1:40 Georgia Free: “Just as, we are never going to go back to the 1950s, where Mom was at home the kids and dad was away at work nine to five. We’re never going to replicate that because we’re never going to have the same circumstances, in this world, from which that kind of lifestyle arose. So the rules from back then, also don’t apply to today’s world.”….Respectfully, I think that’s a dumb comment. Here’s why:
In 1950, the average age of marriage for a woman, was just over 20 years old. Link below, marriage age graph below…. I knew people who got married in that era, when I was younger. Back then, the economy worked such that, one person could work at one job, buy a house and car, have a middle class life. That person was almost always the man. Women found this situation ideal, because of female needs: Since women could have a decent life and have a family and a house when they were young, they chose that option….since women are the ones who get pregnant. It seemed natural. It was natural. This explains the post-war Baby Boom. Women could marry young, the man could buy her a house, while the man himself was quite young, the woman could stay at home with the kids.
Women’s attractiveness peaks when she is very young and it falls every year till she is old. Men’s attractiveness increases every year till he is 50. Proof in links below. So the fact that women were very young when the Baby Boom started, it makes sense biologically. Young women are very, very attractive, because they are at their peak of fertility and desirability. It should be no surprise that a lot of healthy babies pop out when very young women marry and have a lot of sex. So women’s age itself, being very young at 20, was the biological catalyst of the post war Baby Boom. So the underlying driver to the Baby Boom is that in nature females are desirable when they are young because they are the most fertile when young. Marrying young causes a Baby Boom. However, over time, their desirability falls. It works different for men, but the age of the Mother is far more important than the age of the father. Male desirability increases till age 50. Links below.
When society and economics is set up to reflect this natural pattern, we get a baby boom. This happened on it’s own, due to luck, after WWII. This post-war Baby Boom of which I was a part, it was a natural experiment of sorts….which happened on its own. It shows what happens when women are economically given the choice of a man who is able to provide food, shelter and clothing. Under these conditions, women find men attractive, marry them and have children when they are young….a lot of kids…thus the baby boom.
Now? Thanks to feminism, women get married when they are long past their physical desirability peak. Plus women now economically compete with men. This raises their expectations of what they want in a man and in money….the man must out compete the woman, in order to interest her. Can you imagine trying to impress Georgia, who is able to out-earn 95% of men? Few men could do it. So, as women get more and more success and education, they have fewer and fewer children, because to get that success, women must work hard, just like a man, and for as long as a man. This means she will likely be old before she gets married, she will have few children….with age for a woman, comes declining fertility. Her eggs are old and her desirability is in decline.
Unlike the 1950s, today’s women, few of them have the option to marry young and have a family. Few men can support a wife at home, when the men are young. This reduces the option for women to have a family when she is young. Feminism is the reason women don’t any longer have this option:
No surprise, as women today are economically out competing men, our fertility rate and marriage rate is at an all time historical low. (Turd’s Law) We have arranged our economics and social pattern to be the exact opposite of what nature requires, for populations to sustain themselves. Women no longer have the option of being young Mothers, thanks to our new feminist social pattern. That’s why Islam will take over Europe: smart white women like Georgia don’t find enough men who are up to her standards, so women who are educated are less likely to have children, the population crashes, a population void occurs, one population replaces another.
We can live, any way we want. Right now, we chose to live, such that women get married when they are old, by the standards of desirability and nature. Fine, but the outcome of that choice is a declining population and eventual extinction or replacement of a population. Or we can live as nature intended: Women can have children when they are young. We can arrange our lives and our economics to make that possible. When we do that, the population sustains itself and grows or stays healthy….. We have a choice. We are choosing extinction, when we chose feminism, as it’s out of whack with evolution. Please don’t pretend we don’t have a choice. Please don’t pretend we can’t change this. Please don’t pretend you don’t know exactly what our choices will lead to.
Well done, Georgia. Feminists are well on the way to destroying Europe.
However, well done Georgia. Keep discussing ideas. I understand why you do it. Don’t take my comments personally. I’m not attacking you, just your idea that we can’t re-create the 1950s families. We can create a newer, more updated version of that time, if we would like. One where women have plenty of options. Most feminists hate my opinions. I suspect it’s because my opinion is correct and it disturbs their feminist world view….which is based on scientific ignorance and lack of logic about outcomes of choices.
So, the rules of the 1950s, apply perfectly well to today, or to any time….because of the underlying evolutionary drivers: women are desirable when young and they prefer men who can look after their basic needs. The rules are, for life to work, women should marry when they are quite young, as that’s when they are the prettiest. A second rule is this: We need to empower men, not women. When we empower men, women find them attractive. We need to empower young men by making sure they can afford a home, can afford to work and make enough money in the economy to support a young wife at home, if she choses to have children. Then life works. Feminism is exactly the wrong answer. When we empower women, we eventually destroy society.
If a man does well in life, eventually a woman is out there, who finds him attractive. If a woman does well in life, she finds most men unattractive.
That’s why empowering women….feminism…doesn’t work.
Why everything I just wrote, won’t change anything: I shared this opinion with someone, who said, “I love the way you laid out your argument but…it’s way too cognitive…you left out the ‘ behavioural psychology’…people act in such a way to minimize pain and maximize pleasure (freedom, btw is a form of pleasure)…we will not cognitively will ourselves back to the 50’s…she’s actually correct”
To which I responded: “Yes, I suppose you are right….we will not cognitively will ourselves back to the 50s…. However, I think it’s helpful to know why our current path will fail. As our society continues to spiral into fail mode, eventually people will look around to see if anyone has any idea, what is going on. Those of us who put ideas out there, will get people thinking on their own, coming up with new solutions which suit them, for whatever situation they find themselves in. Then, what will happen, will happen…..As Doris Day, the icon of the 1950s sang, “Que Sera Sera….whatever will be, will be…..” By the way, Doris Day is 97 at the time I write this….still alive. Her era is gone, but she remains….
However, in spite of the fact that we can’t go back, I suppose I want to make it clear to feminists, that the price of feminism is the destruction of The West…..As the old saying goes, “The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world”….or in this case I suppose, ends the world.