this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
426 points (96.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1919 readers
458 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your response was, "Won't somebody think of the men!?" I think you need to sit this one out, bro.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Shut the fuck up permanently you goddamned weirdo.
False. I never said that. I never implored anyone to “think about the men”, or tried to leverage an intellectually bankrupt zero-sum argument like you did.
I said, “is no-one disturbed by the blatant hypocrisy?”
I don’t care about men being ignored. Society treats men as worthless unless they are providing something of value, so ignoring men is par for the course anyhow.
I just hate inequality and bigoted double standards.
Ah, let me guess - you know nothing about human reproduction and basic biology, no?
Helpful hint: look up the term “geriatric pregnancy”. And look at the statistics of female fertility - without the aid of modern medicine - after 35. Spoiler: it drops off a cliff, and most women are functionally sterile by 40-45.
Stuff like this is covered in post-secondary biology classes at most any university. And it’s not even in the advanced classes - if memory serves, it was a second-year class where I came across this info.
None of that merits a response.
Ah, the “sour grapes because I have nothing to counter with” argument.
Still, you did take the high(er) road, in that you did not descend to an ad hominem as so many ideologically blinkered people do when their core brainwashing is directly challenged with real-world evidence. For avoiding that, I must actually commend you. So pick up a textbook and bone up on facts, and you won’t be caught with your intellectual pants down again.
You can give birth even in your 50s safely. I know an OBGYN who specializes in senior pregnancies and had 2 herself that were totally fine. Most women are not sterile then, and even if that were true, 40-45 is a different window than 35 like you originally claimed. We have plenty of fertility treatments that can help with conception anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#:~:text=9%20External%20links-,History,%22MGTOW%20Manifesto%22%20in%202001.
MGTOW isnt being an introvert, or ascetic, or a priest or monk. All those things are already socially allowed for men and are much similar to 4B. Feminism is equal rights for the sexes. Women are protesting their enslavement by toxic masculinity with 4B. Men are protesting their lack of control of women with MGTOW, because its a protest of feminism. Do you really truly think this is equivalent? Lol. Do you really need to play the vulnerable narcissist card here?
Have you ever seen Alien? That movie was about forced birth. Do you think a movement that expressly wants to force birth on women by fighting against their rights is the same morally as a movement that wants to stop forced birth on women?
I never denied that. However, pregnancies that had no modern medical involvement in its creation become very rare after the age of 40, and vanishingly rare after the age of 50.
To wit,
“The rate of decline accelerates around the age of 35 and the vast majority of women are essentially infertile by the time they reach 45,”
I claimed that pregnancies after 35 are called “geriatric pregnancies”, and that is due to the risks that they bring. This is a medical term, used throughout the industry for pregnancies after the age of 35
And fertility begins to drop noticeably after 32, and really begins to plummet after 35.
If you’re going to be referencing a hate screed by misandrists - and yes, almost every sentence of the Wikipedia article is either a gross exaggeration, a deliberate mischaracterization, or an outrightght lie - then you are operating wholly in bad faith.
It’s a female supremacist movement.
And there is that outright mischaracterization, which is pretty much bordering on a lie, that I was expecting. Most MGTOW have no strong opinion against abortion, because a female exercising her right to abort can also release the man from a quarter century’s worth of unwilling financial enslavement. And many are fully in favour of abortion rights for both genders… which include paper abortions for men, which bring near-complete parity and equality of that right to both sexes.
Thanks for confirming exactly the type of person you are, it's really helpful for people that want to be certain that they won't lose anything of worth by blocking you.
Your source you linked states that women can give birth after 45 and your claim was wrong they are "essentially infertile."
You said the upper limit for a woman's fertile window was 35. It isn't. Per your sources. Glad you admit that now.
Noticeably how? What exactly are you noticing?
Lol well female supremacy is meaningless in a patriarchy anyway, even if that were true about feminism (it isn't).
Again, MGTOW isn't the same as being an introvert or an ascetic or an asexual. It quite literally is an antifeminist antiwoman movement per the definition and origin and people who ascribe to it. Maybe don't label yourself as one and just call yourself asexual like a normal person.
Some women can. Most can’t without modern medical help. Again: I already specified that. And by the age of 50, almost no women can get pregnant without modern medical help.
The article even says that most women are essentially infertile by the age of 45. So it’s clear that you didn’t read it at all.
Aaaand there is the outright lying
Nope, never said that. Point out exactly where, then. But you can’t.
What I said is that a pregnancy after 35 is called a geriatric pregnancy by the medical system. And that the optimal wjndow for pregnancies - for them to happen easily, and without major complications - is between 15 and 35.
Because - had you been truly unbiased - you would have pointed out that pregnancies before the age of 15 are possible as well. Because they are, they just aren’t safe or healthy to have.
Ergo, the optimum fertility window for most women is between 15 and 35. Outside of which it becomes materially more risky and unlikely to happen. And after the age of 40 to 45, vanishingly unlikely.
You originally just said
This isn't true, which is why you had to change your phrasing to include "optimum.". We even have cases of women much younger than that and much older than that who gave birth. Those are just averages that you listed. They are not prescriptive for every case or descriptive. They are a statistical average. Idk how to be more clear.
15 is not a safe age to have a pregnancy (and you sound like a pedophile saying it). There are numerous complications girls can have at that age resulting in death because they literally aren't developed enough. Your bone density peaks at 29 for women. Your hips develop that whole time. Girls that young have very soft bones comparatively.
They include 15 because that's the age girls can have a baby develop, not be delivered safely. You creep.