Is it amusing that the more they listen to feminists, the more of an evolutionary dead end a woman becomes?

Question

Just looking through the statistics on childlessness in women in different categories and couldn't help but notice three interesting things:

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/fertility/p20-526/tab03.txt

ALL MARITAL CLASSES

Not a high school graduate : 12.3% Childless
High school, 4 years 14.5% Childless
Some college, no degree 17.1% Childless
Associate degree : 21.0% Childless
Bachelors degree : 27.2% Childless
Graduate or professional degree : 35.6% Childless

Not in labor force : 9.1% Childless
Farming, forestry and fishing : 13.4% Childless
Service occupations : 11.2% Childless
Managerial and professional : 18.3% Childless

WOMEN NEVER MARRIED:

Unemployed or not in labor force : 46.6% Childless
Managerial and professional : 85.3% Childless

So.. more educated - less children. Higher status job - less children. Not married - less children.

Not married, in high status job (feminists will love you), 4 to 5 odds of never having children.

Good for evolution, yes?

One thing about Alpha males is that they are destined to make up a large part of the gene pool because they make attractive mates. Why are feminists calling these women "Alpha females", when they clearly don't share the same characteristics. Face it feminists, you're beta women. hahaa

uh didn't you just prove my point there Rebel Yell?

Answer 1

No. Actually I went to college, have many male friends, work on construction sites as a painter, and may never have a need to breed or live in a mansion. The news makes me sick, but I love rock and roll. I love being feminine and am very straight. I am happy. Is that OK with you? Oh yeah...I don't really give a sh*T

Answer 2

So what? The world is crowded enough as it is. There will always be women to keep the species going. It's not like we all have to do it. The more affluent a women is, the less need she has for a husband, therefore she feels confident enough to go through life without one. Very simple. I, personally, would much rather have a career than a child.

Answer 3

Well, first of all, the myth that women can "have it all" is just that, a myth. Women need to realize that you can't have a stellar career and a family. Men used to be able to do both because they had wives at home taking care of the kids. Unless career women have a "wife", it ain't happening.

The "feminist" focus on getting women into the work force had its time and place, but we need to start taking back our rightful throne: in the home. Remember the phrase "if mama ain't happy, no one is"? Intelligent, educated women need to get over the stigma associate with home-making and realize that being a wife and mother doesn't dis-empower you.

As for the rest of the statistics...Yes, its horribly sad that the educated and competent folk aren't breeding. I don't know what to do about it other than have 5 kids of my own. Sadly my husband is sterile.

I think in general people who are better educated have more goals and their lives have broader ranges of meaning than people who are not exposed to a lot of outside influences (i.e., uneducated mostly religion folk). Typically having a "family" is the primary focus and thing that ads meaning to these people's lives.

Maybe we should start a " high IQ breeding program" in our colleges? Something clearly needs to be done, however, because the more stupid people breed, the more likely we are to have a population that is made up mostly of idiots.

How else do you explain the election of George W. Twat into office? Aside from him stealing the election, that is. But I digress...

The other problem which I'm sure adds to the statistics you quoted is the fact that by the time most educated, feminist-type, professional women decide to ditch the career and have that well planned family, they experience more trouble getting impregnated as a result of starting so much later in life.

As for the evolutionary dead-end of feminism? If it leads to the death of the brand of feminism that demoniezs traditional female gender roles then I say hallelujah! The quest to eliminate all gender roles is short-sided at best and an outright lie at worse. Men are women are equal but we sure as hell aren't the SAME. Any and all attempts to make us so are mis-guided.

Still thought, the tendency of smart people to avoid breeding is a bit alarming....

Answer 4

Wendy is absolutely right in her observation there. i don't think that anti marriage women haters is good for evolution, or to keep population levels up.

you know why educated women have less kids? cause they are educated, and know about birth control and condoms! uneducated women and teenage girls are often hoodwinked into thinking it "will be ok if i pull out before i come!" or "you cant get pregnant on the first go".

and aren't you always going on about the evils of single mothers? so why do you care if unmarried women never have children? every post you make, you contradict yourself. get a life and stop looking like a tosser every time you type a sentence.

Answer 5

Evolution has nothing to do with it. You mean population deflation or decrease. And isn't it funny...the uneducated women have more children, not only because they're uneducated, but also because they usually marry uneducated and thoughtless husbands who are only seemingly good at the beginning of the relationship, but are really only in the relationship for one thing. The husbands pressure their wives to become more sexually active, giving more chances for a child to be made, and thus, several children are born, because the uneducated father pressured the uneducated mother to sleep with him more often, because he probably didn't think of the consequences or didn't care, ensuring that most of his children will too be uneducated, leaving this cycle to repeat many times, leaving the world with a myriad of uneducated, impoverished children, women, and men. Haha. I find that more humorous than the original question. And besides, the world's population has already increased enough. It has increased oh...I don't know...maybe a bit over twice it's original size, and we don't need any more people in the world, polluting it, killing it, or using more resources. I say "Good Job!" to the feminists. Without them, you sex-driven men will have the population driven up to a capacity unsupportable by this earth. *yawn* I've had fun writing this...

Very funny. I got a thumbs down. Does that mean I've made some angry little man angry because I called them sex-driven? Whoever did it, you must have seen the trait in yourself to be negatively affected by it, making my point all the more true. *giggles*

Answer 6

it would seem. yet homosexuality has been with us for all of recorded time. that's a secret. yet evolution isn't, there is a hundred and fifty years of excellent technology in the back of it. And sensible layout demands the incidence of irreducible complexity. No examples have been discovered. Evolution does require procreation, probably. Homosexuality exists, probably. go determine!

Answer 7

Maybe the more educated the women the less likely she is to have Unwanted pregnancies?

Maybe the women in managerial position are of European descent and part of majority culture who believe that having no children or 2.3 children is typical whereas those who are not in labor force are those typically in poverty. Those typically in poverty, because of oppression, are woman of color whose culture says they should have children and more children at that.

You are assuming a link that does not exist. You cannot prove that having a high paid job makes the woman less likely to have children, it could be a variety of other factors.

And to reply to your comment. Who created the term alpha male and defined it? Men. You are working from a biased viewpoint an it is making you unreasonable and unscientific in your assumptions.

EDIT: And to respond to the article posted below. Just because Americans with no scientific background believe correlation equals causation doesn't make it true. And just because some scientists want to believe this to make their work easier it still doesn't make it true. Anyone with a true background in science knows this can't be true... it's common sense.

Answer 8

I can't resist...So what about you "marriage boycotters?" You're one of those, right Happy? Aren't you guys an "evolutionary dead end?"

Answer 9

Ahhh, if Darwinism could be anymore perfectly expressed, I have yet to hear it. *lol*