Calling all MRA's...

[DaveDodo007]

No one ever seems to consider the negatives of granting equality to women, such as when women are given a choice the birthrate falls dangerously close to non replacement levels.
It's almost like granting them equality leads to the destruction of societies that do.

Oh really?

So you would consider a society that barely replaced its population to be destructive but not one that over-populated itself into starvation and poverty? Interesting? Or, as I prefer to call it, more of the same ill-thought-through garbage from our resident say-all-know-nothing.

Tyrannical does have a point even if it is not PC. Over population is not a cause of poverty just their corrupt governments, you can't deny woman's rights just because it may have a negative impact on society as everybody deserves equal rights but why can't you point out that you think it has had a negative impact on society?

How is a steady-state population negative? On the contrary, for most countries, it is the ideal!

There are only a very few countries with actually decreasing populations: Russia and much of Eastern Europe (although this is heavily skewed by emigration), South Africa (where the high volume of HIV infection is cited as the primary cause) and Japan (which is just a weird place where men prefer fucking latex dolls!)

Funny you should mention Japan as it is having problems due to the phenomena known as herbivore men (yes just blame the men and forget about women's hypergamy.) It is a culture that doesn't normally do immigration so population is going to be a problem. The rest of the West is in no better shape as they have falling populations but show me a politician who is pro immigration and watch him lose the election. So as you were saying.

[DaveDodo007]

No one ever seems to consider the negatives of granting equality to women, such as when women are given a choice the birthrate falls dangerously close to non replacement levels.
It's almost like granting them equality leads to the destruction of societies that do.

Oh really?

So you would consider a society that barely replaced its population to be destructive but not one that over-populated itself into starvation and poverty? Interesting? Or, as I prefer to call it, more of the same ill-thought-through garbage from our resident say-all-know-nothing.

Tyrannical does have a point even if it is not PC. Over population is not a cause of poverty just their corrupt governments, you can't deny woman's rights just because it may have a negative impact on society as everybody deserves equal rights but why can't you point out that you think it has had a negative impact on society?

If you go out of your way to quack and waddle like a duck, you shouldn't be too offended if someone calls you a duck.

By definition, "overpopulation" causes problems. It means there are too many people for the situation. It might mean too many people for the available resources, or it could also mean that the government, culture, and/or infrastructure cannot deal with the reproductive rate.

And you can't really expect a great reaction from saying "Things would be better if you didn't have reproductive rights" any more than I could expect a good reaction from you if I said "Things would be better if apostates like you were taken out and shot" and I was doing so in a nation where your apostate status was well known and there were a frightening number of elected hardcore religious assholes in the government working hard to pass legislation to have people like you taken out and shot.

You might very well respond warmly to that argument and initiate a friendly debate on the merits of it, but I'd have no reasonable basis to expect a friendly reaction from apostates in general.

Further, you cannot, even in principle, prove high reproductive rates do not cause poverty anywhere and that the sole cause of poverty in "overpopulated" areas is corruption. You might argue that there is no good evidence that they do cause poverty and you also can try to make the case that known levels government corruption are sufficient to to explain all of that poverty.



But then you also have to make the case that "dangerously close to non-replacement levels" is actually a bad thing. That is, what great danger is there in a slight decline in population, (one that is dangerously close to exceeding replacement levels for example) especially in resource hungry industrialised urban areas? That's a hard case to make I think.

After you do all that you still haven't established that, if needed, enough women couldn't be persuaded to have more children by an appeal to the greater good or through incentives to bear whatever increased levels of children are necessary to carry on civilisation.

It seems to me that there are a lot of hoops to jump through before you can talk about whether or not women's reproductive freedom is a bad thing without quacking and waddling suspiciously like the kind of duck that is just resentful about women having the right to limit the number of children they bear.

High density populations UK and China, are people staving there or not?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

[Robert_S]

High density populations UK and China, are people staving there or not?

China has a unique view on reproductive rights and they apparently had a rougher time with feeding everyone before they instituted it.

Africa. Rwanda. More and more people trying to eke out livings on smaller and smaller plots of land. Bad times.

But then that's just starvation. What about quality of life and long term ecological\stability?

[JimC]

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

This is all getting a little Scrumplesque!

[DaveDodo007]

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

Nothing at all, I just thought you were linking high populations with poverty that's all.

[DaveDodo007]

High density populations UK and China, are people staving there or not?

China has a unique view on reproductive rights and they apparently had a rougher time with feeding everyone before they instituted it.

Africa. Rwanda. More and more people trying to eke out livings on smaller and smaller plots of land. Bad times.

But then that's just starvation. What about quality of life and long term ecological\stability?

I was just pointing out that high populations don't necessary lead to poverty, ecological damage is a different matter all together.

[Robert_S]

High density populations UK and China, are people staving there or not?

China has a unique view on reproductive rights and they apparently had a rougher time with feeding everyone before they instituted it.

Africa. Rwanda. More and more people trying to eke out livings on smaller and smaller plots of land. Bad times.

But then that's just starvation. What about quality of life and long term ecological\stability?

I was just pointing out that high populations don't necessary lead to poverty, ecological damage is a different matter all together.

It's all down to the situation, which might vary greatly.

Anyway, I was trying to point out that someone might draw conclusions based on bringing up that subject without necessarily being too steeped in a college/blogosphere type bourgeois radfem paranoia. It can just as easily be a case of "Oh no, not this shit... again ".

[Robert_S]

Sorta relevant: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/10/m ... fails-men/

[Robert_S]

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

Nothing at all, I just thought you were linking high populations with poverty that's all.

Here in the US, there is a correlation between poverty and anti-choice attitudes by state. It may or may not be causation, but I imagine a young woman being shoved into motherhood before she's ready might have a detrimental effect on her long term earning capacity. Same thing with a young man who suddenly has to worry about being a breadwinner. Get enough people in those positions and it ends up being statistically significant.

Before I go much further, I have to ask: When you tried to discuss population size with those feminists, did you frame it as a downside to reproductive freedom or as a response to gloom and doom overpopulation predictions?

[DaveDodo007]

Sorta relevant: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/10/m ... fails-men/

Yay a blog post so it must be true. I stopped reading after the second paragraph as I didn't want to spoil his fun at knocking down strawmen. If MRAs are 'women haters' just for being for men's rights then aren't feminist 'men haters.' Also A voice for men are not the menosphere they are just a small group of Canadians. Still they have quite a few women on board who are recognized as leaders in the field aka girl writes what, typhoon blue etc, there is a whole podcast 'honey badger radio' is fronted by women who must hate themselves and their whole gender. I'm surprised you picked this blog site as there are thousands of MSM who are willing to do a hit piece on the manosphere. Not that MGTOWs give a shit as we realize long ago that we were disposable and would never get any traction from the MSM or governments and that's why the 'movement' came about in the first place.

[DaveDodo007]

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

Nothing at all, I just thought you were linking high populations with poverty that's all.

Here in the US, there is a correlation between poverty and anti-choice attitudes by state. It may or may not be causation, but I imagine a young woman being shoved into motherhood before she's ready might have a detrimental effect on her long term earning capacity. Same thing with a young man who suddenly has to worry about being a breadwinner. Get enough people in those positions and it ends up being statistically significant.

Before I go much further, I have to ask: When you tried to discuss population size with those feminists, did you frame it as a downside to reproductive freedom or as a response to gloom and doom overpopulation predictions?

The only problem here is you think the USA is the norm rather than a outlier.

[Robert_S]

Sorta relevant: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/10/m ... fails-men/

Yay a blog post so it must be true. I stopped reading after the second paragraph as I didn't want to spoil his fun at knocking down strawmen. If MRAs are 'women haters' just for being for men's rights then aren't feminist 'men haters.' Also A voice for men are not the menosphere they are just a small group of Canadians. Still they have quite a few women on board who are recognized as leaders in the field aka girl writes what, typhoon blue etc, there is a whole podcast 'honey badger radio' is fronted by women who must hate themselves and their whole gender. I'm surprised you picked this blog site as there are thousands of MSM who are willing to do a hit piece on the manosphere. Not that MGTOWs give a shit as we realize long ago that we were disposable and would never get any traction from the MSM or governments and that's why the 'movement' came about in the first place.

I stopped reading all that manosphere shit when they started talking Red Pill Blue Pill. They're both fucking capsules full of Kool Aid I don't acquire my views in package deals.

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

Nothing at all, I just thought you were linking high populations with poverty that's all.

Here in the US, there is a correlation between poverty and anti-choice attitudes by state. It may or may not be causation, but I imagine a young woman being shoved into motherhood before she's ready might have a detrimental effect on her long term earning capacity. Same thing with a young man who suddenly has to worry about being a breadwinner. Get enough people in those positions and it ends up being statistically significant.

Before I go much further, I have to ask: When you tried to discuss population size with those feminists, did you frame it as a downside to reproductive freedom or as a response to gloom and doom overpopulation predictions?

The only problem here is you think the USA is the norm rather than a outlier.

I know we're weird here. I live here among the weirdos. But we're still more or less human. Sorta.

So, how, among those areas that you are familiar with doing that don't have reproductive rights for women vs those that do? And I mean rights as in under the law as well as consequences in the family and community and access to the materials and information.

[Audley Strange]

I've been following this quietly, took an interesting turn for a bit. Personally I think women's reproductive rights is a fascinating case study because the places that give women most reproductive freedoms are those who do not have basic resource scarcity. That such cultures give women the most support both ante-natal and post natal, gives their children much better chances than elsewhere in the globe and yet the birth rate is dropping in these places. This suggests that given opportunity women would be more inclined to have less children. Since we can see cultures which do not afford such benefits to women often suffer from overpopulation poverty and child mortality one could safely reason that supporting women's reproductive rights reduces all three. However in order to grant women reproductive rights one has to see them as equal and funnily enough most of those cultures do not.

A real fight, a real concern and struggle, but too much effort when you can just bitch about Miley Cyrus or what some dick said on twitter and claim hero points from the "brethren" or "sisterhood".

[DaveDodo007]

Sorta relevant: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/10/m ... fails-men/

Yay a blog post so it must be true. I stopped reading after the second paragraph as I didn't want to spoil his fun at knocking down strawmen. If MRAs are 'women haters' just for being for men's rights then aren't feminist 'men haters.' Also A voice for men are not the menosphere they are just a small group of Canadians. Still they have quite a few women on board who are recognized as leaders in the field aka girl writes what, typhoon blue etc, there is a whole podcast 'honey badger radio' is fronted by women who must hate themselves and their whole gender. I'm surprised you picked this blog site as there are thousands of MSM who are willing to do a hit piece on the manosphere. Not that MGTOWs give a shit as we realize long ago that we were disposable and would never get any traction from the MSM or governments and that's why the 'movement' came about in the first place.

I stopped reading all that manosphere shit when they started talking Red Pill Blue Pill. They're both fucking capsules full of Kool Aid I don't acquire my views in package deals.

I was saying, what is wrong with a stable, or even slowly falling population? Aren't there enough of us on this globe? Should we just keep making more and more people forever?

Sooner or later, all populations will decline, either naturally and slowly, or quickly and dramatically!

Nothing at all, I just thought you were linking high populations with poverty that's all.

Here in the US, there is a correlation between poverty and anti-choice attitudes by state. It may or may not be causation, but I imagine a young woman being shoved into motherhood before she's ready might have a detrimental effect on her long term earning capacity. Same thing with a young man who suddenly has to worry about being a breadwinner. Get enough people in those positions and it ends up being statistically significant.

Before I go much further, I have to ask: When you tried to discuss population size with those feminists, did you frame it as a downside to reproductive freedom or as a response to gloom and doom overpopulation predictions?

The only problem here is you think the USA is the norm rather than a outlier.

I know we're weird here. I live here among the weirdos. But we're still more or less human. Sorta.

So, how, among those areas that you are familiar with doing that don't have reproductive rights for women vs those that do? And I mean rights as in under the law as well as consequences in the family and community and access to the materials and information.

Best to avoid all the red pill/blue pill matrix bullshit. It's more like any man involved in a relationship has to put love on hold and do a cost/benefit analysis before he advances the relationship. A man also has to know the the system is not his friend and not to feed it if at all possible.

Apart from the hardcore religious, I'll wager that the difference between religious and non-religious contraception use is very small. We all know how they like to cherry pick their doctrines.