Discussion:
Feminists incensed by facts
(too old to reply)
Rob
2007-04-01 11:15:05 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1596864.ece
From The Sunday Times
April 1, 2007
Be a hausfrau for Germany...
"A former top German television newsreader ... Eva Herman, 47, is
urging women to leave the workplace and embrace a pre-feminist ideal
of home-making, cake-baking and child-rearing to save a country with
one of Europe's lowest birth rates: 1.3 children per woman. "If we
carry on in the same way as we have been, then in 100 years' time we
will no longer exist. Germany and Europe will die out," she said last
week. ... Her views are expounded in a book that she has filled with
letters from disillusioned career women who found salvation in
motherhood. Feminists have been incensed."

Feminists are throwing Nazi accusations at Eva Herman and getting
their knickers into a distinct knot over this topic. They are not
offering any remedies, either.

The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.

If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.

While feminists come to terms with the emotional impact of this
inevitability, the rest of us need to come up with some practical
solutions.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
h***@yahoo.com
2007-04-01 15:38:14 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
How very racist of you.
Post by Rob
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
While feminists come to terms with the emotional impact of this
inevitability, the rest of us need to come up with some practical
solutions.
Keep the politics out of my womb. I will not allow it.

As for you men, you might ask yourselves these questions:

Who would you rather have control your sperm? The Government
using laws and regulations, or you...as that individual...who owns
those sperm? Do you want to see your sperm being used for
political purposes?

Didn't you learn anything from WWII?

Heidi
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-04-02 13:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
(snip)
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
How very racist of you.
What is racist about wanting one's culture to survive?
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Rob
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
While feminists come to terms with the emotional impact of this
inevitability, the rest of us need to come up with some practical
solutions.
Keep the politics out of my womb. I will not allow it.
Nobody has said anything about politics until you dragged it in.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Who would you rather have control your sperm? The Government
using laws and regulations, or you...as that individual...who owns
those sperm? Do you want to see your sperm being used for
political purposes?
This is a straw man argument since neither Eva Herman nor Rob suggested
government intervention or control.

According to the article cited in the OP, Frau Herman "is urging women" to
choose motherhood and homemaking over careers. She is pointing out the
long-term consequences of women's choices and encouraging women to choose
otherwise based on this. Apparently Heidi sees women making informed
choices as a male plot to oppress women.

Note that Heidi proves the truth of Rob's subject line.

Jayne
Dustbin
2007-04-02 17:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
(snip)
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
How very racist of you.
Numbers are numbers. It is not racist to tell
the truth. Am I a numericist for suggesting that
2+2=4.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Rob
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
While feminists come to terms with the emotional impact of this
inevitability, the rest of us need to come up with some practical
solutions.
Keep the politics out of my womb. I will not allow it.
You have no choice: biology is destiny don't you
know.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Who would you rather have control your sperm? The Government
using laws and regulations, or you...as that individual...who owns
those sperm? Do you want to see your sperm being used for
political purposes?
Didn't you learn anything from WWII?
Yes! Did you?

D.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Heidi
Ben
2007-04-02 23:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
(snip)
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
How very racist of you.
This is an overeaction. Culture is different than race.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Rob
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
While feminists come to terms with the emotional impact of this
inevitability, the rest of us need to come up with some practical
solutions.
Keep the politics out of my womb. I will not allow it.
It may not matter what you will or won't allow in 50 years, if the
current rates of reproduction and immigration stay the course. It's
not as if western civilization is being replaced with a culture *more*
tolerant and considerate of individual rights.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Who would you rather have control your sperm? The Government
using laws and regulations, or you...as that individual...who owns
those sperm? Do you want to see your sperm being used for
political purposes?
Hmmm...one could make an argument that's being done already. What do
you think happens to men already in child paternity fraud when they're
still obligated to support children they didn't create, or when the 13
year old victim of a stat rape by an adult female is compelled to pay
child support?
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Didn't you learn anything from WWII?
Maybe there's a connection there, but I'm failing to see it.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Heidi
Viking
2007-04-02 03:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
Well, why should we care what happens in 100 years time? Or even in 20
years time; we'll still be around--society may not be replacing
itself, but why is that something we should care about in 20 years?
Not like we're going to be around for the next 300 generations....
Rob
2007-04-02 09:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
Well, why should we care what happens in 100 years time? Or even in 20
years time; we'll still be around--society may not be replacing
itself, but why is that something we should care about in 20 years?
Not like we're going to be around for the next 300 generations....
In my teens I read a short sci-fi story about what remained of human
beings, a small group that had developed to become telepathic,
telekinetic brains floating in a hidden pool. They sensed that they
had been discovered and were now the specific target of a destructive
rocket from an unfriendly force on a distant planet. They thought
about it for a while and decided not to exercise their power to
destroy the rocket, reasoning that anything that was sufficiently
advanced to detect them and sufficiently energetic to attempt to
destroy them deserved to succeed. The story had a powerful effect on
me. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or who wrote it!

But at least they had the excuse of a potential successor. We don't.
In addition:

- Children are the most rewarding aspect of my life. I don't think I'm
alone.

- A dying society, with fewer children, suffers substantial economic
and political problems. The remaining populace are at risk from
competing cultures, the vulnerable and old are less well protected.

- I consider that our culture offers significant benefits over others
and wish to see it continue.

- The struggle for an improved existence for my successors gives a
purpose to life.

- Giving up on an otherwise successful cultural formula puts the whole
species at risk. The world works by competitive selection over
generations. This is undermined if the fittest surrender.

But if we have become so confused that we can't perceive these issues,
or too selfish to care, then there probably is no point. Maybe we
deserve oblivion.

Personally, I'd rather we woke up.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Viking
2007-04-04 14:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
Well, why should we care what happens in 100 years time? Or even in 20
years time; we'll still be around--society may not be replacing
itself, but why is that something we should care about in 20 years?
Not like we're going to be around for the next 300 generations....
In my teens I read a short sci-fi story about what remained of human
beings, a small group that had developed to become telepathic,
telekinetic brains floating in a hidden pool. They sensed that they
had been discovered and were now the specific target of a destructive
rocket from an unfriendly force on a distant planet. They thought
about it for a while and decided not to exercise their power to
destroy the rocket, reasoning that anything that was sufficiently
advanced to detect them and sufficiently energetic to attempt to
destroy them deserved to succeed. The story had a powerful effect on
me. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or who wrote it!
Well, *smile* I'm afraid I'm still young enough to want to be the
successor, not the successee...
Post by Rob
But at least they had the excuse of a potential successor. We don't.
- Children are the most rewarding aspect of my life. I don't think I'm
alone.
I do hope you're not one of those people (I expect not) who lives
through their children, something I've always found abhorrent.
Post by Rob
- A dying society, with fewer children, suffers substantial economic
and political problems. The remaining populace are at risk from
competing cultures, the vulnerable and old are less well protected.
Yes, there's something to that. But not enough for me to have a kid (a
$300,000 expense). Seems I would be better off economically just
keeping the money, eh? My sweetie has a daughter, enough for me.
Post by Rob
- I consider that our culture offers significant benefits over others
and wish to see it continue.
There again we differ, am afraid. I see that culture as utterly toxic.
Post by Rob
- The struggle for an improved existence for my successors gives a
purpose to life.
Rather an odd one, though.
Post by Rob
- Giving up on an otherwise successful cultural formula puts the whole
species at risk. The world works by competitive selection over
generations. This is undermined if the fittest surrender.
Again, that's a matter of generations, and I don't concern myself with
what goes on after I've shuffled off.
Post by Rob
But if we have become so confused that we can't perceive these issues,
or too selfish to care, then there probably is no point. Maybe we
deserve oblivion.
Deserve oblivion? There it is again--that determination to let others
decide, to set the course. No, Rob, I will grab life by the throat as
long as I breathe and have a hand. I am a natural man. I decide for
myself, and live or die by the consequences..
Rob
2007-04-07 22:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
Well, why should we care what happens in 100 years time? Or even in 20
years time; we'll still be around--society may not be replacing
itself, but why is that something we should care about in 20 years?
Not like we're going to be around for the next 300 generations....
In my teens I read a short sci-fi story about what remained of human
beings, a small group that had developed to become telepathic,
telekinetic brains floating in a hidden pool. They sensed that they
had been discovered and were now the specific target of a destructive
rocket from an unfriendly force on a distant planet. They thought
about it for a while and decided not to exercise their power to
destroy the rocket, reasoning that anything that was sufficiently
advanced to detect them and sufficiently energetic to attempt to
destroy them deserved to succeed. The story had a powerful effect on
me. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or who wrote it!
Well, *smile* I'm afraid I'm still young enough to want to be the
successor, not the successee...
Post by Rob
But at least they had the excuse of a potential successor. We don't.
- Children are the most rewarding aspect of my life. I don't think I'm
alone.
I do hope you're not one of those people (I expect not) who lives
through their children, something I've always found abhorrent.
Post by Rob
- A dying society, with fewer children, suffers substantial economic
and political problems. The remaining populace are at risk from
competing cultures, the vulnerable and old are less well protected.
Yes, there's something to that. But not enough for me to have a kid (a
$300,000 expense). Seems I would be better off economically just
keeping the money, eh? My sweetie has a daughter, enough for me.
The recent development of retirement pensions has significant delusory
potential. Pensions allows us to avoid the direct burden of our aged
parents and, on a small enough scale, pensions can dupe us into
believing that the next generation is unimportant to our own old age.
But neither a pension fund nor a gubment's welfare commitment is of
use without sufficient productive-age people. As the number of
productive-age people drops in relation to the un-productive elderly
the price of buying their care rises.

As an individual you can take advantage of everyone else's children,
and enjoy your extra spending power based on other people's behaviour,
but there's a social tipping point at which that strategy fails.
Germany has reached that point, and beyond, at 1.3 children per woman.
So has much of the USA of course, but immigration is obscuring that
fact.
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
- I consider that our culture offers significant benefits over others
and wish to see it continue.
There again we differ, am afraid. I see that culture as utterly toxic.
But you are expecting that toxic culture to care for you when you get
older?
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
- The struggle for an improved existence for my successors gives a
purpose to life.
Rather an odd one, though.
What is odd about it?
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
- Giving up on an otherwise successful cultural formula puts the whole
species at risk. The world works by competitive selection over
generations. This is undermined if the fittest surrender.
Again, that's a matter of generations, and I don't concern myself with
what goes on after I've shuffled off.
You might be more than a little concerned while you are doing the
shuffling, though.
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
But if we have become so confused that we can't perceive these issues,
or too selfish to care, then there probably is no point. Maybe we
deserve oblivion.
Deserve oblivion? There it is again--that determination to let others
decide, to set the course. No, Rob, I will grab life by the throat as
long as I breathe and have a hand. I am a natural man. I decide for
myself, and live or die by the consequences.
Are you bothered that every single one of your ancestors behaved
differently?
Were they all wrong, from your pov?
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
But if we have become so confused that we can't perceive these issues,
or too selfish to care, then there probably is no point. Maybe we
deserve oblivion.
Deserve oblivion? There it is again--that determination to let others
decide, to set the course. No, Rob, I will grab life by the throat as
long as I breathe and have a hand. I am a natural man. I decide for
myself, and live or die by the consequences.
Its all about deserving what you choose. Oblivion is the consequence
of a choice not to reproduce. For those who choose to reproduce, their
culture and genes are more likely to persist, they are choosing to
influence the future as others before them have. By deliberately
refusing to pass what you can into the future you are the one deciding
to let others do things for you. History teaches that they are
unlikely to be very sympathetic to your plight.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Dustbin
2007-04-08 09:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Viking
Post by Rob
The facts are plain. Frau Herman is not wrong. 1.3 children per woman
is a recipe for rapid cultural annihilation.
If we carry on as we are then we will not carry on as we are.
Well, why should we care what happens in 100 years time? Or even in 20
years time; we'll still be around--society may not be replacing
itself, but why is that something we should care about in 20 years?
Not like we're going to be around for the next 300 generations....
In my teens I read a short sci-fi story about what remained of human
beings, a small group that had developed to become telepathic,
telekinetic brains floating in a hidden pool. They sensed that they
had been discovered and were now the specific target of a destructive
rocket from an unfriendly force on a distant planet. They thought
about it for a while and decided not to exercise their power to
destroy the rocket, reasoning that anything that was sufficiently
advanced to detect them and sufficiently energetic to attempt to
destroy them deserved to succeed. The story had a powerful effect on
me. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or who wrote it!
Although a very different story this bares some
similarity to The Gamesters of Triskelion; a
Start Trek (original series) story.

D.
Post by Rob
But at least they had the excuse of a potential successor. We don't.
- Children are the most rewarding aspect of my life. I don't think I'm
alone.
- A dying society, with fewer children, suffers substantial economic
and political problems. The remaining populace are at risk from
competing cultures, the vulnerable and old are less well protected.
- I consider that our culture offers significant benefits over others
and wish to see it continue.
- The struggle for an improved existence for my successors gives a
purpose to life.
- Giving up on an otherwise successful cultural formula puts the whole
species at risk. The world works by competitive selection over
generations. This is undermined if the fittest surrender.
But if we have become so confused that we can't perceive these issues,
or too selfish to care, then there probably is no point. Maybe we
deserve oblivion.
Personally, I'd rather we woke up.
--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Loading...