Women over 40 “Shocked” by Fertility Problems

by W.F. Price on December 12, 2012

A study from the University of California San Francisco found that 44% of women over 40 who needed IVF to conceive were surprised by their difficulties. Most women apparently had unrealistic expectations. Even more surprising to them was the fact that success with IVF also decreases sharply with age.

In the study, the researchers at the University of California, San Francisco interviewed women from 61 families — including heterosexual couples, lesbian couples and single women — who conceived and delivered children via IVF after age 40. The interviews were done between 2009 and 2011.

“We found that women did not have a clear understanding of the age at which fertility begins to decline,” the researchers wrote in their study, published online Nov. 30 in the journal Human Reproduction.

Most women thought their fertility would last longer than it did. For instance, 31 percent said they expected to get pregnant without difficulty at age 40.

“Very few participants had considered the possibility that they would need IVF, and 44 percent reported being ‘shocked’ and ‘alarmed’ to discover that their understandings of the rapidity of age-related reproductive decline were inaccurate,” the researchers wrote.

Women’s unrealistic expectations concerning family formation are a direct result of the message that they can live as they please and do what they want without having to make concessions. Society has worked very hard to construct this artificial reality for women, often at the expense of men, but we have less control over biology than we do over our economic and education systems.

If there is any real crisis among women, the inability of many of them to have families of their own is it. It is an enormous loss in life. At the end, what good were all those jobs and meaningless flings when you have nothing to show for them?

{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }

Lyn87 December 12, 2012 at 09:31

I would be willing to bet that almost every one of the women who were surprised by their own biology had “comprehensive” sex education in school.

Just sayin’…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MKP December 12, 2012 at 09:34

I’m an American citizen, born and bred in the USA, but I’ve traveled a bit during my life. I have been to several places in the developing world, and several more in the former Soviet world where levels of education, technology, and creature comforts are relatively low.

It is AMAZING how women in some dirt-poor village in Mexico or Honduras, or some poor town in Eastern Europe, are acutely aware of the fact that their fertility and their ability to attract interest from quality men will decline quickly after a certain age, yet women in the USA are “shocked.” The word “amazing” is overused, but in this case it’s accurate: this state of affairs would be enough to amaze a rational, neutral observer. Women whose families have spent hundred of thousands of dollars to educate them at the best schools, women who have been raised so carefully and with such constant attention, are more ignorant about basic biological facts concerning the human body THAN WOMEN WHO ARE RAISED WITHOUT ELECTRICITY OR RUNNING WATER.

Doesn’t anyone understand what this means? Our entire society is a failure. We’re like some idiot-savant who can write computer software coding at an advanced level, but who can’t go buy a damn gallon of milk at the corner store. That’s us. That’s how the rest of the world sees us.

Not that I really give a shit. It’s just sad, in a certain way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo December 12, 2012 at 09:47

We can only hope if they are going to pass anything but children along; it is their new found knowledge that since they took feminism as the gospel truth it is not; they can at least take this pain to the younger women and let them make a valid, well informed choice that was intentionally denied them at the same age.

We can only hope; although I doubt many of us here care or have much sympathy. This is merely my acknowledgement that the human race deserves more than what it was given this past forty years. Just because I think the current batches of women suck; does not mean I also feel we should punish the next several because of their predecessor’s rampant stupidity.

You can shove your head in the sand and claim what you want; but then you don’t get to “make the choice” of who or “what” is going to pump you in the arse. We all must know we are going to get pumped someway, somehow; it is the wise ones who work hard to choose who, what, when, where, and why.

Another valuable lesson that Feminist around the world are stupid:
http://gloriusbastard.com/?p=1112

Why did women, or any of us for that matter, listen to them?

We all must reap what we sow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wind December 12, 2012 at 09:52

That last sentence is very good. Very good article, but it will undoubtedly only get worse. On the bright side those who believe the lie, in this case, are the ones that pay the biggest price. Not that all of society doesn’t pay a price for their ignorance, but when they are crying that they cannot conceive when 2 of their babies were already aborted 10+ years before. Who do they blame? If their poor judgment persists you can bet they will blame God. Life is about family, not about partying, and definitely not about sex without responsibility.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RTP December 12, 2012 at 10:01

But female movie stars age 30+ “look” so great! That means the average woman can get pregnant. If the stars look so great, it means she can look great and her innards will be just as youthful! I think I remember Lemarck proved this while I was in biology class.

Sexist pig!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 12, 2012 at 10:03

“Society has worked very hard to construct this artificial reality for women”

How much longer will it take for society to throw in the towel?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brawler December 12, 2012 at 10:03

Life long chemical-contraception, hormone replacement therapy, morning-after-unprotected-sex pills and multiple lifetime abortions were always going to damage a woman’s body and her mind.

Who gives a damn though ?

You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind baby. My sperm count’s on the up and up, and doctors say it’ll be that way till I’m 80. Meaning I still win after all the unwarranted abuse and the humiliation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 12, 2012 at 10:05

Non existent Cinderella-Woman lie, harms men

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq3asJgnY8I&feature=g-high-rec

Still want to get married ? I bet your little cup cake is different.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
El Bastardo December 12, 2012 at 10:07

@MKP

“Doesn’t anyone understand what this means? Our entire society is a failure. We’re like some idiot-savant who can write computer software coding at an advanced level, but who can’t go buy a damn gallon of milk at the corner store. That’s us. That’s how the rest of the world sees us.

Not that I really give a shit. It’s just sad, in a certain way.”

Brother; don’t I know what you are talking about. I have seen it everywhere but the states. I wish someone with the skill set required would do a effective opinion poll of women from say 40 third world countries, and 20 more first world countries; and then compare their opinions of one another.

I bet American women internal rationalization hamster would do a back-flip before entering cardiac arrest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 10:13

I agree – even the poorest, most illiterate people in impoverished places of the world, at least know this much.

It is stunning how many ‘educated’ women are completely clueless. Feminism has knocked back the development of women by centuries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Livingwell December 12, 2012 at 10:17

@MKP

Exactly! A college degree does not impart intelligence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
wobbegong December 12, 2012 at 10:51

And my friend’s GF’s junkie sister has no trouble gettin knock up to her junkie BF at 43, amazing!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Georice81 December 12, 2012 at 11:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYtF83ToMXA

This one woman figured she could just waltz in and get herself a husband now that the time was up.

Her “project” was a complete failure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry Balls December 12, 2012 at 11:39

Seems strange how so much can change over 40 years or so. My mother had her last child at 39 back in 1968, which I remember female friends of my mother saying over coffee ” it’s amazing you got pregnant at your age”, and that it was unfortunate to do so because “Who wants to be changing diapers when you hit menopause”. It was a pretty common thought back then, most women had most of their kids back then before 35. Media propaganda has made women refuse to see reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 12, 2012 at 11:56

Women whose families have spent hundred of thousands of dollars to educate them at the best schools, women who have been raised so carefully and with such constant attention, are more ignorant about basic biological facts concerning the human body THAN WOMEN WHO ARE RAISED WITHOUT ELECTRICITY OR RUNNING WATER.

In the US, families don’t send their daughters to school to learn about the limitations of their fertility (unless that’s their chosen field of study). Daughters are sent to school to get a good job to better compete with young men in the work force.

To imply it would be optimal for women to have children while they’re young, healthier and more fertile is like totally sexist. It puts her at a disadvantage to young men who are already out there jump-starting their careers. We don’t want our young women to be “burdened with a baby”. It’s oppressive at such a young age. It’s inequality.

It’s not fair that guys get to have all this fun and enjoy life while they’re still young, while girls should be having babies while they still can. Fertility after 40 is social conditioning through the media. It’s considered stylish and hip. She has science. She has choices. She doesn’t want to spend the best years of her life raising children. If it’s good enough for Jennifer Aniston, it’s good enough for her.

http://www.mothersover40.com/celebrities.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 12:01

I must say, even a decade ago, I think most women, even those who were watching SATC when it was running, knew better.

But since then, the mass hysteria of the Misandry Bubble has caused women to go batshit insane. To not know something this basic, that even women in Africa who earn $1/day know, is pathetic.

I can tell you that the poorest village women in India, who don’t know their exact birthday, and thus only know their age by +/- a year, still are very aware of their fertility window. Even *they* know this, simply because everyone else they know, knows this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 12:03

Now, given how rotten feminist laws are..

As tragic as this is for the women and for a society’s fertility rate, keep in mind that if these feminist women don’t have children, that means some man is saved from slavery masked as child support, and some child is saved from a life of being raised by a single mother, and seeing his father ejected and vilified.

That these women don’t have children saves a lot of men, and the children themselves, from the horrors these women would wreak if they did conceive.

That such a positive can even be thought of shows how terminal the rot is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 12:06

I should also point out that conservative women, who truly think they are not feminists, are equally deluded by this.

At Dalrock’s, there were a series of conservative, churchgoing women, who became violently angry as soon as you show them some medical chart about female fertility.

That female fertility drops at the age shown by the medical chart made even these Christian Conservative women apoplectic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TMG December 12, 2012 at 12:16

Look on the bright sie, ladies. You’ll have more time to brag to your crone-like friends about how “feminist” you were.

I am sure they will find some way to make this the fault of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
realist December 12, 2012 at 12:19

Why, yea, the ones who DID have a clue about how fertility works, had their kids before 40. The 40+ women having kids via IVF are a very small percentage of women who have kids.

Seems that some people educate themselves through Hollywood and not biology books. Just because your grandma had a baby at 44, doesn’t mean you will too – she was mostly likely stronger and had a bunch of kids before that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DCM December 12, 2012 at 12:32

Well, it’s not our fault.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
realist December 12, 2012 at 12:47

That these particular women are such idiots is indeed quite amazing. Although it doesn’t change the larger picture. Most women still have their babies by the time they are 30. The average age for the first child in America is 26 – nowhere near 40. Besides, most women realize it is physically harder to bear a child when you’re older and it’s better to be done by 30-35. At 40+ most women just don’t want to deal with a toddler. The fertility window is broad enough (15-45, that’s a whole 30 years) even for the most progressive career woman to be able to give life to at least one baby. Most women do know how fertility works, it’s just common knowledge and women are often reminded of that, in fact (if not by the media, then by relatives and others.

These particular 40+ women just chose to be ignorant and failed to educate themselves about basic things. Or maybe they were just hiding from the truth. Also, they may not have been “sure” if they wanted kids in their 30s, and at the last minute changed their minds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 12, 2012 at 12:55

Back in the 50s women over 40 were often given the drug “DES” so they could carry their children to term. The results were catastrophic by causing many of the children to have early cancers, in some cases requiring total removal of their sex organs by age 12. It was likely a factor in my first wife’s death at the relatively young age of 50.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stallywood December 12, 2012 at 13:11

Im laughing at these stupid old b##hes. Even I know that a woman’s eggs after the age of 35 or so, can result increasingly in damaged, children. And soon after this, no eggs at all. Given the fact that these geniuses chose to forego this info, which by the way is given out freely, the obvious conclusion is that they are either on drugs, delusional, or both. Claiming that they didn’t know, or that they outraged, and amazed, is proff that they know they are full of sh%t. Anyways, what woman wants to be mistaken for the grandmother of her own children. Not to mention the bullying the poor kid has to endure….I remember what happened to some of my classmates at the hands of other classmates who had a low opinion of guys with old as dirt mothers. These dumb broads did us all a favor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 12, 2012 at 13:16

As a sensitive MRA to the needs of women i would like to say that study and Welmers article are bullshit. Women can have a child on their time table and should pay no attention to the bitter loser MRA types or the sexist medical profession.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Johnycomelatley December 12, 2012 at 13:51

I find this difficult to believe, every woman has a mother who has gone through menopause.

I think it’s more of a case of plausable deniability, its easier to feign ignorance than to admit to being a sexual failure, or even worse, being complicit in bringing a disabled child into the world.

Of course women aren’t averse to magical thinking and hoping medical science can alleviate bad life choices.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 12, 2012 at 13:57

“…we have less control over biology than we do over our economic and education systems.”

And what could be more natural than the unfit not reproducing?

Nature is eliminating these foolish women. They will not breed. Their obstinacy and desire to be shielded from reality whenever it displeases them has run its genetic course.

Meanwhile, the cannier females are still having children at the optimum age, and it will be their faults – whatever they may be – that will pass on the next generation. The refusal to understand the simplest of realities will not , and cannot, become dominant in our gene pool.

Nothing could more assure a nation’s future than the end of such madness. The notion that the female is more valuable than the male “because she can reproduce” has just been brought to its logical conclusion and shown to be wrong. What a female can do is of no interest to the future. It is what she does do that matters, and women that do not reproduce have no claim to a nation’s special interest. They are, in reality, its least valuable members.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ce9999 December 12, 2012 at 14:02

So, lots of women have been misled into believing they still have a good shot at conceiving and bearing a child at age 40 or beyond, something which is obviously not true.

How do we expect that feminists will respond to this problem? Multiple choice:

a – Admit that they were being unrealistic. They will change their tune and encourage young women to start having kids in their 20′s, or at least at a more realistic age.

b – Double down on the stupidity and insist that this is a “serious problem” that needs to be “solved” in name of social justice and equity. Oh, and by the way, Obamacare needs to provide full coverage for it too, at taxpayer expense. Anything less will be considered part of the “war on women.”

I know which one I’d be more surprised to see happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon7 December 12, 2012 at 14:11

I’ve been aware of this for a long time. One of my friends is board-certified in gynecology and reproductive endocrinology. I recall an occasion when my wife and I were sitting around with a bunch of other couples (most of them doctors, women too) and some woman started talking about how women had a lot more options now and could choose when in life they wanted to get pregnant.

He put his specialist physician face on, and started running down the numbers. Basically, human female fertility declines steadily until thirty-five – and then it falls off a cliff. At the same time, birth defects increase at the same rate at which fertility decreases, especially after forty. Treatments to fix this problem use medications with powerful side effects, cost $10-20K per attempt, and even then have very low rates of success.

You should have seen the highly educated women around that table purse their lips and give him the silent treatment. How dare he speak factually! Some of them were actually rude to him for bringing these matters up with young women (our daughters) around and listening in. So much for women and science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 12, 2012 at 14:14

“Double down on the stupidity and insist that this is a “serious problem” that needs to be “solved” in name of social justice and equity. Oh, and by the way, Obamacare needs to provide full coverage for it too, at taxpayer expense. Anything less will be considered part of the “war on women.”

It’s an interesting proposition, and I dare say we will hear the usual culprits try it on in the years to come. I am not so pessimistic though.

There actually is a “war on women” now, but it is not being waged by men. It is being waged by Nature herself – and she was sorely provoked. When it’s over, we men can come out of the shadows and get on with all the other existential problems we have historically dealt with – but the “women problem” will no longer be at the forefront. At least for a while anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
realist December 12, 2012 at 14:33

“It is being waged by Nature herself…”

Absurd. Nature has been very kind to the woman, giving her great sexual resources and a period of 30 years to reproduce (the possibility to have up to 15 children), as well as giving her nurturing capabilities that make her useful even in the old age (people do need grandmas). That is very generous of Nature.

The “war” or rather, negative factors, are created by capitalism (industrialism, modernism, or whatever you might call it) and the drive for a higher living standard that implies that women should work outside of the house and the frivolous ideology of “eternal adolescence” which permeates the Western culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
realist December 12, 2012 at 14:39

Btw, it’s doubtful that Aniston will ever become pregnant, she just doesn’t look like a birthing type. It’s a pretty weird sight when these idiots in the tabloid media are waiting every month to see if a 43 year old woman got pregnant or not, without ever even questioning if she can or not.

In the future, the feminists will just have to freeze their eggs in their 20s (the womb functions way into your 50s). Then it will only be a matter of how you talk the young women into it, as most of them probably don’t yet believe that they might have to use that option later in life. Eventually, with more unsuccessful 40+ women like the above, the young ones are more likely to give this a thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi December 12, 2012 at 14:46

“If there is any real crisis among women, the inability of many of them to have families of their own is it. It is an enormous loss in life. At the end, what good were all those jobs and meaningless flings when you have nothing to show for them? ”

What makes you think they even care? I got married late in life (not by choice) because women I met all the way up to their late 30s thought that there was always a better man than me and that they had all the time in the world to look for him.

It’s not a crisis because these are precisely the kind of cunts you want removed from the gene pool anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jg December 12, 2012 at 15:03
TFH December 12, 2012 at 15:11

Of course women aren’t averse to magical thinking and hoping medical science can alleviate bad life choices.

Medical science advanced by MEN, I might add.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zorro December 12, 2012 at 15:12

Be nice, boys. The next time you’re plowing a 44-year old’s field and she whines about maybe getting pregnant, humor her. And pound her in the ass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 15:18

Eventually, with more unsuccessful 40+ women like the above, the young ones are more likely to give this a thought.

No. Women don’t understand cause and effect very well. If they did, you would see an organization of paternal grandmothers protesting default mother custody, which cut them off from their grandchildren (their son’s children).

That there is no such organization is a huge indictment to how little women are capable of in understanding cause and effect, and taking action in accordance with such an understanding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 15:21

Since these women, if they did conceive, are likely the hardcore feminists who would drag their husband and children through the FC gauntlet, and get a CS order attached to the father (thus enslaving him), the inability of these women to reproduce also saved some men from slavery.

So while we gloat about their stupidity, and how they don’t know what poor illiterate women in Africa know, we should be equally glad that the prospective fathers also did not conceive with these women, as it would have been a ticket to guaranteed slavery under the Bradley Amendment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 December 12, 2012 at 15:49

My niece from Mexico City a few years ago went on a medical mission to the jungles of Chiapas (sp?) to deliver medical supplies to doctors. She encountered a 15 year old girl who was getting married. She asked my niece if she were married, and my niece said no. The girl asked how old she was, and she said, “25.” The girl said, “Pobrecita!” (Poor thing.) Then, to be diplomatic, she added, “Well, you might find a husband anyway.” Hee, hee.

My wife’s great-grandma born 1876 married in 1890, 14.

My wife’s first cousin married in 1958 at 13 years and 5 months of age.

35 years ago, in my village, a neighbor girl age 12 got pregnant by a 25 year old man. As I have written, after age 12, statutory is at the total control of family and girl, not the cops. Both sets of parents investigated, and the man agreed to marry her and support her. The girl said, yes, she wanted to be married. They raised 3 kids.

No fatherless punks on drugs and doing drive-bys and going to prison American style. No state checks for baby mommas who don’t want to work. He got up every day and went to work, and supported them. And, she did the housework and gave him sex, as well as most of the men in the area. Hee, hee.

And, yet with our inner cities in flames, the USA still thinks its way is better. Yes, we are a stupid nation.

She is now 47, and my cousin won’t tell me which neighbor is her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo December 12, 2012 at 16:12

@Anon age 70
“She is now 47, and my cousin won’t tell me which neighbor is her.”

What I find amazing about that comment is the hidden detail most men won’t look for; she was 12, and he 25. IF she is 47 now; that means he 63. If you don’t know which it is by deduction; that tells me a lot about your demographics and marriage you see in Mexico!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno December 12, 2012 at 16:32

Women are waiting for the biological moment of “it’s now or never” to decide to have children, only after they have “enjoyed” their single and free life to the maximum.

Nice.

So men can do that too, right?

But for men, that moment of “it’s now or never”, comes more around 65 years of age.

So when you are 35 years old, and cupcake starts pressuring you more and more to have children, just say:
“Children?? Honey, I’m waaaaaayyy to young for that! I have the right to enjoy my life first a little, yes?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
RMM December 12, 2012 at 16:55

What I find interesting in the comment section is how often the idea that feminism, society, or whoever, “sold” women the bill of goods that said they could be mothers when they were old enough to be grandmothers.

Women don’t need anyone selling to buy into a delusion. The reason women shriek like banshees when medical data is brought up is not that they’re in denial (in the classical sense), but rather because they truly believe their wants is what determines reality. Shrieking is merely the method they have always used to get their way (along with tantrums, tears, threats, and other random displays of unbridled emotion).

Childish solipsism. I know it’s easy to forget at times that women are so incredibly childish, since they can vote and drive (as in, they are allowed to by law, not arguing whether they’re capable or competent at it), but that’s what’s happening here. They decide something is going to happen, and it is going to happen. Physics, Biology, and “menz mansplaining” be damned. And if something doesn’t go their way, then comes all the emotional torrent, because in their solipsistic minds the only reason their desired reality wouldn’t happen would be “someone” interferring with it – it’s the only thing they can imagine happening, and thus is the only thing they can accept.

As it turns out, men are qute useful for that last part, mostly because for much of their lives shrieking is all they’ve ever had to do to get their way. It’s very Pavlovian really; start from something not happening the way cupcake wants, inject a childish temper tantrum, and after a man does some man thing the original something that wasn’t happening suddenly happens. Conclusion: the man was obviously impeding her and the shrieking brought him in line.

But as it turns out, the natural order is rather unmoved by the hand wringing of the dearies. And since there’s only so much men can do to help with the late fertility “problem” (more of a “fact” really, but that’s a dirty word), it means men are holding them back. Scumbag patriarchy, tsk tsk tsk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Zorro December 12, 2012 at 17:04

Apparently their infertility isn’t all that shocks them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2247192/My-mortifying-moment-Christmas-party-hell-48-desperate.html

Talk about hitting the wall like a Ferrari with no brakes!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fubsy December 12, 2012 at 17:11

Why don’t these women just do what their “ageless” celebrity rolemodels do: adopt an orphan from Africa!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 12, 2012 at 17:26

Interesting article on MSN

The comments section is even more interesting. Perhaps our message is really getting out their ?

The conspiracy raging against men

One national newspaper writer has been railing against men. What lazy, cliched drivel…

http://him.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=40e8dae4-8dc9-4241-bcd2-e08f3f6959bb

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 12, 2012 at 17:35

“Nature has been very kind to the woman, giving her great sexual resources and a period of 30 years to reproduce (the possibility to have up to 15 children), as well as giving her nurturing capabilities that make her useful even in the old age (people do need grandmas). “-realist

At the turn of the 20th century, average life-span in the US for both men and women was around 50 (US Census). If people “needed” grandmas, grandmas wouldn’t have died so young, nor would they have lived only as long as grandpa.

The idea that people need grandmas is a new one, and promulgated by the usual source of social disinformation regarding the sexes. Their motivation is the recent 100 year old life expectancy advantage enjoyed now by women – an advantage that was bought with the lives and health of men. Since governments started thieving resources from men to buy female approval, and spending those stolen resources disproportionately on female welfare, female longevity has predictably increased over that of men. It is now an embarrassing 7-8 years.

Needless to say, such a glaring assault on men’s health has to be defended, and the feminist response has been to attempt to bed-in the female advantage as some kind of natural, unresolvable phenomenon. They argue it is a result of some kind of evolutionary advantage conferred by the social value of grandmothers (is that a giant hamster I can hear?)

It is this species of errant nonsense that eventually gets called, along with all the other sex-war rubbish, and I suspect in ways well beyond the ability of any of us to predict. Nature’s war on women will be in the form of consequences for their stupidity. The fact that legions of women are now barren, childless, increasingly friendless and reliant on a bankrupt government shows just how many fronts this war is opening up on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ecclesiastes December 12, 2012 at 18:05

I’m encouraged by “shocked”, but what I’m looking for is “devastated”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
brigadon December 12, 2012 at 19:11

Piercedhead@-

Once again, like so many others that try to quote ‘average lifespan’, you have failed to account for numbers skewing due to infant mortality.

The average lifespan of someone that does not have a birth defect or get killed by misadventure was 72. two hundred years ago that lifespan was 72. five hundred years ago that lifespan was 72. two thousand years ago that lifespan was 72.

Now, with over a hundred years of geriatric medicine in place, improved nutrition, and lifestyle enhancements we have managed to expand that lifespan to 74.

That’s right, the ‘natural’ average lifespan has only been increased by 2 years average.

If you want to compare lifespan averages including infant mortality and sanitation, you should also include in the ‘modern’ average lifespan, babies aborted, infant mortality, ‘sids’ deaths (a way to not send parents to jail for murder or child neglect), and essentially 20% of all sexual encounters using birth control. That would bring ‘today’s’ life expectancy down to about age 12.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian December 12, 2012 at 19:52

At the turn of the 20th century, average life-span in the US for both men and women was around 50 (US Census). If people “needed” grandmas, grandmas wouldn’t have died so young, nor would they have lived only as long as grandpa.

So true.

I know this as I was recently researching my family tree.

All 4 of my grandparents lived past the age of 75.

However, if I went back 2-3 generations nearly everyone in my family died in their 40s-50s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 12, 2012 at 20:28

“If you want to compare lifespan averages including infant mortality and sanitation, you should also include in the ‘modern’ average lifespan, babies aborted, infant mortality, ‘sids’ deaths (a way to not send parents to jail for murder or child neglect), and essentially 20% of all sexual encounters using birth control. That would bring ‘today’s’ life expectancy down to about age 12.”-brigadon

That is indeed an interesting calculation brigadon.

I readily concede that difficulties arise as soon as one uses raw data, though with it one at least minimises interpretation bias. I have often pondered, for example, how much longer men would outlive women if our governments had concentrated on eliminating military conscription, pointless wars, dangerous employments, capital punishment and imprisonment, gave male health problems priority, and awarded men all matrimonial property – whilst simultaneously making women more accountable for their actions and giving them the neglected end of social policy that we men currently occupy.

Alas, I find the project too prone to the workings of my imagination. Clearly I have no future as a government policy advisor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
realist December 12, 2012 at 20:37

Well, without grandmas (and grandpas) couples would have a pretty hard time raising kids. I was raised by grandparents to a large extent (a lot of work taking care of us was done by grandma) so that mother could work a regular job to put the bread on the table. And it’s the same for most families I know. It is the 1950s housewife that is a “new invention”, as prior to that women worked in the fields and factories, and after that 1950s model, women started working in professions. So most of the time in history, it was the grandparents who helped out and it is the same today in many cases. A lot of people couldn’t even afford to have children these days if they didn’t have grandmothers who would take care of them while the mother is working.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
realist December 12, 2012 at 20:40

And, btw, not too long ago and still in many countries, 40-45 year old women are grandmothers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH December 12, 2012 at 22:57

And, btw, not too long ago and still in many countries, 40-45 year old women are grandmothers.

Don’t forget this table.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 December 13, 2012 at 00:05

Zorro December 12, 2012 at 17:04

God heavens, Man – give a trigger warning next time!

A few things struck me about the article you linked.

The first is that if a man behaved the way she did at that party he would have been fired and possibly arrested. She was running around with mistletoe forcing kisses on much younger men, who she admits were recoiling in disgust. If a man admitted to that in the paper every fembot within 5000 miles would be calling it sexual assault.

The second is how horrible she looks – I am two years older than her and she could pass for MY mother. And you can bet that picture is what she looks like when she is “dolled up.” I shudder to think of how much of a party girl she must have been to look like that now: she is 48 but could easily be mistaken for a woman in her 60′s.

The third thing is the Catch-22 she’s in. She works out a lot, and so she probably has a decent body for a woman her age, but she has to hide it, because when a woman looks that old, flaunting her body is just pathetic.

The final bit is the fact that she knowingly spent the past several years with a (much older) married man. She’s lamenting the fact that she is growing old alone, but she was perfectly willing to foist that same fate upon the guy’s wife, who is probably 15-20 years older than she is.

realist December 12, 2012 at 20:40
And, btw, not too long ago and still in many countries, 40-45 year old women are grandmothers.

You don’t even have to go that far afield. There are plenty of welfare grandmothers in the projects in the 28-35 range(!). And it’s not just the ethnic underclass, either. One of my very white sisters-in-law got knocked up at 20, then one of her daughters got knocked up at 16, so she was in her early 40′s when she first became a grandmother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon December 13, 2012 at 02:52

@Piercedhead-
“Alas, I find the project too prone to the workings of my imagination. Clearly I have no future as a government policy advisor.”

Actually, based upon history, having an active and fertile imagination is perhaps the ONLY way to succeed as a policy advisor. An active imagination and complete disregard for logic and facts.

Sorry for flying off the handle, as a history fanatic (I am not a professional. There ARE no history professionals anymore, just tenured politicians and propaganda distributors) There are a few things that trigger my rant button.

The ‘average age of death’ long ago (almost always presented skewed by infant mortality and death by misadventure/disease)

the ‘average human height’ (European heights have increased about 2 inches in the last 300 years, mostly due to nutrition.) (Mostly the myth comes from preserved plate armor… the problem is, all of the best-preserved examples were made for children.. real plate armor tended to last until ‘failure’, and the death of the owner. Measurements of entombed bodies have shown that among those who had enough nutrition, height remains virtually unchanged from the modern era.)

“Women were not allowed to vote” patently and utterly false. I have no idea where feminism got this idea, they must have made it out of whole cloth. Women were allowed to vote per landowner family exactly as men were, they just rarely exercised that right.

“Women were not allowed to own property.” also false. In most cultures unmarried women were allowed all the rights of a man. socially, of course, they were far more protected, but legally? sex was virtually irrelevant unless you were married, and then father made the decisions as ‘head of household’ (Which, as anyone who reads classic literature knows, means that usually the woman was the actual head of the household, and the man was the shield she hid behind in case of trouble)

And of course, my favorite, “the Catholic church oppressed women, suppressed research, or started or encouraged the dark ages.”. That’s the one I have the most fun with. You would not believe how much that load of crap gets bandied about, ESPECIALLY by ‘goddess worshippers’, “Wiccans” and anyone that wants to try and discredit anything religious.

Oh, and anyone that tries to claim that ‘new age religions’ are in any way, shape, or form tied to ‘the old religions’. Religion and history go hand-in-hand, Always have, and I suspect they always will. Even though I am an Athiest, I am totally interested and have intensively studied the way religion shapes governance.

Obviously, I find a lot of excuses to Rant, heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 13, 2012 at 04:03

Ann Clwyd: my husband died like a battery hen in hospital Labour MP tells of inhumane treatment and says she fears normalisation of cruelty now rife among NHS nurses ( female nurses by far )

Describing how her 6’2” husband lay crushed “like a battery hen” against the bars of his hospital bed with an oxygen mask so small it cut into his face and pumped cold air into his infected eye, Clwyd said nurses treated the dying man with “coldness, resentment, indifference and even contempt”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/04/ann-clwyd-husband-died-hen

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
grimtales December 13, 2012 at 04:21

I read a lot of data and most of the modern young women(more than 75%) don’t know this.This article is true and every feminist i know chose to ignore this.Especially girls raised by single mothers never believe in their mortality,youth and fertility.This is natural selection ..man..the haters are going to be extinct slowly

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 13, 2012 at 06:38

re : grandparents caring for children

I’ve seen this a lot in Asia, as well as among the Mexican-Hispanic population that I live in. Just a perception but most of the working Hispanic women I have seen drop their kids off with grandma before going to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus December 13, 2012 at 07:22

At the other end of the spectrum, women who were quite old enough to reproduce are seeking compensation from the BBC for having thrown themselves at an Alpha male. Sadly the said male is no longer with us and cannot be prosecuted. I wonder how many of Sir Saville’s ‘victims’ are now frantically seeking IVF treatment, having pursued their corporate careers to redundancy. No matter, Gay marriage is now upon us, but what is the government going to do to help me become pregnant? It must be my human right to do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RTP December 13, 2012 at 09:45

Although clearing joking earlier, I was somewhat serious.

Women prolong the outward signs of aging (coupled with grrrl powa) and have convinced themselves subconsciously that this should preserve their innards.

But, but, but I look just like I did at 25!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Skadhi the Raverner December 13, 2012 at 12:20

Opus mentions Jimmy Saville, though it would be controversial to do so, someone should look at that case from the MRM angle IMO. People were actually calling for his dead bones to be exhumed and burned, FFS, just for having consensual sex with girls.

As for the article, that’s what ‘liberation’ does to women. They end up spending god knows how much, trying to grow a kid on a petri dish like a lesbian couple, and still failing cause they put ideals before nature and sought a career.

There’s people infertile who can’t afford IVF but here are single old bags bitching cause they threw their fertile years away, and still got to waste thousands like that. Don’t life really, really suck?

A lot of these women will be single mothers too if it is successful – access to IVF isn’t restricted to couples. Granted it isn’t single motherhood per se that is the social problem, but unstable homes and serial polygamy, but without a stable father figure guarenteed IVF should not be provided at all. The rights of children must come first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 14, 2012 at 15:56

Women whose families have spent hundred of thousands of dollars to educate them at the best schools, women who have been raised so carefully and with such constant attention, are more ignorant about basic biological facts concerning the human body THAN WOMEN WHO ARE RAISED WITHOUT ELECTRICITY OR RUNNING WATER.

Birth Control makes women stupid about their biology because they never experience their biology.

When you try to present these women with statistics and the tools for risk assessment, they lash out at you that you are “judging” and they can live their life as they see fit.

Well yes, you can. But all I was doing was pointing out the things you should take into consideration before making that choice.

They’ve divorced risk assessment from making choices – and society lets them.

I guess its not that amazing to me considering how entrenched in this ideology these people are. To them, actions do not have consequences. Turns out the government can’t protect them from science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella December 14, 2012 at 17:03

‘Birth Control makes women stupid about their biology because they never experience their biology.’

A very good point!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean December 16, 2012 at 09:44

I’m not shocked that women are shocked. They’ve been drinking the feminist Kool Aid for the last 40 years which tells them, “Arbeit Macht Frei, (work will set you free). That if they have careers then men will want them more just as it works for men. Only it doesn’t work that way.

Men aren’t attracted to women’s money and if we were they wouldn’t want us anyway.

What a career does is position a woman to meet a higher status male. Only there’s always more men of higher status at the next promotion. I think many of these women aren’t consciously choosing to forgo marriage and children until they find the “best man,” but instead are mindlessly heeding the call of hypergamy.

That said, I think it’s good news that these women are now barren and struggling from their own choices. There is no patriarchal conspiracy to blame for their problems. There are no “boogey men” to scapegoat for why her lady parts don’t function anymore. It’s nature. It’s always been nature. It will continue to be nature.

Now excuse me while I walk around with a smug look on my face all day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nugganu December 21, 2012 at 11:58

The rise of the spinsters is real and is happening now. It’s kind of like an urban zombie apocalypse. Lots of 40 something, tired and worn out Carrie types from Sex in the City wondering about with bad makeup jobs and the thousand cock stare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nugganu December 21, 2012 at 12:01

I read an article which interviewed a doctor at a fertility clinic – he states that a 43 year old woman getting pregnant, even with the treatments, is the equivalent to winning a lottery – she has about a 2% chance. He also said she has a 52% chance of having a miscarriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno December 26, 2012 at 05:54

Don’t think too quickly that a 43-year-old woman cannot get pregnant.

If she does get pregnant, she’ll consider it as “a sign form God” that she should get a(nother) child, or her last shot at the child support jackpot (again).

She’ll certainly want to keep the child, whether you like it or not.

And if you say: “But… but,… at your age, you have a very high risk for birth defects and handicaps!”
She will laugh and answer: It’s all in God’s hands!”, because she KNOWS that YOU will have to pay up for that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno December 26, 2012 at 06:30

The laughter is a sadistic laughter.

She’s enjoying the terror and panic in your eyes, and your face turning whiter than a sheet of paper.

You think paying child support is expensive?

Try thinking about how much child support costs for a disabled child with “special needs”.

There will literally never come an end to the amount of money that she can legally squeeze out of you.

Until the day you die.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lee September 15, 2013 at 18:56

Men, just like women should conceive before age of 35 to prevent mutation. Old balls equals poor quality sperm. Sperm decline at age 35. Look it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: