yeah, and I think having children (provided you do it the proper way) is a grand thing.

I'm the oldest of four, myself. I remember people sort of regarding my mother as a nut. She did all right, though.

I would also be regarded as a nut. I prefer the term eccentric. There are so many things a mother does in her daily life and it's simply underrated. Cooking, washing, feeding, nursing, paying bills, running kids round here, there and everywhere to events, doctors and hospitals when they're ill or even just for checkups - and there is also the teaching. Kids learn so much from their home environment and they absorb everything like sponges. You only begin to realise how much your parents have done for you when you start having your own. You also realise how much like them you are, whether you like that or not.

Heretik
11-13-2010, 12:17 PM
I know only children who are stupid, I know others again who are spoilt and rotten to the core, and others who have grown up well-balanced and virtuous. The same can be said again for the kids with siblings growing up this way.

In loads (should I say most maybe) of cases parents spoil their single child but I know a few (and my best friend is a single child) who aren't spoiled, even the slightest.


How a child develops is dependant upon certain factors: Genetics certainly plays a part, but I wouldn't say a major one. Environmental factors play a big part, along with parental involvement. Giving your child freedom of expression and interaction is crucial, but remembering that they're kids and their limitations is also important. Only parents can have any understanding of their child's development by spending time with them and judging for themselves what that's to be. It's all trial and error and a shitload of mistakes are made, lessons learned. If only parenting came with a manual! :)

Well, if we're talking about intellect, a child whose parents are intelligent will probably be intelligent, so I would say that genetics do play a major factor in that case. Other characteristics of a person are, of course, dependent on parenting, environment in which the child grows etc etc.


I would also be regarded as a nut. I prefer the term eccentric. There are so many things a mother does in her daily life and it's simply underrated. Cooking, washing, feeding, nursing, paying bills, running kids round here, there and everywhere to events, doctors and hospitals when they're ill or even just for checkups - and there is also the teaching. Kids learn so much from their home environment and they absorb everything like sponges. You only begin to realise how much your parents have done for you when you start having your own. You also realise how much like them you are, whether you like that or not.

So true. As a male I always gave little credit to that but in one discussion with my mother I came to a conclusion that we really tend to forget many things our mothers have done for us from the earliest age.

Liffrea
11-13-2010, 12:29 PM
U0kJHQpvgB8

Says it all really.:D

Let's see I would need at least one son to take over the estate, the boy must learn to be a warrior and carry his sword against the enemy, perhaps at least another son if the eldest gets the plague. A few daughters to marry off to various noble houses thus increasing our power. Say half a dozen?

In all seriousness I need to find a woman who can handle me in the bedroom first, they burn out so quick, don't run before you can walk.:p

Brynhild
11-13-2010, 07:53 PM
In loads (should I say most maybe) of cases parents spoil their single child but I know a few (and my best friend is a single child) who aren't spoiled, even the slightest. As I've already noted myself. :)


Well, if we're talking about intellect, a child whose parents are intelligent will probably be intelligent, so I would say that genetics do play a major factor in that case. Other characteristics of a person are, of course, dependent on parenting, environment in which the child grows etc etc.

While I am in agreement with that, practical application to harness that child's potential can't be ignored. Two genius parents who are totally lacking in the necessary parenting skills needed to encourage their child is a recipe for that lost potential. It isn't about what you're born with all of the time, especially if you don't know how to use it.


So true. As a male I always gave little credit to that but in one discussion with my mother I came to a conclusion that we really tend to forget many things our mothers have done for us from the earliest age.

It's the way of children. Experience teaches us much, and eventually we learn not to take such things for granted.

Austin
11-13-2010, 08:28 PM
My mother is a workaholic who came from the lower class and built herself up/put herself through college. My father is an informal federal attorney from a middle class background. Our family of six is strong and always has been, but having a mother who expects you to work 40+ hours a week when you live in a million dollar house and have five luxury cars is definitely tiring and takes it's toll on your sanity. Yet this is balanced to a degree by my father and his casualness so me and my brothers manage.

It has always fascinated me how class has so much to do with everything yet whenever you try to bring this up you are deemed 'negative' and the other, usually older person, storms off in a silent fury at your assumed insolence to their set beliefs.

Skandi
11-13-2010, 08:44 PM
I never wanted children, again the overpopulation issue, however as I am already an only child, with no first cousins... better have some I guess! as to how many I have absolutly no clue, I always find it funny how people with siblings seem to assume that only children are lonely.. we arn't generaly, remember we know no different, and being on your own means that you have only yourself to rely on, so you do grow up faster I think. Much as the oldest sibling has to also.
So to answer the question jerney 2 or 3 but it is unlikely to happen.

EDIT look at the gender of the voters... interesting I think.

la bombe
11-13-2010, 08:47 PM
I always find it funny how people with siblings seem to assume that only children are lonely.. we arn't generaly, remember we know no different, and being on your own means that you have only yourself to rely on, so you do grow up faster I think.

Yeah, I was raised as an only-child and I don't think I was particularly lonely. But it has made me highly value quietness and personal space.

jerney
11-13-2010, 08:54 PM
I never wanted children, again the overpopulation issue, however as I am already an only child, with no first cousins... better have some I guess! as to how many I have absolutly no clue, I always find it funny how people with siblings seem to assume that only children are lonely.. we arn't generaly, remember we know no different, and being on your own means that you have only yourself to rely on, so you do grow up faster I think. Much as the oldest sibling has to also.
So to answer the question jerney 2 or 3 but it is unlikely to happen.

EDIT look at the gender of the voters... interesting I think.

I was raised as an only child until I was about 9 (my siblings were half siblings and I didn't live with them), and to be honest I felt pretty lonely and I always wanted a younger brother or sister. When I found out that I was going to have a younger sibling when I was about 10, I was beyond excited because I was finally going to have someone to play with.

Skandi
11-13-2010, 08:57 PM
I was raised as an only child until I was about 9 (my siblings were half siblings and I didn't live with them), and I to be honest I felt pretty lonely and I always wanted a younger brother or sister. When I found out that I was going to have a younger sibling when I was about 10, I was beyond excited because I was finally going to have someone to play with.

Apparently I wanted a sibling till I was about 4, but then i realised all it would mean was baby sitting and nappy changing, so I changed my mind! I grew up with no other children as the village was very small, it's just totaly different that way is all.

jerney
11-13-2010, 08:59 PM
oh and the gender thing. Figures only the men want 4+, they're not the ones that have to birth them.

Debaser11
11-13-2010, 09:06 PM
^ Hahaha. That's probably a valid point. But certainly, you've run across women wanting a lot of kids, no?

I think there is a stigma against becoming a "baby factory" as if that's a bad thing if the parents are good.

Debaser11
11-13-2010, 09:07 PM
*Edit* Double post.

Wyn
11-13-2010, 09:27 PM
and being on your own means that you have only yourself to rely on, so you do grow up faster I think.

+1. Growing up as an only child I often found myself surprised at the lives of children with siblings and how they seemed to lack an independence that I was used to. I think it also benefited me when it came to social skills, in that by the time I'd started school I was eager to socialise and found it easy to make friends. That's something that can definitely go both ways however - only children sometimes struggle socially and are less outgoing because they aren't used to the interraction.

Austin
11-13-2010, 10:00 PM
A woman who dreads children is not a woman.

Grumpy Cat
11-13-2010, 10:01 PM
oh and the gender thing. Figures only the men want 4+, they're not the ones that have to birth them.

Yeah we need to be able to make a drug that causes men to have kidney stones, and give it to every man. They say passing one is comparable to child birth.

Äike
11-13-2010, 10:05 PM
Yeah we need to be able to make a drug that causes men to have kidney stones, and give it to every man. They say passing one is comparable to child birth.

Labor Orgasms Called 'Best-Kept Secret' (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6120045&page=1)

Painful. Excruciating. Unbearable. These are the words most often associated with childbirth.
Is it possible to have an orgasm during childbirth?

But what about pleasurable? Blissful? Euphoric?

Some women even say that instead of agony, childbirth can be ecstasy.

..."It is, as we say, the best-kept secret," said Debra Pascali-Bonaro, a childbirth educator for 26 years. "I believe by women having such terrible fear. … Women aren't getting the choices they need, to make the experience as easy as possible."

jerney
11-13-2010, 10:10 PM
+1. Growing up as an only child I often found myself surprised at the lives of children with siblings and how they seemed to lack an independence that I was used to. I think it also benefited me when it came to social skills, in that by the time I'd started school I was eager to socialise and found it easy to make friends. That's something that can definitely go both ways however - only children sometimes struggle socially and are less outgoing because they aren't used to the interraction.

I was unbearably shy as a child and since I wasn't really raised around any siblings I remember being terrified about going into kindergarten and being around other children. I adjusted well enough once I was actually in school, but I was definitely a lot less social than the other children and I think it was due to being naturally shy and reserved and not being around siblings at a young age just made it worse because I was never forced to socialize with anyone.

jerney
11-13-2010, 10:17 PM
A woman who dreads children is not a woman.

Is a man who dreads kids not a man?

Debaser11
11-13-2010, 10:19 PM
^Well, a male who doesn't provide for his wife and children is no father and certainly no man, either.

Treffie
11-13-2010, 10:21 PM
A woman who dreads children is not a woman.

Isn't `human with vagina` the definition of a woman? :confused:

Debaser11
11-13-2010, 10:28 PM
There's always the subtle jabs which appeal to the modern and vacuous term known as "sexism" when a man expresses his view of the ideal woman and never (or predictably less so) when a woman does the same of a man. That being said, I do not think women are baby machines. No, there is much more to them than that. Just like men are not only work oxes.

Cato
11-13-2010, 10:33 PM
2-3, one boy and one girl, and then a random gender to keep me surprised. :)

Skandi
11-13-2010, 10:34 PM
A woman who dreads children is not a woman.

I wasn't going to comment but I will, I think most childless women dread at least some aspect of having children and very probably always have, the only difference is that now we have a choice and can put it off, or not go there at all.

Grumpy Cat
11-13-2010, 11:45 PM
Labor Orgasms Called 'Best-Kept Secret' (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6120045&page=1)

Painful. Excruciating. Unbearable. These are the words most often associated with childbirth.
Is it possible to have an orgasm during childbirth?

But what about pleasurable? Blissful? Euphoric?

Some women even say that instead of agony, childbirth can be ecstasy.

..."It is, as we say, the best-kept secret," said Debra Pascali-Bonaro, a childbirth educator for 26 years. "I believe by women having such terrible fear. … Women aren't getting the choices they need, to make the experience as easy as possible."

That's when the baby comes out. One of my friends told me about the orgasm and said it's one of the best.

But it's after hours of labour...

Austin
11-13-2010, 11:55 PM
Is a man who dreads kids not a man?


Absolutely. A Male who dreads his progeny THERE EDITED for EMOS~! (: is a scum degenerate waste of an organism that should be sent to the front of the front with the utmost of pointed indoctrination.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 03:45 AM
Emos?! lol

Grumpy Cat
11-14-2010, 03:59 AM
So what do you men think of women who for a valid medical reason can't have children? Or perhaps a women who chooses not to have children because she has a medical condition that could be passed on to offspring?

The second case is an example of eugenics. Isn't that a good thing? Or is it only good when you force a woman to be sterilized?

Guapo
11-14-2010, 04:20 AM
1 now, 1 more in the future.

Brynhild
11-14-2010, 04:52 AM
Orgasm during childbirth? What the bloody hell is that??????

Bloodeagle
11-14-2010, 04:55 AM
Orgasm during childbirth? What the bloody hell is that??????
That's right up there with sexual arousal stemming from breastfeeding. :eek:

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 05:04 AM
Women not having children is not the ideal if you want your people to survive. What is a woman's biological imperative if not to have children and nurture them into healthy people? What is a man's biological imperative if not to spread his seed and protect his offspring? Childless women are not the ideal the same way weak men are not the ideal. That doesn't make people from either gender that fall short necessarily bad people. But in the twenty first century, we are trying to go toe to toe with truisms the laws of nature are all too happy to remind of us of should we continue to ignore them.

I would not necessarily object to a MODEST eugenics program, though I think one is really not getting to the heart of most of society's problems. The policy is too ad hoc. It might actually be akin to putting a band aid over a severed finger. And the policy could actually make things (society) worse; I sort of battle with this question myself because I have respect for men like Dr. William Shockley and I think he correctly identified some of the devolution we see today (particularly within the fecund black community) but I question what kind of people we'd all become if we accepted such policies. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!

But I will say that I don't see how a eugenics program is necessarily antithetical to the idea that childbirth is good. You're just throwing discrimination (a moral tool) into the equation. (By the same token, a man's biological imperative to spread his seed is limited by discrimination through the institution of marriage. He can't just "be knockin' up dem bitches left and right cause itz da natcha's way of doin' tings.") I want my apple tree to thrive and have lots of fruit, but I don't want to eat the rotten fruit. That being said, only with a pathological case where a woman was becoming pregnant like some welfare brood mare or where a male was systematically knocking up women would I forcibly sterilize them.

Obviously, if I found out my future wife were barren, I'd still love her and remain with her and support her. Just like I'd expect a wife who married a man because she loved him not to leave because he were sterile.

Again, women also typically want big strong men who can protect them. What if someone's husband was in an accident like Christopher Reeve and become wheelchair bound? Would that mean that the wife had just cause to divorce him because he no longer fit that "Superman" ideal of a man? Of course not. We don't all fit the ideal. That's okay. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to shoot for that ideal.

None of us probably ever really meet the ideal anything. But we should shoot for those ideals in the best ways we can.

Austin
11-14-2010, 05:12 AM
Emos?! lol


emotional people who harp on silly things such as grammar in a realm where it matters not to get ones point across

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 05:21 AM
So caring about the written word makes me an emo? lol

I was only trying to give you a friendly heads up.

If I'm emo, what does that make you? Touchy? Reactionary? Drunk?

Austin
11-14-2010, 05:27 AM
So caring about the written word makes me an emo? lol

I was only trying to give you a friendly heads up.

If I'm emo, what does that make you? Touchy? Reactionary? Drunk?


No it is to be expected. Grammar is a mental safety net for people and when it's triviality among their own people is shown they react emotionally.:p

Sally
11-14-2010, 05:28 AM
A woman who dreads children is not a woman.

Is this dread of children permanent or temporary?

I think that either a man or a woman who has a permanent intention against children is not called to marriage. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children, though it is not the only purpose.

I don't think that a man or woman who doesn't want children is a lesser person. I do, however, think they are not called to the vocation of marriage.

Austin
11-14-2010, 05:33 AM
Is this dread of permanent or temporary?

I think that either a man or a woman who has a permanent intention against children is not called to marriage. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children, though it is not the only purpose.

I don't think that a man or woman who doesn't want children is a lesser person. I do, however, think they are not called to the vocation of marriage.


No I see it as superficial, the modern Western woman's 'dread' of birthing children.

It comes from a lack of culture, a lack of identity. In every culture having children is seen as the essence of being, the very reason for existence. Only a sick devoid cultural movement, feminism, could corrupt this notion.

Western males suffer from this as well though it matters not, for males natural urges override their ideological corruption but females urges clearly are more negotiable overall.

Guapo
11-14-2010, 05:37 AM
No I see it as superficial, the modern Western woman's 'dread' of birthing children.

It comes from a lack of culture, a lack of identity. In every culture having children is seen as the essence of being, the very reason for existence. Only a sick devoid cultural movement, feminism, could corrupt this notion.

What do you mean by "western"? The U.S.? you don't think that there are women like that in Europe too lulz.

Guapo
11-14-2010, 05:39 AM
Orgasm during childbirth? What the bloody hell is that??????

Kinda like double fisting? :confused:

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 05:44 AM
No it is to be expected. Grammar is a mental safety net for people and when it's triviality among their own people is shown they react emotionally.:p

Good grammar is a virtue. Speaking clearly is a virtue. Why would writing be any different?

wood u poofur i writ down ma' shit like sum kinda foo? uz no wat i tinking nEways.

Austin
11-14-2010, 05:49 AM
What do you mean by "western"? The U.S.? you don't think that there are women like that in Europe too lulz.


West to me is all of Europe, all of North America, and some of South America.

Yes of course I know European women are like this, they are worse than American women are about this from the ones I have met from student exchange programs.

I've seen it first hand. Young girls completely denouncing having children, not realizing that if their parents hadn't valued and had children in their early twenties then these girls wouldn't exist in the first place to be able to voice such idiocy.

The pain of childbirth is a part of being a human female. It is selfish to worry about childbirth pain. It is your species and people. Had such selfish, pathetic feminist ideals been the norm throughout human history then it is likely none of us would be here today. I see feminists as mass murderers in the most basic form.

jerney
11-14-2010, 05:51 AM
The pain of childbirth is a part of being a human female. It is selfish to worry about childbirth pain.

lol. you really have no right to speak about that, but ok.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 05:54 AM
Why doesn't he?

Austin
11-14-2010, 05:55 AM
lol. you really have no right to speak about that, but ok.


Actually I do. I am human and am a biological tendril of women. My species/race/offspring's future depend on women continuing to birth children at sustainable levels. It is hence my every right to speak on such matters. I am speaking for every unborn female who feminists would have not exist. I'm sure if they could choose a side they'd choose mine over yours, considering yours would potentially have them not exist.

jerney
11-14-2010, 06:05 AM
Actually I do. I am human and am a biological tendril of women. My species/race/offspring's future depend on women continuing to birth children at sustainable levels. It is hence my every right to speak on such matters. I am speaking for every unborn female who feminists would have not exist. I'm sure if they could choose a side they'd choose mine over yours, considering yours would potentially have them not exist.

That discussion is pointless because if they will never exist in the first place they can't choose a side. It's not your right because it will never be the case that all or most or even a large majority of women choose not to have children. The small group that do choose to remain childless, and the even tinier group that remain childless because of fear of childbirth don't have to answer to anyone. It's their body, their pain tolerance, their fears, and the don't have to answer anyone, especially not some bigoted 23 year male from Texas.

Austin
11-14-2010, 06:08 AM
Why doesn't he?


Yes this is a false notion setup by feminists that men have no legitimacy in speaking on issues of birth. Males existence relies on females continuing to give birth.

Life is not politically correct. Only one sex can naturally have children. This means that the other sex must maintain a position of procreation in order to discourage the birthing sex from developing selfish notions and ideologies, such as feminism, that would endanger the race/species.

In all honesty........ I would mentally-wipe every human mind of any notions of feminism if I could, for it has done more damage than a thousand famines in respect to humanity.

Austin
11-14-2010, 06:11 AM
That discussion is pointless because if they will never exist in the first place they can't choose a side. It's not your right because it will never be the case that all or most or even a large majority of women choose not to have children. The small group that do choose to remain childless, and the even tinier group that remain childless because of fear of childbirth don't have to answer to anyone. It's their body, their pain tolerance, their fears, and the don't have to answer anyone, especially not some bigoted 23 year male from Texas.


Ah but here you are assuming said females would not exist. What if all females did choose to have children? Then the unborn females that I speak of would surely exist. So really you are, ideologically, denying them existence through furthering such anti-children ideology.

Arne
11-14-2010, 06:13 AM
White Women should have as many kids as possible .

jerney
11-14-2010, 06:14 AM
Ah but here you are assuming said females would not exist. What if all females did choose to have children? Then the unborn females that I speak of would surely exist. So really you are, ideologically, denying them existence through furthering such anti-children ideology.

lol. Who says these supposed children would even be female?

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 06:15 AM
Well, I wouldn't forcibly impregnate women. But certainly men can evaluate women the way women evaluate men. And yes, the "you have no right" is a feminist thing.

jerney
11-14-2010, 06:15 AM
Well, I wouldn't forcibly impregnate women. But certainly men can evaluate women the way women evaluate men. And yes, "the you have no right" is a feminist thing.

:rolleyes:

Then call me a feminist.

Austin
11-14-2010, 06:31 AM
lol. Who says these supposed children would even be female?


I used females and not males as who you'd be denying existence so as to show just how little feminists actually care about 'women' at the end of the day.

Modern feminism is really just hate of all things traditional. Most all moderate feminists have long since left the movement. What is left is angry women with short hair who wanted a bloody anti-men revolution instead of just equality and respect.

This is evidenced by how little modern day feminists care about young girls being over-sexed and socially pushed into the club/bar/drinking/sex culture. All to their long term detriment and ruin. Where is the feminist outrage over race-mixing with races that are anti-women? Where is the feminist outrage over abortion that murders tens of thousands of would-be women every year in the West? None. There is no outrage. Why?

Because feminism has nothing to do with protecting women or caring about them but has everything to do with benefiting the women who stand to benefit currently. To hell with the tens of millions of young women who are nothing better than whores due to notions of sexual freedom and anti-traditionalism fueled by high-up feminists in the financial world who care not for their plight.

Wyn
11-14-2010, 06:40 AM
Modern feminism is really just hate of all things traditional.

I know this isn't a feminism thread, but it certainly does manifest itself in that way in a lot of cases. Some self-defined feminists I've encountered will publicly declare their intentions to do/experience in doing/support for [some activity generally at least frowned upon] quite obviously for the sake of generating a reaction. They often share a sort of disposition towards attention seeking and shock value.

Obviously, I'm not claiming this is a description of anyone in this thread or on this site, just commenting on your post.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 06:41 AM
:rolleyes:

Then call me a feminist.

Dear feminist,

I just want to get this clear: What are the totality of subjects which men have no right to speak about with regards to women and what is it that women have no right to speak about with regards to men? How do you justify said rights?

Thanks in advance.

The misogynist,

D11

jerney
11-14-2010, 06:53 AM
Dear feminist,

I just want to get this clear: What are the totality of subjects which men have no right to speak about with regards to women and what is it that women have no right to speak about with regards to men? How do you justify said rights?

Thanks in advance.

The misogynist,

D11

That list may take awhile.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 06:58 AM
Give me three subjects and then justify why women have a right to keep men from speaking on them.

Better yet, simply justify why I can't say that women who don't want children due to the pain factor are cowards.

Wyn
11-14-2010, 07:02 AM
That list may take awhile.

Don't you think that one sex not having "the right" to talk about things pertaining to the other is, in the end, really just a load of bollocks? There are infinite number of things which any individual or group might not able to do for one reason or another. How can that make their opinions on said things invalid? It wouldn't make what they said any less true if they were right in their assertions.

Sahson
11-14-2010, 07:26 AM
+1. Growing up as an only child I often found myself surprised at the lives of children with siblings and how they seemed to lack an independence that I was used to.

Same both my parents worked 8 - 5, my dad worked till 1am. I was on my own a lot of time. I had my own house key since 3rd grade, so I could get into the house. My mom taught me to cook tortellini in 6th grade, so I could cook something if she came home at 7pm.


Modern feminism is really just hate of all things traditional. Most all moderate feminists have long since left the movement. What is left is angry women with short hair who wanted a bloody anti-men revolution instead of just equality and respect.


I wouldn't use stereotypes, but we had this talk on Friday, and a women agreed that feminism failed, because women wanted the men roles, and in the end they ended up doing more then before.

Working a job, having children, etc. She actually was advocating the traditional female role, and stating its a natural role of co-existing...

Though I do think the economy, and social expectation of women have put pressure on society.

Brynhild
11-14-2010, 08:58 AM
Kinda like double fisting? :confused:

I'm not particularly fond of that analogy. Giving birth entails pushing a baby out, not having something of your suggestion forced in. :rolleyes:


I've seen it first hand. Young girls completely denouncing having children, not realizing that if their parents hadn't valued and had children in their early twenties then these girls wouldn't exist in the first place to be able to voice such idiocy.

And I suppose a guy like yourself is the perpetual voice of reason?


The pain of childbirth is a part of being a human female. It is selfish to worry about childbirth pain. It is your species and people. Had such selfish, pathetic feminist ideals been the norm throughout human history then it is likely none of us would be here today. I see feminists as mass murderers in the most basic form.

To put it bluntly, just how the fuck are you ever to know what it's like to go through such excruciating pain? How are you to ever know that some women just aren't built for that kind of rigour, due to narrow pelvises, big babies, breech births etc Giving birth doesn't make a parent, either, by the way. It's what happens once you take the baby home that determines how the child grows and develops! Your ignorance knows no bounds!

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 09:42 AM
To put it bluntly, just how the fuck are you ever to know what it's like to go through such excruciating pain? How are you to ever know that some women just aren't built for that kind of rigour, due to narrow pelvises, big babies, breech births etc Giving birth doesn't make a parent, either, by the way. It's what happens once you take the baby home that determines how the child grows and develops! Your ignorance knows no bounds!

In regards to the first question, it is not a requirement to know in order to make a value judgement even if I accept your premise which implies that men do not know the same levels of pain in their own right through their own trials and tribulations as men. Furthermore, if a woman can judge the courageousness or cowardice of a male soldier without having been in battle herself or if a woman can judge a ruler's wisdom without ever having ruled over a state before (which I accept you do and rightfully so), then I hardly see why a man is not permitted to judge a woman's attitudes about childbirth simply he has not given childbirth.

That's also like saying I can't judge Islam because I have never been a Muslim or that I can't judge pedophiles because I don't know what it's like to live with the unfortunate defect of finding young girls irresistable. It's the same logic. You're saying that a lack of ethos disqualifies a valid judgement. Not true.

That being said, I don't agree with the logic that refusing to give birth is killing people just like I don't think refusing to give aid to Africa or even to poor people in my own country is me killing them.

Brynhild
11-14-2010, 09:51 AM
In regards to the first question, it is not a requirement to know in order to make a value judgement even if I accept your premise which implies that men do not know the same levels of pain in their own right through their own trials and tribulations as men. Furthermore, if a woman can judge the courageousness or cowardice of a male soldier without having been in battle herself or if a woman can judge a ruler's wisdom without ever having ruled over a state before (which I accept you do and rightfully so), then I hardly see why a man is not permitted to judge a woman's attitudes about childbirth simply he has not given childbirth.

That's also like saying I can't judge Islam because I have never been a Muslim or that I can't judge pedophiles because I don't know what it's like to live with the unfortunate defect of finding young girls irresistable. It's the same logic. You're saying that a lack of ethos disqualifies a valid judgement. Not true.

That being said, I don't agree with the logic that refusing to give birth is killing people just like I don't think refusing to give aid to Africa or even to poor people in my own country is me killing them.

I have to disregard that, because it's happened to me. We're not talking about men in the military and I wouldn't argue from that perspective, because I don't know anything about it. I know wholely and soley from the perspective of childbirth. It's perfectly reasonable and logical for me to suggest this, because only a woman who's given birth knows intrisically what it feels like. Men are simply not built for this obviously and for any man to say they can relate to the physical and emotional demands of what only a woman can do is simply just patronising. It has nothing to do with being sexist or anything else.

Treffie
11-14-2010, 03:37 PM
"Take your bottom lip, pull it over the top of your head, and that's what labor pain feels like."

Carol Burnett
:p

Tonsor
11-14-2010, 05:51 PM
4-5 ideally. I have 5 other siblings and i think there are many positive aspects of a child having several other siblings around while growing up compared to those that grow up being lonely childs.


There's three of us, and it's great for mutual support in many areas of life. These are people who will stick with you no matter what. Friends, even partners can come and go, but you're always a brother. It's like your own little tribe. Two seems riskier, as there could be fallings out or personality clashes, but these get evened out with three or more. When we fought as little kids, the alliances regularly shifted, so there was a nice dynamic. :D I wonder what it would have been like with four. Seems to me that every extra sibling brings that bit more.

Still as children, it's always nice to have a little 'army' to back you up. And it goes without saying that there's always somebody to play with, even on holiday. As for later life I'm actually in 'business' with mine - in terms of pooling capital, that is. A single child is seriously disadvantaged here, I reckon. Damn... if there were five of us we could get a mortgage on a property quite a few steps up the ladder! :eek: Bloody useless parents!

It's good for the parents too in later life. More kids means more potential support. You might fall out with one kid, but there'll always be at least one in three that will be good. :p And when there are fallings out between a parent and a child, at least there's still another link that keeps a family from completely disintegrating.

Weird. :ohwell: Adults aren't much use when there's playground feuds. And the prospective loneliness after the death of parents would be terrible too. As far as I see it, the more interaction the better. And a sibling is always around, unlike friends and more distant relatives. That you said about triplets and so on speaking baby talk to each other - socialising each other, indeed - is a pretty anomalous case. I doubt serious 'damage' is done anyway. Childhood development shouldn't be a 'race'!


- Good points:thumb001:

Grumpy Cat
11-14-2010, 06:08 PM
I want 1 to 3 children. No more than I can afford to put through college and enough that I can give them individual attention.

My parents only had three children: and between the three of us I can bet most people on this forum use a product that we designed, given our occupations. Quality over quantity.

Actually come to think of it, I should reproduce more. I have some good genes. I even found an obituary of a great grandfather on my mother's side and it said he was a genius. But my mother said I shouldn't have kids because I don't deal with stress well.

Austin
11-14-2010, 08:21 PM
I'm not particularly fond of that analogy. Giving birth entails pushing a baby out, not having something of your suggestion forced in. :rolleyes:



And I suppose a guy like yourself is the perpetual voice of reason?



To put it bluntly, just how the fuck are you ever to know what it's like to go through such excruciating pain? How are you to ever know that some women just aren't built for that kind of rigour, due to narrow pelvises, big babies, breech births etc Giving birth doesn't make a parent, either, by the way. It's what happens once you take the baby home that determines how the child grows and develops! Your ignorance knows no bounds!

=Selfishness + feminist ideological corruption.


Feminism is just the ideological murder of tens of millions of would be women and men for the purpose of naive, temporary thrills that are ultimately selfish and, as you say, ignorant long term.

Grumpy Cat
11-14-2010, 08:23 PM
=Selfishness + feminist ideological corruption.

:lol: She has three kids. How many do you have?

la bombe
11-14-2010, 08:25 PM
lol @ a 23 year old boy lecturing a mother of 3 children about womanhood and childbirth

Austin
11-14-2010, 08:32 PM
lol @ a 23 year old boy lecturing a mother of 3 children about womanhood and childbirth


You are closed minded.

Roguegunner
11-14-2010, 09:36 PM
None. I would feel guilty bringing children into this sick, decadent world.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 10:02 PM
I have to disregard that, because it's happened to me. We're not talking about men in the military and I wouldn't argue from that perspective, because I don't know anything about it.

All I asked is if you thought a lack of ethos meant a person couldn't make a valid judgment. It doesn't have to be the military. It can be any situation. I say "no."

The whole "you can't judge" attitude is absurd. We can always judge.
And don't tell me you wouldn't think that a man who killed civilians or that man who retreated and left his post or that a man who betrayed his commander wasn't a coward. Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't judge such a person that way simply because you lack the personal experience of serving during warfare?


I know wholely and soley from the perspective of childbirth. It's perfectly reasonable and logical for me to suggest this, because only a woman who's given birth knows intrisically what it feels like.

This doesn't mean that men can't judge women. Because you used the word logic, I'll repeat: the logic behind the feminist claim is that a lack of experience disqualifies judgement. That's the logic. I think that's bunk because we don't use that logic with regards to anything else. Here's another example. Mens' and womens' sex organs and sex drives are different. If there is a man who's being overly aggressive and hitting on some lady, do you not judge him to be a pig? I mean, it's not like you know what's its like to have a male sex drive (because it's different than a woman's) or what it's like to have a penis. How can you judge the guy?

Again, the logic is that a lack of ethos disqualifies any valid judgement. Clearly that's not true.


Men are simply not built for this obviously and for any man to say they can relate to the physical and emotional demands of what only a woman can do is simply just patronising.

What? And a woman saying that men will never experience the same levels of pain isn't? LOL


It has nothing to do with being sexist or anything else.

Define sexism, please. As far as I can tell, it means anything that some women don't like concerning what men say or think but hardly the reverse. I have yet to hear any men on this board pull out the "you have no right" card pertaining to thought on a subject.

la bombe
11-14-2010, 10:11 PM
I've seen it first hand. Young girls completely denouncing having children, not realizing that if their parents hadn't valued and had children in their early twenties then these girls wouldn't exist in the first place to be able to voice such idiocy.

It's completely normal for young girls to not want to have children. I never had any desire to have children until my progesterone levels amped up. Most of those girls denouncing it now will change their minds as their hormonal levels change, as they enter into serious romantic relationships, etc.


The pain of childbirth is a part of being a human female. It is selfish to worry about childbirth pain. It is your species and people. Had such selfish, pathetic feminist ideals been the norm throughout human history then it is likely none of us would be here today. I see feminists as mass murderers in the most basic form.

It's also completely normal to fear having to push a bowling ball sized creature through your vagina :rolleyes: Childbirth is incredibly traumatic on a woman's body in more ways than one, I think it's rather silly to assume that a woman wouldn't be afraid of that, regardless of her desire for children.


No I see it as superficial, the modern Western woman's 'dread' of birthing children.


I've always been tokophobic. I want children but the idea of pregnancy and childbirth still freaks me out. Maybe you should watch a nice, bloody birthing video and then tell me whether or not that's something a normal person would fear.

Austin
11-14-2010, 10:12 PM
This is what I am talking about. Females cannot rule. They give into petty emotion too easily in any dispute.

Females cannot see anything without injecting emotion into it, thereby instantly corrupting arguments/decisions that require a distinct disconnect from cheap emotion.

The statement "you wouldn't know because you haven't done it or are too young" is typical of a female response. Situational emotion injected into a conversation via sexual bias of being a woman. In more blunt circles this would be called a cop-out or weakness.

jerney
11-14-2010, 10:16 PM
This is what I am talking about. Females cannot rule. They give into petty emotion too easily in any dispute.

Females cannot see anything without injecting emotion into it, thereby instantly corrupting arguments/decisions that require a distinct disconnect from cheap emotion.

The statement "you wouldn't know because you haven't done it or are too young" is typical of a female response. Situational emotion injected into a conversation via sexual bias of being a woman. In more blunt circles this would be called a cop-out or weakness.

Weren't you complaining that you couldn't find a nice girl to date? Have you ever considered that your shitty attitude regarding women may be the problem and not the women themselves?

Austin
11-14-2010, 10:18 PM
Weren't you complaining that you couldn't find a nice girl to date? Have you ever considered that your shitty attitude regarding women may be the problem and not the women themselves?


Lol perfect example of what I was saying above about women and emotion. But no I am 23 and like to fuck around to be honest though I am rather picky.

Most young women disgust me to no end, I'd qualify them as superficial consumer imbeciles in kind terms. I'm in fun mode currently in life and am very much enjoying it =)

la bombe
11-14-2010, 10:28 PM
This is what I am talking about. Females cannot rule. They give into petty emotion too easily in any dispute.

Females cannot see anything without injecting emotion into it, thereby instantly corrupting arguments/decisions that require a distinct disconnect from cheap emotion.

The statement "you wouldn't know because you haven't done it or are too young" is typical of a female response. Situational emotion injected into a conversation via sexual bias of being a woman. In more blunt circles this would be called a cop-out or weakness.


And what place does your logic have in a discussion about a woman's desire for children, a process ruled almost entirely by cyclical hormonal fluctuations and GET THIS, the emotions produced by them? :confused:

I could just as easily say this is why you can't have a discussion with men about anything remotely feminine. Because you clearly have no real respect or understanding of what it's like to have ovaries.

Falkata
11-14-2010, 10:29 PM
I´d like 2 and at least one of them a boy.
I dont have even girlfriend and I´m not looking for one so I see children as something still far :p At the moment I´m too busy with my job and I like to have fun in my free time...

Austin
11-14-2010, 10:33 PM
And what place does your logic have in a discussion about a woman's desire for children, a process ruled almost entirely by cyclical hormonal fluctuations and GET THIS, the emotions produced by them? :confused:

I could just as easily say this is why you can't have a discussion with men about anything remotely feminine. Because you clearly have no real respect or understanding of what it's like to have ovaries.


I don't have an understanding of ovaries you are correct but I do have a pretty good understanding of young womens bodies overall I'd venture to say ;}

I like women, as a few girls could definitely attest too, just not overly progressive ones. Then again, the girls I prefer have no qualms pulling the intestines out of an antelope hanging from an oak tree and plopping them into a bucket, so we probably have different versions of quality women.

jerney
11-14-2010, 10:36 PM
I don't have an understanding of ovaries you are correct but I do have a pretty good understanding of young womens bodies overall I'd venture to say ;}

No one is impressed.

Austin
11-14-2010, 10:38 PM
No one is impressed.


But Jerney!!!! They let me be with them!!! And they even voted for Obama!!! That must mean I'm not all bad if they let me........shall I say......... 'thoroughly' investigate them, it must mean I checked out on their superior female radars yes?

la bombe
11-14-2010, 10:50 PM
I don't have an understanding of ovaries you are correct but I do have a pretty good understanding of young womens bodies overall I'd venture to say ;}

I like women, as a few girls could definitely attest too, just not overly progressive ones. Then again, the girls I prefer have no qualms pulling the intestines out of an antelope hanging from an oak tree and plopping them into a bucket, so we probably have different versions of quality women.

Yeah, you didn't actually address anything I said.

And "overly progressive" women are still women and far better equipped to speak about the realities of feminine desire for children and childbirth than you are. The end.

Aviane
11-14-2010, 10:51 PM
Having children would be nice for me and whoever I go with the amount would be 3-4 as possible which would fill out the gaps that are needed.

But I dare to say maybe more than that.

CelticTemplar
11-14-2010, 11:10 PM
One perfect boy, one perfect girl, and a perfect wife.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/190/1262623759_1.jpg

Psychonaut
11-14-2010, 11:22 PM
The whole "you can't judge" attitude is absurd. We can always judge.

You can but that doesn't mean that a judgment of something noetic like the experience of giving birth will have as much worth as the opinion of one who has experienced it. Your opinion on the pain of childbirth is about as relevant as your opinion on my enjoyment of a piece of art. Qualia like the pain of childbirth, the experience of love, or the scent of a flower are incommunicable in their totality and the understanding one one who has not himself experienced it will always pale in comparison to one who has, since communication of them is only possible via metaphor and comparison.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 11:25 PM
Yeah, you didn't actually address anything I said.

And "overly progressive" women are still women and far better equipped to speak about the realities of feminine desire for children and childbirth than you are. The end.

Look, I don't wish to bring any baggage to this argument about women I date or how they should behave or whatever. My query was simply one that's actually based on logic: how does a lack of personal experience disqualify a person from making a valid judgement?

If you accept that men can't judge women's attitude's about childbirth, then you also can't criticize George Bush or Barack Obama (because you don't know what it's like being president for four whole years with all that stress and pressure), you can't judge the actions of soldiers (because I take it you've never fought in a war), you can't judge Bernie Madoff (because you've never had such a high profile job on Wall Street and you do not understand the market the way he does), you can't judge men for having tacky pictures of women hanging on their walls (because you don't have a penis or the same testosterone levels), etc...

And the list goes on and on basically into infinity. That's why jerney said "it would take a while" or something to list all of the things men had no right to say or think about with regards to women. The list would be virtually endless and we'd basically be vegetables if we had to cut off judgement from every area which we lacked direct experience.

So of course you can judge those people and their actions. A lack of ethos does not disqualify valid judgement.


So I really wish some of you would just forget what team you're on for a minute and try to see the issue logically.

Debaser11
11-14-2010, 11:33 PM
You can but that doesn't mean that a judgment of something noetic like the experience of giving birth will have as much worth as the opinion of one who has experienced it.

But of course! But none of these ladies are stopping there, really. They all seem to think men just have no right to speak about the matter or cannot judge a woman who chooses not to have children. That's what's at issue. I said "a lack of ethos" did not necessarily disqualify men from making valid judgements, not that women's personal experiences amounted to nothing or even that they weren't important.

And I think that's what's being confused here.


Your opinion on the pain of childbirth is about as relevant as your opinion on my enjoyment of a piece of art.

It may be. It may not be. Just like your political opinion may or may not be relevant. Childbirth is not a subject that exists in a special box that can't be judged and even judged accurately by men simply because men can't experience it. That's illogical feminist mythology. While my thoughts might be less valued by women (and rightfully so), that doesn't automatically make my views wrong or irrelevant.


Qualia like the pain of childbirth, the experience of love, or the scent of a flower are incommunicable in their totality and the understanding one one who has not himself experienced it will always pale in comparison to one who has, since communication of them is only possible via metaphor and comparison.

I never demeaned personal experience. But one does not need it to make valid judgements.

la bombe
11-14-2010, 11:39 PM
So I really wish some of you would just forget what team you're on for a minute and try to see the issue logically.

Yeah, I just don't care to. I don't think there's anything logical about the desire to bear children. Maybe you'd understand that if you were a woman :shrug:

Psychonaut
11-14-2010, 11:43 PM
I never demeaned personal experience. But one does not need it to make valid judgements.

You do if you're making a judgment about that experience. And if they person who you're debating uses their experience as a premise in the argument then that ends up being a point that it's not really possible for anyone who hasn't experienced it to have an informed opinion on. So, if a woman's argument about having children rests in part on the experience itself, then those of us who have not had that experience will not truly understand their premise enough to judge it in the way we would a premise that is purely rational in nature.

It's like if I were to say: "I don't think people should eat snails because I've eaten them and they taste gross." Unless you've eaten a snail, you can't really say anything at all about that premise. You can still judge the argument as a whole and try to examine whether the premise even relates the the conclusion, but the premise itself remains out of your grasp unless you've experienced it.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 12:39 AM
Yeah, I just don't care to. I don't think there's anything logical about the desire to bear children. Maybe you'd understand that if you were a woman :shrug:

Well, if you're going to make a claim about the logic of something, it's best supported with logic. Otherwise, you must forgive the person for not being convinced. I think you're equating "logical" with "I don't want to" here. That's a mistake. Obviously, you're free to feel the way you want to.



You do if you're making a judgment about that experience.

Not necessarily. Though it is true that your credibility with regards to the judgement in question especially in the case of something like childbirth would not be very high.

And maybe there are parts of this back and forth that I have overlooked, but most of the female objections are not based on any male's judgement of the experience itself, but based on the men's attitude(s) about modern woman's rather casual views about childbirth (life). In other words, we can't even judge that, according to some feminist sentiments.


And if they person who you're debating uses their experience as a premise in the argument then that ends up being a point that it's not really possible for anyone who hasn't experienced it to have an informed opinion on.

Again, do you have to experience torture (rather than just conceptualizing it) to know whether it's right or wrong (putting aside whether X or Y can be defined as torture or not)? I'm guessing you don't condone the things you consider to be torture in most cases because you recognize that regardless of how useful something that falls under torture is to achieve an end, the moral ramifications are too severe to ignore. (Maybe you're in favor of it, my point is, you still don't have to experience it firsthand to do make that calculation about where you stand.)

Likewise, a man can still fit similar variables together and make a perfectly valid judgement about modern woman's attitudes concerning childbirth. Frankly, I think they have a valid point when they accuse some women of taking a rather selfish, myopic view. By the same token, a man who's too afraid of being a father could reasonably be evaluated as a "selfish pussy." And you know what? It could just as easily come from a woman's mouth and be just as valid and you wouldn't hear a peep out of me on the matter.


So, if a woman's argument about having children rests in part on the experience itself,

Right there! That's what men consider to be selfish. That women would hinge their attitudes about children (life) by factoring the pain issue into their calculus. No one is questioning that it's agony. When we say things like "we stand for freedom" or "we stand for justice," those are eternal concepts. If I said, "we stand for justice except when it really, really hurts," you'd rightfully think the sentiment was weak. You'd think a soldier deciding whether or not to serve based on pain and not based on higher principles to be a little cowardly, no? Well, sometimes it's the truth that hurts.


then those of us who have not had that experience will not truly understand their premise enough to judge it

I don't think men need the experience to do a cost benefit analysis concerning children and childbirth just like historians don't have to lose a loved one in a war to do a cost benefit analysis concerning a question like "was war X worth it?" Or would the most worthy historians on the subject be people like Cindy Sheehan and not *insert whomever it is you read for historical analysis on such a subject*?


in the way we would a premise that is purely rational in nature.

I think the experience of childbirth is being used to obfuscate rationale.


It's like if I were to say: "I don't think people should eat snails because I've eaten them and they taste gross." Unless you've eaten a snail, you can't really say anything at all about that premise.

That's true enough about the snails. But men aren't saying "I think childbirth isn't painful." There's a whole nother contextual layout surrounding the issue that personal experience falls back on to that your analogy is not capturing.


You can still judge the argument as a whole and try to examine whether the premise even relates the the conclusion, but the premise itself remains out of your grasp unless you've experienced it.

On the matter of life, I'd say the pain of childbirth is irrelevant.

Psychonaut
11-15-2010, 01:10 AM
Again, do you have to experience torture (rather than just conceptualizing it) to know whether it's right or wrong (putting aside whether X or Y can be defined as torture or not)?

The difference is that arguments made against torture may incorporate as premises that the experience of it is painful, but it is not on these premises alone that anti-torture arguments rest. The thrust of the arguments made recently in the Bush cases revolved around human rights and other such BS. Not having been tortured, I would have no say about the painfulness of various tortures, but I could certainly argue about the rightness or wrongness of inflicting pain in order to extract information by counting pain as a block category. This is different, however, than judging specific claims about specific experiences of torture.


I'm guessing you don't condone the things you consider to be torture in most cases because you recognize that regardless of how useful something that falls under torture is to achieve an end, the moral ramifications are too severe to ignore. (Maybe you're in favor of it, my point is, you still don't have to experience it firsthand to do make that calculation about where you stand.)

I do condone torture, but that's another matter. ;)


Right there! That's what men consider to be selfish. That women would hinge their attitudes about children (life) by factoring the pain issue into their calculus.

Utilitarians would argue that all decisions revolve around pain/pleasure equations. ;)

Brynhild
11-15-2010, 02:33 AM
=Selfishness + feminist ideological corruption.


Feminism is just the ideological murder of tens of millions of would be women and men for the purpose of naive, temporary thrills that are ultimately selfish and, as you say, ignorant long term.

I called you ignorant, and the above remark proves it. You can't come up with anything valid to say short of taking a pot shot at a woman who has already been pregnant 5 times in her life and miscarried twice. Define that sort of experience for me then!


All I asked is if you thought a lack of ethos meant a person couldn't make a valid judgment. It doesn't have to be the military. It can be any situation. I say "no."

The whole "you can't judge" attitude is absurd. We can always judge.
And don't tell me you wouldn't think that a man who killed civilians or that man who retreated and left his post or that a man who betrayed his commander wasn't a coward. Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't judge such a person that way simply because you lack the personal experience of serving during warfare?

For a start, you're being presumptious on what my views are on anything. I've neverr once said at any time that people can't form an opinion, but that doesn't at all equate with personal experience on such matters. You've really got to stop putting words into another person's views that only you can see and were never quoted in the first place.


This doesn't mean that men can't judge women. Because you used the word logic, I'll repeat: the logic behind the feminist claim is that a lack of experience disqualifies judgement. That's the logic. I think that's bunk because we don't use that logic with regards to anything else. Here's another example. Mens' and womens' sex organs and sex drives are different. If there is a man who's being overly aggressive and hitting on some lady, do you not judge him to be a pig? I mean, it's not like you know what's its like to have a male sex drive (because it's different than a woman's) or what it's like to have a penis. How can you judge the guy?

What has the argument of judgement got to do with my speaking from personal experience about childbirth, when I was refuting somebody else's claim about that and nothing else? How is it that others can completely get where I come from with my comments - based on my experience I may add - and yet this relatively simple explanation still goes over the head of others who wants to bring other invalid matters into it, because they can't address the matter directly? This feminism accusation is childish and nonsensical.


What? And a woman saying that men will never experience the same levels of pain isn't? LOL

Have I not made myself clear enough? I was talking about excruciating pain associated with childbirth! I WILL REPEAT: Men cannot and will not ever know what it's like to undergo this experience! Your argument has no relevance whatsoever. Get over it. You cannot and will not validate this.


Define sexism, please. As far as I can tell, it means anything that some women don't like concerning what men say or think but hardly the reverse. I have yet to hear any men on this board pull out the "you have no right" card pertaining to thought on a subject.

I see this as a form of backpedalling because not one word that I have said has been addressed directly. It is also an accusation in the form of defence.
I WILL ONCE AGAIN REPEAT: A man cannot and will not tell me what the experience of childbirth is like. I will use another analogy. It would be like me trying to describe a man's physical sensation at the point of sexual climax - something of which I have no knowledge at all. I have a general idea of how he would be led to such a moment but to feel it is not the same thing.

Empathy (the ability to sympathise from another person's point of view) and judgement, in no way equates with personal experience on any matter.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 02:47 AM
The difference is that arguments made against torture may incorporate as premises that the experience of it is painful, but it is not on these premises alone that anti-torture arguments rest.

Neither are arguments women make concerning why men "have no right" to have an opinion about matters of creating life. In fact, I'd say that the pain dimension was a small part and not really getting at the heart of the matter (even though it's been a point of focus in this thread). It's about having sole control on questions of life in the context of self-righteous feminist mantras that women trot out about how control of their bodies trump every other moral consideration in the book to such an extent that men can't even judge them. (I must remind, it was asserted that men had "no right" to judge.) A simple way to validate this claim of mine is to do a simple thought exercise. Imagine that we discovered how to make child birth painless for every women. Do you think that the self-righteous feminist posturing about "it's my body; who are you to judge what I do?" would go away?

As you correctly pointed out, one can still do a moral calculus regarding torture to evaluate whether or not it's appropriate irrespective of the pain involved which he may or may not have experienced in his lifetime. The pain altogether is beside the point in the same way experiencing the pain of giving childbirth is beside the point when evaluating questions of life. And again, much of the "you have no right," has to do with disqualifying men's thoughts on the question of life, regardless if woman X finds the ordeal to be painful or not.

In other words, pain is not any more a part of the premise regarding moral judgments on questions of life any more than it is part of the premise regarding moral judgments on questions of torture.

Again, I want to emphasize that no one is saying that women should be forced to have children. To any female member open-minded enough to read through my thoughts: you can still have control over your body when I'm dictator of the universe. My point is simply that men can still make valid judgements about women based on what they decide to do with the choice they have.

Resting the question of life on that premise of pain alone is weak which is why women have other reasons to go along with the pain consideration. (And the pain argument is weak even when giving women all the benefit of the doubt there is no way men can ever know what it's like to experience something so ghastfully painful.)


The thrust of the arguments made recently in the Bush cases revolved around human rights and other such BS.

Right, I didn't mean to evoke any of that. I was scared my analogy would but I couldn't think of anything else to use at the time. Forget all of that. Bush and Cheney aren't the Great Satan (as far as I know). The sell-out libs can cry me a river on that point for the most part even if I have issues with the previous administration.


Not having been tortured, I would have no say about the painfulness of various tortures, but I could certainly argue about the rightness or wrongness of inflicting pain in order to extract information by counting pain as a block category.

Exactly! (When I said "variable" earlier, I meant what you mean here about packaging pain altogether as a "block category". I like that phrase actually. I wish I would have used it earlier.) So why can't men by the same token argue about the rightness or wrongness concerning women's attitudes about life?


This is different, however, than judging specific claims about specific experiences of torture.

Yes, and no men are judging the specific experiences of giving birth. Well, scratch that. I haven't read every post. But that's not what sparked the friendly (?) argument.


I do condone torture, but that's another matter. ;)

As do I depending on the circumstance but any objection I may have would not be rooted in utilitarian pleasure/pain notions of good and evil. But like you've said here, that's another matter.



Utilitarians would argue that all decisions revolve around pain/pleasure equations. ;)

Which is precisely why even though I appreciate John Stuart Mill's codification of such a system (as it serves as a useful thought compartment for comparison purposes), I utterly reject it as a framework to base one's philosophy on. Pain (even lacking the greater pleasure at the end of the utility tunnel) is not necessarily bad. Pleasure is not necessarily good. But that again, is for another thread.

Enya
11-15-2010, 02:58 AM
I'm feeling a bit worried when thinking about the actual childbirth, but at the same time I can't wait to get pregnant as for the past year my body seems to be screaming for it (I don't know how it works, I just know how it feels, and it's very real).

I would like to have at least three children I think, of course depending on the family situation.

And, the father of my children will have to be understanding and supportive, which means that I will NEVER have children with a guy like Austin. :mad:

la bombe
11-15-2010, 03:06 AM
I'm feeling a bit worried when thinking about the actual childbirth, but at the same time I can't wait to get pregnant as for the past year my body seems to be screaming for it (I don't know how it works, I just know how it feels, and it's very real).


That happens to me on and off. Sometimes I'll have baby fever and other times I can't stand being around children for more than 10 mins :p

Brynhild
11-15-2010, 03:08 AM
I'm feeling a bit worried when thinking about the actual childbirth, but at the same time I can't wait to get pregnant as for the past year my body seems to be screaming for it (I don't know how it works, I just know how it feels, and it's very real).

I would like to have at least three children I think, of course depending on the family situation.

And, the father of my children will have to be understanding and supportive, which means that I will NEVER have children with a guy like Austin. :mad:

Don't worry too much about that. We've been doing it since time immemorial and most of us come back for more of the same. Once you hold that child in your arms, everything else is forgotten.

Austin
11-15-2010, 03:08 AM
I called you ignorant, and the above remark proves it. You can't come up with anything valid to say short of taking a pot shot at a woman who has already been pregnant 5 times in her life and miscarried twice. Define that sort of experience for me then!



For a start, you're being presumptious on what my views are on anything. I've neverr once said at any time that people can't form an opinion, but that doesn't at all equate with personal experience on such matters. You've really got to stop putting words into another person's views that only you can see and were never quoted in the first place.



What has the argument of judgement got to do with my speaking from personal experience about childbirth, when I was refuting somebody else's claim about that and nothing else? How is it that others can completely get where I come from with my comments - based on my experience I may add - and yet this relatively simple explanation still goes over the head of others who wants to bring other invalid matters into it, because they can't address the matter directly? This feminism accusation is childish and nonsensical.



Have I not made myself clear enough? I was talking about excruciating pain associated with childbirth! I WILL REPEAT: Men cannot and will not ever know what it's like to undergo this experience! Your argument has no relevance whatsoever. Get over it. You cannot and will not validate this.



I see this as a form of backpedalling because not one word that I have said has been addressed directly. It is also an accusation in the form of defence.
I WILL ONCE AGAIN REPEAT: A man cannot and will not tell me what the experience of childbirth is like. I will use another analogy. It would be like me trying to describe a man's physical sensation at the point of sexual climax - something of which I have no knowledge at all. I have a general idea of how he would be led to such a moment but to feel it is not the same thing.

Empathy (the ability to sympathise from another person's point of view) and judgement, in no way equates with personal experience on any matter.


I like absorbing ideas and am not really ignorant in that I know some on here are smarter than me that's why I prefer to incite sometimes to get the reactive information. I just like to voice my opposition to feminism and want people to see that I grew up in a liberal, wealthy setting and am 100% racist and anti-feminist, I want that known.

It is important for me to exist in that fashion. I am absorbing your ideals so when you are dead and I am still walking the earth I can better counter them. I am not of the delusion that arguing with you people in a measured form would change your minds, so I absorb and wait for the great chasm.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 04:53 AM
For a start, you're being presumptious on what my views are on anything.

Let's run this whole mess down:

Earlier you wrote:

"Men are simply not built for this obviously and for any man to say they can relate to the physical and emotional demands of what only a woman can do is simply just patronising. It has nothing to do with being sexist or anything else."

I don't dispute that. Nor did I think when reading that that you were putting words into my mouth even though I never tried to say that men could specifically relate to the pain of childbirth. You were just making a valid point. And I accepted it as such.

Then I asked you a valid question with supported logic concerning who has a right to make judgements on women's attitudes about childbirth because that's what started this whole song and dance. It was about whether or not men could judge women's attitudes regarding childbirth. I never layed into you with a strawman. I simply asked a question which you ignored and now you've gotten really angry at me because you think I falsely posited a view as being your own when I did no such thing.

Here it is:

"All I asked is if you thought a lack of ethos meant a person couldn't make a valid judgment. It doesn't have to be the military. It can be any situation. I say "no."

The whole "you can't judge" attitude is absurd."

I never said that you said that. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I only brought this point up, again, because that was the basis for this entire argument (or so I thought) starting on around page 9. I was quoting somebody else's words. You know, when I address you in a post and I use quotes, they don't necessarily have to come from you. I know you didn't write the words "you can't judge" in your post. Afterall, I am quoting your stuff when I reply, for Heaven's sake. I just wanted your view on the matter.

"We can always judge.
And don't tell me you wouldn't think that a man who killed civilians or that man who retreated and left his post or that a man who betrayed his commander wasn't a coward. Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't judge such a person that way simply because you lack the personal experience of serving during warfare?"

You had previously wrote that you didn't want to address the logic behind my illustrations and how they pertain to whose views are valid on the question of childbirth outside the actual experience itself. I wasn't falsely attributing any view to you. I was pressing the issue for the sake of discussion and because I thought you ducked the point in an earlier post when you wrote: "We're not talking about men in the military and I wouldn't argue from that perspective, because I don't know anything about it."

Laying out a logical argument in my response to make a point is not the same as falsely attributing a view to be your own. I understand strawman arguments well and take care to avoid them.


I've neverr once said at any time that people can't form an opinion, but that doesn't at all equate with personal experience on such matters.

Certainly. No argument there. I just wanted your view on the matter which prompted this argument involving everyone and you dismissed the question so I pressed the issue. That's all that has happened here.


You've really got to stop putting words into another person's views that only you can see and were never quoted in the first place.

LOL! Honestly...So this is a trend I follow in my posts? That's actually a pretty heavy charge to throw at someone. It could get you fired as a published writer. It can't be that you're just misunderstanding? Do such thoughts occur to you?

Again, show me where I've attributed a view as being your own where that wasn't the case. I repeat: laying out a logical argument using illustrations and holding your feet to the fire so to speak is not the same falsely attributing a view to you.



What has the argument of judgement got to do with my speaking from personal experience about childbirth, when I was refuting somebody else's claim about that and nothing else?

You refuting any claim Austin may have made about knowing the pain of childbirth gets no argument from me. I just wanted you to again address the genie that was originally unleashed. When you didn't, I thought that curious but still never falsely attributed any view to you.


How is it that others can completely get where I come from with my comments - based on my experience I may add - and yet this relatively simple explanation still goes over the head of others who wants to bring other invalid matters into it, because they can't address the matter directly? This feminism accusation is childish and nonsensical.

I don't think my query is "invalid" simply because you don't want to answer it.

And then you talk about addressing matters directly? I at least defined what it was that I found to be feminist. What I found to be feminist was jerney's assertion that only women have a right to make judgements about women's attitudes concerning matters of life. Above, you're just throwing around the labels "childish" and "nonsensical" regarding my take on something being feminist which wasn't even disputed by the person it was directed at in the first place. Honestly, it's not me who's not being direct.


Have I not made myself clear enough? I was talking about excruciating pain associated with childbirth! I WILL REPEAT: Men cannot and will not ever know what it's like to undergo this experience! Your argument has no relevance whatsoever. Get over it. You cannot and will not validate this.

Right. Agreed. Case closed there. So how about addressing my point which again began this whole mess. Can men make valid judgements about women's attitudes concerning the issue of childbirth, or more directly, life itself?


I see this as a form of backpedalling because not one word that I have said has been addressed directly. It is also an accusation in the form of defence.

How can I be backpedaling when I never asserted that men could know exactly what childbirth is like? You're basically doing to me here what you accused me of doing above: falsely attributing a view to someone.


I WILL ONCE AGAIN REPEAT: A man cannot and will not tell me what the experience of childbirth is like. I will use another analogy. It would be like me trying to describe a man's physical sensation at the point of sexual climax - something of which I have no knowledge at all. I have a general idea of how he would be led to such a moment but to feel it is not the same thing.

Well, yes. I think that's roughly accurate.


Empathy (the ability to sympathise from another person's point of view) and judgement, in no way equates with personal experience on any matter.

Certainly. Had I actually said "men's judgements on the experience of actually giving birth are just as valuable," I'd be backpedaling. But I didn't. Nor did I ever imply it.

Sahson
11-15-2010, 05:08 AM
Lol perfect example of what I was saying above about women and emotion. But no I am 23 and like to fuck around to be honest though I am rather picky.

Most young women disgust me to no end, I'd qualify them as superficial consumer imbeciles in kind terms. I'm in fun mode currently in life and am very much enjoying it =)

câlice de tabarnac!!!

des morceaux de calice de pourris de tarbarnac! :mad: Respecter les femmes de votre! ou comment vous attendez-vous ŕ respecter vous et vos idéaux. :mad: :mad:

Désolé du personnel, mais il avait frustré moi un peu trop.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 05:19 AM
Oh, and Brynhild, just to show you I'm arguing in good faith, I did pull a bit of an implied strawman here when I wrote:

What? And a woman saying that men will never experience the same levels of pain isn't? LOL

You never said that so I'll admit that that response was a bit inappropriate. But I do think that common feminist argument that women experience more pain and higher levels of it in their lives (which again, you did not make) is a load of bullshit even if men cannot relate to the exact experience of pregnancy and childbirth. But I guess who experiences more pain in life is best left for another thread. (Such a thread would actually be childish, anyways.)

Sahson
11-15-2010, 05:24 AM
Deb I think this argument/debate has grown a bit too long it the tooth. it seems people are starting to reverberate, and reiterate their points to no ends.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 05:31 AM
Oh, positively that's what's going on. But sorting it all out is fun to me. I also think it's a worthy endeavor. I know it annoys some people and to those it does, I'm sorry. But if something is stated in terms of "rights," then certainly one may challenge that assertion.

Bloodeagle
11-15-2010, 05:38 AM
I would just like to state that it has always been wise for a man to stay out of women's business, especially regarding feelings and reproduction. :p

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 05:39 AM
So what if a woman demanded that a man reproduce with her? Would the man have to "stay out" of addressing the issue of reproduction and consent to her? That's the crux of the issue: women don't have a moral monopoly on such thoughts.

Waaltz
11-15-2010, 05:40 AM
I didn't read all the replies but I voted for 4+ (2 boys and 2 girls or 3 boys and 2 girls, etc. - so the son would have a brother and daughter a sister)


Three actually seems like a lot today, but then I think about how many siblings I grew up with (four) and I realize how weird it is to imagine only having one sibling. It almost seems like it would be kind of lonely.

Bingo... I was an only child and I almost think it was morally wrong for my parents to do that. Plus my dad always worked and we were 1.8k miles from my other relatives so I was almost always alone when I was younger...

Sahson
11-15-2010, 05:41 AM
Yeah, unfortunately my tolerance to reiterations reaches to a point where I feel everyone is regurgitating their beliefs, and no one is getting anywhere. and it will only continue to incite hatred to some of the parties involved.

This thread started to ask people what their future plans are with procreation. It has now moved to feminism, ad hominems, ethos, and other fallacies.

Either one starts a "sexist" thread about pain tolerance, or just try to squash the beef here. But that is my thoughts at this moment in time.

Bloodeagle
11-15-2010, 05:45 AM
So what if a woman demanded that a man reproduce with her? Would the man have "stay out of it" and consent?
No, nothing positive is achieved through such cut and dry demands. :D
If a woman wants a child from you, she will simply let you impregnate her.
How many men wouldn't fall for that one?
Then as a "man" or "fertilizer of the egg", you will be obligated to protect her and your offspring until adulthood, even though you may have thought it was your decision all along! :)

Austin
11-15-2010, 06:54 AM
câlice de tabarnac!!!

des morceaux de calice de pourris de tarbarnac! :mad: Respecter les femmes de votre! ou comment vous attendez-vous ŕ respecter vous et vos idéaux. :mad: :mad:

Désolé du personnel, mais il avait frustré moi un peu trop.


I don't speak alien.:p

Sahson
11-15-2010, 07:07 AM
I don't speak alien.:p

you can ask Arcadian driftwood to translate it then.

Grumpy Cat
11-15-2010, 07:19 AM
you can ask Arcadian driftwood to translate it then.

Umm no. He can get off his arse and learn the language of a race superior to his own if he wants.

Wyn
11-15-2010, 07:28 AM
you can ask Arcadian driftwood to translate it then.

According to Google Translate (a system renowned for it's accurate translations), you said:

Alice tabarnac!

pieces of rotten tarbarnac chalice! Respect your women! or how do you expect to meet you and your ideals.

Sorry for the staff, but he frustrated me too.

Which means that somehow, somewhere, something hilarious has happened.

Sahson
11-15-2010, 07:31 AM
According to Google Translate (a system renowned for it's accurate translations), you said:

Alice tabarnac!

pieces of rotten tarbarnac chalice! Respect your women! or how do you expect to meet you and your ideals.

Sorry for the staff, but he frustrated me too.

Which means that somehow, somewhere, something hilarious has happened.

Yes google translate can not decipher dialects, and subjunctive moods.

Grumpy Cat
11-15-2010, 07:42 AM
Yes google translate can not decipher dialects, and subjunctive moods.

Google translate is better than others out there, though.

It can actually make a translation that makes some iota of sense. I've translated some Norwegian articles before.

Sahson
11-15-2010, 07:45 AM
Google translate is better than others out there, though.

It can actually make a translation that makes some iota of sense. I've translated some Norwegian articles before.

I won't deny that. Just don't use the Hungarian translation. ;) It needs a lot of work there. The German is good though, and the Mandarin needs some work too.

Grumpy Cat
11-15-2010, 07:46 AM
I won't deny that. Just don't use the Hungarian translation. ;) It needs a lot of work there. The German is good though, and the Mandarin needs some work too.

I've only used Norwegian (Bokmal), Arabic, and Afrikaans. They all worked well for me.

Sahson
11-15-2010, 07:54 AM
I've only used Norwegian, Arabic, and Afrikaans. They all worked well for me.

Hungarian is much more grammar intense then any of those languages. it has 24 cases, and about 18 different ways to I in a certain context.

here's a simple example, the correct way to say "He put a book onto the table. Then the book was on the table. After that, he took the book from the table."

It would look like this.

"Tett Könyvet az asztalra. Aztán a könyv az asztalon. Azután, vitt könyvet az asztalról."

Instead GT does this...

Letette a könyvet az asztalra. Aztán a könyv az asztalon. után, hogy ő vette a könyvet az asztalra.

SwordoftheVistula
11-15-2010, 08:12 AM
Google translate seems to lack a 'drunkeness' translator, which might be useful in this case.

Debaser11
11-15-2010, 10:00 PM
Yeah, unfortunately my tolerance to reiterations reaches to a point where I feel everyone is regurgitating their beliefs, and no one is getting anywhere.

I actually think we can get somewhere. But many seem to lack the patience required to read through and sort everything out. Most people would rather play teams than try to read through a long complex logical argument. I can't be blamed for that, especially when I'm not the one making the positive claim to begin with, but merely challenging it.


and it will only continue to incite hatred to some of the parties involved.

The only person I've ever hated on this whole forum has been banned. If people want to hate me for simply pointing out logical flaws in their viewpoints as respectfully as I can and in good faith, that's a personal issue they have going on. I hope that's not the case that I've incited hatred, though. I don't think it is. I give the people here more credit than that.


This thread started to ask people what their future plans are with procreation. It has now moved to feminism, ad hominems, ethos, and other fallacies.

Well, if the women are going to tell the men they "have no right" to make judgements about such matters, then it should at least be stated in the first post that it's a women's only thread. Otherwise, I'm going to refute such a positive claim because it's bunk.


Either one starts a "sexist" thread about pain tolerance, or just try to squash the beef here. But that is my thoughts at this moment in time.

I don't think I'm trying to turn this into a gender thing. Respectfully, some of the women did and then resented the guys not accepting it.


Again, if a guy didn't want to have children with his wife, would we all have no right to judge him? Of course not. I don't see why it's any different the other way.

Austin
11-15-2010, 10:36 PM
you can ask Arcadian driftwood to translate it then.


Meh I don't care what it says tbh. A lesser language that has no significance in the world today.

hereward
11-15-2010, 10:51 PM
My wife is 16 weeks (17 tomorrow). I would like at least two; my wife wants no more than three. I have four brothers, three of them are half brothers, it makes no difference, and we are in contact daily. My wife has two brothers, they don't keep in touch as much compared to me and mine, her eldest settled in Canada.

ZeDoCaixao
11-15-2010, 11:13 PM
What's with all these twos and threes! Misers. I plan to impose on some poor gal no less than five times, and more if the dear can take it. I came into this world with no tribe, but will leave with one of my own making. Und diess Geheimniss redete das Leben selber zu mir: « Siehe, sprach es, ich bin Das, was sich immer selber überwinden muss. »

Atlas
11-16-2010, 09:00 PM
Around here the governement "welfare" offers more than 1000€ per month for any married (or not) parents with three children or more which attract mainly foreigners willing to have French offspring and then stay. Oh wait, it's pretty much the same in any Western nation nowadays...

More than three children is unrealistic, unless both parents have a solid career and situation in their life. A child is expensive, but also priceless, I'll go for two children, a boy and a girl, hopefully, as long as my health and bank account will allow it.

ZeDoCaixao
11-16-2010, 10:07 PM
More than three children is unrealistic, unless both parents have a solid career and situation in their life. A child is expensive, but also priceless, I'll go for two children, a boy and a girl, hopefully, as long as my health and bank account will allow it.

Is it strictly true that so much money is required to raise children? Lower the standards. If the cupboard goes empty, go gather insects, steal from the supermarket, or shoot birds and squirrels with a slingshot for food. No money for diapers? Big deal, diapers are just an industry; get a handful of hemp or cotton hand-towels and swaddle them in with safety pins. Diapers, insurance policies, "baby formula" products, "baby food", baby-this-and-that, toys, all mere hooks for the goyish gefilte. None of it necessary. Necessary: real food, basic clothing, some books, dole from the state, a vision for their future. Also depends where one lives of course. This sort of thing is much harder in Europe where everything is ultra-civilized.

I want to raise men, not "babies". For this reason, and a host of others, Western women are inutile. Want sprawling blue-eyed progeny, white man? Look east ...

Austin
11-16-2010, 10:38 PM
I sometimes wish I was from a different class. The class I'm from dictates that I wait to have children and it isn't just some general perception either it is real, one feels it every day of every week.

You can easily enough have 3+ children if you are of a class (lower) where it is socially acceptable. I am not from such a class and would be openly but more importantly privately destroyed if I had kids right now or had more than 3. Social/economic class dictates everything down to where you eat and what you eat and how you eat it.

Brynhild
11-16-2010, 11:58 PM
I like absorbing ideas and am not really ignorant in that I know some on here are smarter than me that's why I prefer to incite sometimes to get the reactive information. I just like to voice my opposition to feminism and want people to see that I grew up in a liberal, wealthy setting and am 100% racist and anti-feminist, I want that known.

Your baseless insinuation on who you think is sexist and feminist - because we're not afraid of simply speaking up to you and standing our ground - just has no substance whatsoever.


It is important for me to exist in that fashion. I am absorbing your ideals so when you are dead and I am still walking the earth I can better counter them. I am not of the delusion that arguing with you people in a measured form would change your minds, so I absorb and wait for the great chasm.

An amusing anecdote, I must say.




Oh, and Brynhild, just to show you I'm arguing in good faith, I did pull a bit of an implied strawman here when I wrote:

What? And a woman saying that men will never experience the same levels of pain isn't? LOL

You never said that so I'll admit that that response was a bit inappropriate. But I do think that common feminist argument that women experience more pain and higher levels of it in their lives (which again, you did not make) is a load of bullshit even if men cannot relate to the exact experience of pregnancy and childbirth. But I guess who experiences more pain in life is best left for another thread. (Such a thread would actually be childish, anyways.)

I'd like to mention in a more conciliatory fashion that I never once suggested how men have no idea what it's like to experience pain. I simply spoke in regards to the experience of childbirth and I was deriding Austin for the stupid remark of how selfish he thought women are in why he feels they avoid it.


I actually think we can get somewhere. But many seem to lack the patience required to read through and sort everything out. Most people would rather play teams than try to read through a long complex logical argument. I can't be blamed for that, especially when I'm not the one making the positive claim to begin with, but merely challenging it.

Day in and day out, I repeat myself ad absurdum in order to get my message across. I don't have the patience when I have to reiterate something I've already written for all to see and understand. It's felt like we were talking in circles, to be honest, especially when I didn't change my stance at any time. I didn't see the need to bring in any other comparisons to layer the discussion with, because I only had one viewpoint to convey the entire time.


The only person I've ever hated on this whole forum has been banned. If people want to hate me for simply pointing out logical flaws in their viewpoints as respectfully as I can and in good faith, that's a personal issue they have going on. I hope that's not the case that I've incited hatred, though. I don't think it is. I give the people here more credit than that.

It certainly isn't anything to do with hatred on my part. I just think sometimes you're like a dog with a bone and you won't let up. Would you appreciate the same sort of tactic when it's given to you? I hope you can, as there is always two sides to a dialogue and not everybody argues in the same fashion.




Well, if the women are going to tell the men they "have no right" to make judgements about such matters, then it should at least be stated in the first post that it's a women's only thread. Otherwise, I'm going to refute such a positive claim because it's bunk.

I don't recall seeing any sexist arguments from the women's point of view either and it certainly wasn't implied from me. We arced up due to a remark from a person who doesn't know jack shit about the female perspective anywhere near as much as he'd like to think he does. If putting someone in their place can be deemed as such, well then, that isn't my issue.


I don't think I'm trying to turn this into a gender thing. Respectfully, some of the women did and then resented the guys not accepting it.

The men on this forum would be the first to say something about such matters, if any of it were implied in the first place. I think some people need to rethink about what the definition of sexism is in the first place. From here on I'm happy to talk about other matters.

la bombe
11-17-2010, 01:38 AM
For this reason, and a host of others, Western women are inutile. Want sprawling blue-eyed progeny, white man? Look east ...

I think my eyes just rolled out of my head :rolleyes:

Aemma
11-17-2010, 01:47 AM
Is it strictly true that so much money is required to raise children? Lower the standards. If the cupboard goes empty, go gather insects, steal from the supermarket, or shoot birds and squirrels with a slingshot for food. No money for diapers? Big deal, diapers are just an industry; get a handful of hemp or cotton hand-towels and swaddle them in with safety pins. Diapers, insurance policies, "baby formula" products, "baby food", baby-this-and-that, toys, all mere hooks for the goyish gefilte. None of it necessary. Necessary: real food, basic clothing, some books, dole from the state, a vision for their future. Also depends where one lives of course. This sort of thing is much harder in Europe where everything is ultra-civilized.

I want to raise men, not "babies". For this reason, and a host of others, Western women are inutile. Want sprawling blue-eyed progeny, white man? Look east ...

Seriously ZDC? That's an awfully pessimistic view. How far East are you proposing at any rate? :confused:

Oh and this inutile Western woman with grey eyes who begat a brown-eyed son, thanks you immensely by the way. :rolleyes:

Debaser11
11-17-2010, 01:54 AM
I'd like to mention in a more conciliatory fashion that I never once suggested how men have no idea what it's like to experience pain. I simply spoke in regards to the experience of childbirth and I was deriding Austin for the stupid remark of how selfish he thought women are in why he feels they avoid it.

I know. Did you read my previous posts?



Day in and day out, I repeat myself ad absurdum in order to get my message across. I don't have the patience when I have to reiterate something I've already written for all to see and understand.

You never had to repeat yourself. When did I argue with you at any time about men understanding how childbirth feels? I asked you a question which you ducked. So I asked it again. You repeatedly made a point about something that I never contended. It's like asking someone what they think of your shirt and they say "I like your shoes." So you're like "well, what about my shirt?" "I like your shoes." "My shirt?" "I said it already! I like your shoes!"



It's felt like we were talking in circles, to be honest, especially when I didn't change my stance at any time.

I never argued your point about women understanding more about the process of giving birth. You just keep saying that men can't know and on this side of the computer I keep nodding my head while waiting for you to address my point. See page 8. Austin made a valid point there. It was contested by another member. So I asked you. I never got a response.

If a man doesn't want to pro-create with his wife, many people would understandably judge him. Yet when a man expresses consternation about women not wanting to pro-create, the response is often "you have no right to judge" or something along those lines. That's nonsense. Psy and I had a fairly logical, productive exchange that I'd be more than happy for you to add to if you want to further the discussion on the subject of contention. But with all due respect, you're in no position to lecture about "two sides" when you won't even address valid points someone else is trying to make.



I didn't see the need to bring in any other comparisons to layer the discussion with, because I only had one viewpoint to convey the entire time.

Again, you're telling me about "two sides" but you dismiss other viewpoints. You waved off my point yet you seek to "put someone [else] in their place"? Go to page 8; look at what started the discussion. Just because you only had one viewpoint to convey doesn't mean that I can't ask you a valid question.



It certainly isn't anything to do with hatred on my part.

Me neither. And I say that with 100% sincerity.


I just think sometimes you're like a dog with a bone and you won't let up.

I don't typically call people names though it is not uncommon to run across name calling. I'm not mean-spirited. But I am spirited. If you can be passionate and even indignant towards others about your views, why can't I? I have not gone out of my way to be disrespectful at all in this thread. But if someone makes a claim, they should expect it to be scrutinized and challenged if it can be.


Would you appreciate the same sort of tactic when it's given to you?

I'm not sure of what tactic you're referring to. But if it's arguing in good faith, then yes, I do appreciate it.



I hope you can, as there is always two sides to a dialogue and not everybody argues in the same fashion.

What is wrong with the way I argue? And yes, there are two sides. I have acknowledged both. You brushed off my point.


I don't recall seeing any sexist arguments from the women's point of view either and it certainly wasn't implied from me.

Go to page 8. Again, when a woman says that a man "has no right to judge" women on the matter of life, I think such a claim is baseless. This has nothing to do with a man saying he knows what childbirth feels like.


We arced up due to a remark from a person who doesn't know jack shit about the female perspective anywhere near as much as he'd like to think he does.

I don't know everything he wrote. That's between you two. My only contention is (and has always been) that he made a valid point on page 8. When I ask you about that and you won't address it, it does look suspect to me.


If putting someone in their place can be deemed as such, well then, that isn't my issue.

I don't think anyone has put Austin in his place on the point that he originally made.



The men on this forum would be the first to say something about such matters, if any of it were implied in the first place. I think some people need to rethink about what the definition of sexism is in the first place. From here on I'm happy to talk about other matters.


Page 8. And I agree with you about sexism. But I'm happy to hear your definition. (It's actually a vacuous word.) My only point was that women don't justify their claim that men "have no right to judge" their attitudes about childbirth. Because it's illogical.

Aemma
11-17-2010, 02:38 AM
What's with all these twos and threes! Misers. I plan to impose on some poor gal no less than five times, and more if the dear can take it. I came into this world with no tribe, but will leave with one of my own making. Und diess Geheimniss redete das Leben selber zu mir: « Siehe, sprach es, ich bin Das, was sich immer selber überwinden muss. »

Ok that's all well and good and I wish you luck. Start with one though and go from there.

I suspect you don't have any children right now do you?

Gah, this kind of argument reminds me of all of those heathen sites and fora where people are constantly going on about having a dozen kids just for the sake of making some and insult you to your face because you might have produced less than 3! Gods forbid! It is misguided thinking in the end. You are raising people, not animals for a count! It isn't a contest!

Murphy
11-17-2010, 02:40 AM
In this day three seems a reasonable number.

Grumpy Cat
11-17-2010, 02:44 AM
Ever since my sister had one I want kids now.

Murphy
11-17-2010, 02:46 AM
Ever since my sister had one I want kids now.

How you doin'?

Grumpy Cat
11-17-2010, 02:47 AM
How you doin'?

Good. You?

Murphy
11-17-2010, 02:49 AM
Good. You?

Damn.. the television never showed Joey's follow-up! Damn it!

Aemma
11-17-2010, 03:28 AM
Ok keep it to task, boys. You can spam DR's PM box with your come-ons all you want though. ;) :D

Right then! Back on track! :)

Octothorpe
11-17-2010, 04:20 PM
I had a daughter with my first wife, and a son with my second ("and last," as she always adds :p). My wife and I had planned on having several children, but alas, it was not to be due to pre-eclampsia and an iatrogenic incident. I am not in favor of adoption (why raise someone else's gene-carrier?), so that is not an option.

Thankfully, my daughter has presented me with two lovely grandchildren (she's 15 years older than her brother), and they should keep me busy for some time. As my son is still quite young, he probably won't produce his set of grandkids until I'm in my sixties. With luck, I'll live to see my great-grandchildren (we've got some luck with longevity in my family tree): I clearly remember sitting on the knee of my mother's mother's mother's father (great-great-grandpa Orlie).

mymy
02-08-2011, 11:03 PM
I voted 3-4 :) but it depend on many things...

Comte Arnau
02-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Two and a half.

alexandra
02-08-2011, 11:22 PM
3 to 4. i used to be one of those people that said i never wanted to have kids. as i grew a bit older, and spent more time with them, i decided that i honestly can't wait. of course, i've got a good number of years and things to do before i actually have them, but it will be so wonderful when i finally do.

Thraex
02-08-2011, 11:24 PM
1 to 3 but not anytime soon.

Grumpy Cat
02-09-2011, 05:03 AM
Two and a half.

Two normal kids and a thalidomide baby?

Aemma
02-09-2011, 05:40 AM
+1. Growing up as an only child I often found myself surprised at the lives of children with siblings and how they seemed to lack an independence that I was used to. I think it also benefited me when it came to social skills, in that by the time I'd started school I was eager to socialise and found it easy to make friends. That's something that can definitely go both ways however - only children sometimes struggle socially and are less outgoing because they aren't used to the interraction.

Do you find, Wyn? I see it the other way around actually: Number One Son is a singleton and if anything Number One Son has not ever been shy nor socially awkward most likely because he has been introduced to social situations from a very young age and has had to learn to be a social creature, not so much within the family (although of course he did have to be one here too) but basically more so out there in the real world. Neither Mommie nor Daddy were out there to communicate for him so he had to know how to adapt and learn these skills himself. Whereas I compare my son to myself at the same age and we're like night and day: I'm the oldest of two, but was as shy as shy could ever be, and managed to be so terribly shy until I hit my 20's. :shrug:

Breedingvariety
02-09-2011, 05:58 AM
3 to 4. i used to be one of those people that said i never wanted to have kids. as i grew a bit older, and spent more time with them, i decided that i honestly can't wait. of course, i've got a good number of years and things to do before i actually have them, but it will be so wonderful when i finally do.
Just don't wait too long. Child should be a priority over toaster and things such as.

CelticTemplar
02-09-2011, 11:45 AM
One perfect little Luso-Saxon.

The Ripper
02-09-2011, 02:21 PM
Definately more than 1. You need siblings growing up. Especially older borthers are good to have. :D

Peerkons
02-09-2011, 02:25 PM
No, never.
I hate those small monster creatures.

Don Brick
02-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Enough to fully ensure the continuation of my glorious lineage. :D However this won´t be happening any time soon, believe me.

mymy
02-09-2011, 05:03 PM
Well, If it would be only about my wishes, I want as soon as possible... But there are many factors, first I can't plan kids alone, and second i think my parents would kill me if it would happen before i finish university, and must mention that i'm only student without job :D
So it will happen as soon as there are some decent conditions for that.

Dark Angel
02-09-2011, 05:13 PM
I would like to have 2 or 3 kids, already have 1, but who knows what is going to happen.....depends on many things...

Baron Samedi
02-09-2011, 07:13 PM
Little Shits = Waste of time.

Sabinae
02-09-2011, 07:59 PM
I basically have no idea. I think 2 would be nice, but its a decision that is to be taken with consideration to the *ahem* "daddy", "papito", etc...

Gwynyvyr
02-09-2011, 08:46 PM
I had SEVEN and am currently helping to raise my Darlin' Man's 2 teens.
I WANTED an even dozen! If I could have more, I would.
What gets me is how many people complain about "The Muslims are going to outbreed us out of our own lands!" or "Mexicans will take over the Southwest just by breeding us out!" and then state "Oh, I only want one child...maybe two..." or worse yet "I don't want to have kids at all".
Look, if you aren't participating, then you have no standing to complain.
Yes, economically, a smaller family makes more sense. BUT, I can assure you, that you find a way to afford every precious baby you bring into this world.
I saved money by making my own clothes, having a garden and canning the produce. I raised livestock and butchered them. I went hunting to put meat on the table.
"But...but...what about college for the kids?", I hear some of you sputtering.
None of my kids had a college fund. Two went to college. They WORKED their way through.
Funny thing is, one son that eschewed college and took a couple of courses in trade school now makes the most out of all my kids. He's an electrician.
Some women out there may be thinking "But, I need to fulfill MYSELF...I need a CAREER!"
Being a mother IS fulfilling and being a mother IS a career!
There is no moment of joy that will even APPROACH what you will feel when you are holding your child for the first time.

If you want to turn the tide of multiculturalism and want to bring power back to the European race, you have no other option than to bring more children of your genetic heritage into the world.
If you choose not to, then the tide of other races will engulf your children and grandchildren (IF your one or two children decide to have any) and we all will be a footnote in history.

Blossom
07-30-2011, 01:36 PM
Enough to fully ensure the continuation of my glorious lineage. :D However this won´t be happening any time soon, believe me.

Oh really? *cough cough* :rolleyes:;)

HungAryan
07-30-2011, 02:37 PM
I want at least 6, but not more than 8.

Sahson
07-30-2011, 02:41 PM
2-3.

Lithium
07-30-2011, 02:51 PM
I want at least 3 children.

Mordid
07-30-2011, 03:30 PM
3 or 4.

Husaria
07-30-2011, 03:57 PM
Little Shits = Waste of time.

But, Little Shits turn into Big shits.

Yeah, I guess I see your point.

I don't like Little Shits or Big shits myself

Sikeliot
07-30-2011, 04:14 PM
I don't want kids. I'm not very child-friendly.

Neanderthal
07-30-2011, 04:23 PM
I don't want kids. I'm not very child-friendly.

Why not?:(

Sikeliot
07-30-2011, 04:24 PM
Little kids aren't cute, in my opinion. They annoy me. :)

Neanderthal
07-30-2011, 04:24 PM
DHaW8BQFXPM
:p

Mordid
07-30-2011, 04:25 PM
Little kids aren't cute, in my opinion. They annoy me. :)

Are you pedo ?

Neanderthal
07-30-2011, 04:25 PM
Little kids aren't cute, in my opinion. They annoy me. :)

:(

Sikeliot
07-30-2011, 04:29 PM
Are you pedo ?

If that were the case, I wouldn't have said I hate little kids. I didn't until I got a job and have to see a lot of them with their parents who don't even reprimand them, and you just want to say, reprimand your damn kids or I'll do it for you!

Mordid
07-30-2011, 04:34 PM
If that were the case, I wouldn't have said I hate little kids. I didn't until I got a job and have to see a lot of them with their parents who don't even reprimand them, and you just want to say, reprimand your damn kids or I'll do it for you!

:eek:
Ok, you realise that I'm joking, right ? :p:coffee:

Logan
07-30-2011, 04:35 PM
If that were the case, I wouldn't have said I hate little kids. I didn't until I got a job and have to see a lot of them with their parents who don't even reprimand them, and you just want to say, reprimand your damn kids or I'll do it for you!

Might change, should you find yourself gazing upon another Safty Pin. ;)

Sikeliot
07-30-2011, 04:36 PM
Not going to happen. :)

Logan
07-30-2011, 04:40 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2677168404_8c2ba0f9e4_b.jpg

Mt. Athos, Greece - Holy Monastery of Simonos Petra.

Blossom
07-30-2011, 05:39 PM
Little kids aren't cute, in my opinion. They annoy me. :)

Omg...I think they're the sweetest thing ever! Specially if they're fair (skin and maybe hair too)...they're so angelic, so little and innocent...I love babies. I hate when they grow 8-13 years :D they turn into real bitches...but it also depends on education...oh I was such a good girl, never into trouble. :rolleyes:

Comte Arnau
07-30-2011, 06:31 PM
Omg...I think they're the sweetest thing ever! Specially if they're fair (skin and maybe hair too)...they're so angelic, so little and innocent...I love babies. I hate when they grow 8-13 years :D they turn into real bitches...but it also depends on education...oh I was such a good girl, never into trouble. :rolleyes:

So cute... specially when they won't let you sleep at night or you have to clean diapers wondering how so much can get out from such a little thing. :tongue

Bard
07-30-2011, 06:33 PM
I'd choose a vasectomy over being a father, so I voted for no kids.

Zankapfel
07-30-2011, 09:49 PM
I want a boy and a girl.
Just much, much later in life.
As for kids being demanding, obnoxious, moody ... a lot of adults I've known are the same :shrug:

Osweo
07-30-2011, 09:51 PM
:(

I think it's just a phase some young women go through, so no worries. The vast majority change their tune, sooner or later. :)

Unfortunately, there is a certain proportion that realise their folly a little too late. :( I was so immensely relieved when my cousin had a baby at the age of forty-ish, as I thought she was doomed to childless old age by then. Who do the anti-child faction think will give a shit about them when they're elderly? That's what I want to know. Without sons and daughters, and even grandkids, you're utterly at the mercy of those who feel no great emotional tie to you, at worst the uncaring functionaries of the state. :eek:


I've been doing a bit of genealogy lately, and am faintly embarrassed to compare my modest familial ambitions with those of my forebears. The most impressive figure for one great great great grandmother was thirteen, all of which survived to adulthood. Another had eleven... :suomut: From the census material, yet another seems to have had one set of (at least) twins, followed by triplets five years later... :eek:

Thraex
07-30-2011, 09:53 PM
I hope to have children by the time I turn 25 or 26 no later. As to how many I would say at least 3 but no more than 4 or 5.

SaxonCeorl
07-30-2011, 09:58 PM
For me, part of the decision comes down to how much money I'll end up having. I want to be able to pay for my future childrens' university fees.

If I were rich, I'd gladly have 5 or 6 kids.

Wanderlust
07-30-2011, 10:03 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2677168404_8c2ba0f9e4_b.jpg

Mt. Athos, Greece - Holy Monastery of Simonos Petra.

Women are not allowed entrance there!:p


I'd love to have three kids.

Blossom
07-31-2011, 10:01 AM
So cute... specially when they won't let you sleep at night or you have to clean diapers wondering how so much can get out from such a little thing. :tongue

Ah cmon, well, still that depends on the kid you got,..there are noisy ones, true but lets hope it wouldnt be the case. Though, still, I love babies so much I wouldnt mind wake up...but yeah, probably I'd be exhausted at some point, but still, I'll never be sorry.


I want a boy and a girl.
Just much, much later in life.
As for kids being demanding, obnoxious, moody ... a lot of adults I've known are the same :shrug:

So damn true. Haha. Even got few examples on my head right now!

Comte Arnau
07-31-2011, 05:54 PM
I think it's just a phase some young women go through, so no worries. The vast majority change their tune, sooner or later. :)

Indeed.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2677168404_8c2ba0f9e4_b.jpg
Mt. Athos, Greece - Holy Monastery of Simonos Petra.

Women are not allowed entrance there!:p


We Catalans were not allowed entrance there either (because of an assault in the 14th century) until a few years ago, after some money was given for restoration as a sort of amends for the damage. I don't think money would work for women in this case, though. :p

gandalf
07-31-2011, 07:45 PM
I have three akready , but I wouldn't mind

having two or three more with La Bombe , lol !

Wanderlust
07-31-2011, 07:53 PM
Indeed.



We Catalans were not allowed entrance there either (because of an assault in the 14th century) until a few years ago, after some money was given for restoration as a sort of amends for the damage. I don't think money would work for women in this case, though. :p

True! :D
They want to avoid us and keep us away at all costs!

Malva
07-31-2011, 10:34 PM
3 are ok. 4 doesn't hurt.

Thraex
07-31-2011, 10:37 PM
3 are ok. 4 doesn't hurt.

Osweo is a lucky guy! :D

Peyrol
07-31-2011, 10:51 PM
112, like Ramses II.



Seriously, 3 or 4.

SilverKnight
07-31-2011, 10:59 PM
3-4

I wanna spread those good genes :p

beergarden
07-31-2011, 11:18 PM
1, preferably a girl. More that 2 children is economically insane unless you are a top 1% wage earner.

Bridie
08-01-2011, 12:20 PM
About 12, but I'll settle for 6.

rhiannon
08-01-2011, 12:26 PM
Been there, done that. My magic number turned out to be 2. They are 21 years apart in age:D

Comte Arnau
08-01-2011, 12:29 PM
I hesitate between being immodest and populate the country with many little Counts (with an o), or being selfish and deprive the Earth of the continuation of these exceptional genes. :cool:

Man proposes, God disposes, says the saying. I'd rather say that in this matter, Man proposes, Woman disposes. :rolleyes2:

Treffie
08-01-2011, 12:37 PM
I hesitate between being immodest and populate the country with many little Counts (with an o), or being selfish and deprive the Earth of the continuation of these exceptional genes. :cool:


Countlets ;)

Bridie
08-01-2011, 01:02 PM
Little kids aren't cute, in my opinion. They annoy me. Anyone who would have children because they think they're cute would be a fool anyway. There's nothing cute about having a toddler hanging off you 24/7... nagging, whinging etc etc. There's nothing endearing about getting up at 3am to clean up puke or urine from a child's bed. There's nothing cute about constantly having to break up fights between siblings. It wears you down.

So I think you'd be a good candidate for motherhood, Safety Pin. :) You're realistic, at least.

The last reason that anyone should have kids is because they think they're cute and that parenthood would be fun.

But one could say the same of any interpersonal relationship. You have to take the good with the bad and realise that even with all the challenges and hard work, your reward will inevitably be endless love and caring, unconditional acceptance, a strong sense of purpose in life that extends beyond materialism and superficial gratification, and great personal fulfillment and strength. Without such relationships, you could have all the riches in the world, but still be the poorest person alive. Empty and devoid of everything that would truly make you feel alive, ie, love and family.





I've been doing a bit of genealogy lately, and am faintly embarrassed to compare my modest familial ambitions with those of my forebears. The most impressive figure for one great great great grandmother was thirteen, all of which survived to adulthood. Another had eleven... :suomut: From the census material, yet another seems to have had one set of (at least) twins, followed by triplets five years later... :eek:This was the normal thing for families prior to the 20th century.... a time when family took precendence over buying the latest gadgets that provide passive entertainment to distract one from the fact that their life is an empty and lonely place.

Sabinae
08-01-2011, 01:04 PM
lol, "Countlets" sounds so terribly cute! :love:

Comte Arnau
08-01-2011, 01:06 PM
lol, "Countlets" sounds so terribly cute! :love:

Sabinettes too, I must say. ;)

Sabinae
08-01-2011, 01:09 PM
Sabinettes too, I must say. ;)

I would not understand what on earth are you waiting for.... I dont mind Sabinettes either :embarrassed

Sturmgewehr
08-01-2011, 03:40 PM
2 or 3, but I will go for 2 for sure :)

Thraex
08-01-2011, 03:40 PM
2 or 3, but I will go for 2 for sure :)

Don't reproduce please.

Sturmgewehr
08-01-2011, 03:50 PM
Don't reproduce please.

I will just like we always have, I will let u not reproduce like your people have been doing for a long time.

Kosova Needs more Albanians we will reproduce till it becomes 10 million so we send u back to the Carpathians once for all :D :D :D

Polizzi's
08-05-2011, 03:00 AM
As everyone raised in a Polish-Italian family, I want many children, big traditional families are the best.

Terek
08-05-2011, 03:20 AM
If I can manage it, many))))

askra
08-05-2011, 03:22 AM
2, 1 male and 1 female

Bridie
08-05-2011, 03:57 AM
2, 1 male and 1 femaleSo if you have two boys or two girls will you keep trying for a baby of the opposite sex, do you think? :)

Tarja
08-05-2011, 04:08 AM
As many as I'm capable of having. I always only wanted one, as I'm an only child myself, but recently that has changed. The idea of having a brood has become appealing. :D

Of course it all depends on the situation - I must have a successful and enjoyable career, more than enough money, a good house, the right partner, and be much older than I currently am lol. I'm trying to replicate my own home life, I suppose, so I have quite specific requirements for these sorts of things. If someone wasn't willing to have children with me, that would prove a huge issue. I won't let my genes go to waste!

Absinthe
08-05-2011, 08:43 AM
None, as I don't feel parenthood is for me. I am still way too confused and irresponsible and by the time I will figure myself out (if I even do so) I will be past the child-baring age :)

Oreka Bailoak
08-05-2011, 09:33 AM
I want 5 kids in two groups; the first two in my late 20s/early 30s, then three in my mid-late 30s/early 40s. This world needs more people like me.

askra
08-05-2011, 07:30 PM
So if you have two boys or two girls will you keep trying for a baby of the opposite sex, do you think? :)

ahah i don't think so, i have forgotten to specify preferably 1 male and 1 female :p

la bombe
08-08-2011, 06:51 PM
I have three akready , but I wouldn't mind

having two or three more with La Bombe , lol !

Alright, but you have to pay for them :p

Being constantly surrounded by children for the past few years, I've definitely decided that if/when I have children, I want them to be decently spaced out. Having multiple children in the same age group is quite torturous IMO. I'd prefer to have one then wait at least 2 years before having another. It's obviously much better for a woman's body, and probably her sanity too.

And I'm actually liking the idea of having only one child more and more. I think I'd be happy with a 3 person family :)

_______
08-08-2011, 07:00 PM
keep changing my mind. very scared of childbirth atm, of my vagina being torn and the baby sucking all the calcium out of my bones. :O

Troll's Puzzle
08-08-2011, 07:05 PM
IMO I think 3 is a good 'minimum target' for pro-ethnic europeans.

2 is OK, but considering our numbers are decreasing, someone has to 'push' (not too hard now :rolleyes:) back, and a growing 'hard core' of euro-centrics would be nice.

1 is too few (only need takes an accident and your only thread into the future is severed...)

there's no need for 13+ like in the 'olden days' because back then mortality was high, also big families were needed to take care of you as you got older.

BUT - pensions & economic collapse (of which unnafordable pensions are a big part!) may see a return to the 'large family' to care & pay for the parents in old age, IMO. this could be a positive reason to have a larger family. It'd be nice to have, say, 7 kids, knowing that at least a few of them will be attentive and caring in your old age - not like the kids of today who just bung their parents in a care home :(

so i'd say 3 is good, 5 is great (if you can handle it!), more than 7 probably is too much for anyone but I wouldn't want to stop ya if ya think ya can ;)

Smaland
08-08-2011, 11:39 PM
IMO I think 3 is a good 'minimum target' for pro-ethnic europeans.

2 is OK, but considering our numbers are decreasing, someone has to 'push' (not too hard now :rolleyes:) back, and a growing 'hard core' of euro-centrics would be nice.

1 is too few (only need takes an accident and your only thread into the future is severed...)

there's no need for 13+ like in the 'olden days' because back then mortality was high, also big families were needed to take care of you as you got older.

BUT - pensions & economic collapse (of which unnafordable pensions are a big part!) may see a return to the 'large family' to care & pay for the parents in old age, IMO. this could be a positive reason to have a larger family. It'd be nice to have, say, 7 kids, knowing that at least a few of them will be attentive and caring in your old age - not like the kids of today who just bung their parents in a care home :(

so i'd say 3 is good, 5 is great (if you can handle it!), more than 7 probably is too much for anyone but I wouldn't want to stop ya if ya think ya can ;)

Agreed. If every European family had at least 3 children, our national populations could be rebuilt. :)

Pallantides
08-09-2011, 03:50 AM
My children will be legion, their numbers will blacken the lands.

Neanderthal
08-09-2011, 03:58 AM
My children will be legion, their numbers will blacken the lands.

Become a rockstar then, and spread you lines into the the wombs of this world.:D

Blossom
08-09-2011, 04:07 AM
I once voted 2-3 but if things would be OK, and everything would go just fine according to jobs and I'd have a nice boss schedule (thing I'll fight for)...I would like to have 4 beautiful babies, probably in time. It would be so sweet..pinky piggy fair skin angels with red or blonde hair with precious biiig green or blue or chamaleonic eyes ...aww babyfeverrr.

_______
08-09-2011, 07:25 AM
My children will be legion, their numbers will blacken the lands.

*sigh* so much easier/more fun for men.. :(

Money Shot
08-22-2011, 03:25 PM
I am on a mission to poulate the land with my genetic seed.


Actually I only have two. Would have had more but my wife and I met later in life and just didn't have the biological time to have a big family. I love kids and am jeleous of the people who have had three or more.

larali
09-12-2011, 12:09 PM
I have two girls and for now, I am OK with that. I don't want to get pregnant again. I'm 31 and not as young as I used to be, and I get terribly sick (diabetes) with every pregnancy. Then have 50 lbs to lose afterwards. We always said we wanted to adopt, but if we do that it won't be for another 10 years.

Boudica
09-12-2011, 12:17 PM
I want 3 :) 2 boys and 1 girl :) I want to have the girl last so she has 2 older brothers to protect her :)

_______
09-12-2011, 01:31 PM
I want 3 :) 2 boys and 1 girl :) I want to have the girl last so she has 2 older brothers to protect her :)

awww! that's so cute!

AussieScott
09-26-2011, 06:12 AM
I have a boy and girl, we are in the process of making number 3 soon. I want to try and have 4.

Turkey
09-26-2011, 07:18 AM
My advice is. If you love your children, be kind to them. Don't have any.:)