@AvocadoPanic's banner p

AvocadoPanic


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 10 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:43:37 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 550

AvocadoPanic


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 10 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:43:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 550

Verified Email

It is seen as empowering and feminist to socially pressure women into denying one of the most natural human impulses, that of having and raising children, so that they can get more educated and make more money.

This is often reinforced by the meme that as a woman you should not be dependent on a man. In my experience this does a disservice to those who believe it. My wife and I are mutually dependent on each-other, in our complimentary domains. She's been a full-time homemaker the past 8 years. One of her friends from uni, who is now literally a witch, was shocked to hear that she is dependent on me financially.

I see it as the value she provides to our home and our four children far exceeds the value of her working for an employer. We'd be unable to pay a person of equivalent caliber to perform the work she does for our family.

I wanted an Atari 2600 what I got was a Magnavox Odyssey 2.

Then later I had a NES.

My children now have a Switch and a xbox.

From my time in Ireland I'd add Savita Halappanavar's death and the ban on turf cutting.

To claim that modern society has devalued motherhood and femininity, or made them low status, is completely backwards.

Is your argument that modern society values motherhood more? That there have never been so few women per capita becoming mothers, to me is evidence against this.

Complementarianism, may be expressed more now, I suspect for much of existence it went without saying, but was no less true.

They barely had the conceptual framework to understand mental illness in the first place.

Are the current year frameworks better or just different?

Unless there's some identifiable treatable organic cause for the anxiety, mood or personality disorder might the patient improve just as well be guarding against and rebuking the demons of pride, envy, sloth, lust, etc? Especially if most of the available therapy interventions perform as well as each other.

100% of businesses that go bankrupt were started

100% of successful businesses were also started

I'm not sure this a a very descriptive or useful corralation.

This paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00589-6

has a nice visualization of the flows of inputs.

/images/1714930968548955.webp

Do you have any data? All the graphs and studies I've seen seem to show tfr declining with increased education / work outside the home.

same reason men

Men frequently want careers / success to improve their likelihood of reproductive success. Career success can even offset other deficits, short stature, asymmetry, etc.

Does education / career improve women's odds of reproductive success?

The beef lobby claim

7% of total corn produced in the U.S. is fed to feedlot cattle

Corn acreage used to feed feedlot cattle is 0.2% of total U.S. land area, 1.4% of total U.S. cropland acres, and 7% of total U.S. harvested corn acres.

The problem is the 7% of corn acres?

Does the bacteria in the cow that releases methane, release more methane than would be released by the natural decomposition of the forage material?

Certainly. It's also likely a proxy for 'class'.

To @crushedoranges question then, I don't believe harlots would lead with their pornography credentials unless their targets are similarly credentialed. Any sex industry involvement is a disqualifyer for many men seeking a wife.

I think attraction to physical characteristics plays a role it can be more subtle than simply having two breasts are like two fawns, twins of the gazelle grazing among the lilies...

There had been 'research' that purported to show men ranked women as more attractive when the women's faces looked more like the men. In my own experience n=1 this is true. Though I did not notice / realize until several other people, friends, family drew my attention to the similarities. Then I saw it too.

I'm not sure I see evidence for this. Men and women are both created in the image of God.

Women historically had been protected or privileged over men in things likely to result in death like drowning on a sinking ship, or serving in combat.

This is the point that @omw_68 made to me in a private message that was perhaps meant to be a reply here.

... if a society has a choice between sacrificing a random woman and sacrificing a random man, most choose a man. And that's been the case for thousands of years based on looking at who is expected to do dangerous jobs such as military service or mining coal.

In other words, it's pretty clear to me that to the extent one had to choose who is seen as superior, at least in terms of value and at least in the West, women have always been seen as superior to men.

Much of the the forage would exist in any event.

I read OP's post

Motherhood needs to be far more prestigious than any career.

and this had been the case when tfr was higher, though I don't see that @Tenaz actually makes this argument.

To claim that modern society has devalued motherhood and femininity, or made them low status, is completely backwards.

This disagreement with OP leads me to believe @To_Mandalay also believes that @Tenaz has said that motherhood was more valued before 'modern society'.

Though I don't see that he says it I read OP to mean the perceived 'value' of motherhood had declined from the past to the present. @To_Mandalay disagreeing could mean that perceived value had increased over time. Hence my question.

Motherhood and femininity in general have been devalued for as long as patriarchy has existed, so pretty much the whole of human history.

I now take this to mean that @To_Mandalay means the perceived value of motherhood has been flat or unchanged because the patriarchy. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

More chicken in the US, which also seems to use more cereals. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58312

They optimize their revenue by using land that is best suited for the purpose. If beef weren't the most productive / renumerative use it'd likely already be used for something else.

Much of the land used for grazing would be unsuitable for other agricultural purposes. Without the ranching the land would be unproductive. How do cows produce carbon monoxide?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I believe the bacteria in cows produce less methane when fed corn than their typical forage. The forage would decompose releasing methane if not eaten by cows. Cattle graze and forage on land unsuitable for other uses. We may get the CH4 anyway and there would be no beef. Deer, elk, bison and moose may then forage the areas with the cow deficit.

May have been increased turnout from a specific demographic group that were supporting Obama.

Yes.

Though this comment didn't.

It's things like this that make me suspicious that EA is especially beset with Dunning–Kruger.

While I enjoy the image of chicken drives with mounted riders moving their herds flocks of chickens from pasture to pasture I suspect there are reasons this isn't done.

Absent cows it's more likely the forage would be consumed by other existing ruminants, bison, deer, elk, moose, etc.

Presumably we could see a bimodal distribution of fertility, though I don't believe we do. Most of graphs I've seen look more like a dose response curve.

Inferior in what sense or to what end? Would be a more sensible response than agreement.

Inferior typically applies between variations of a type or catagory, and then often for a specific use. Horses would make inferior men, and men inferior horses. Your usage makes little sense.

Inferior at breast feeding or baby having?