Welcome to our website
To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.
Who's Having Babies?
Contributed by: Jayman on: 07/13/2013 04:02 AM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
However, here we see that there is finer pattern behind this when you break it down. What is actually happening is that fertility is highly dysgenic by IQ for liberal men (for whom indeed, the smartest category of such men here – roughly IQ 115+ – about 50% leave no descendants); is slightly dysgenic for moderate men; and is slightly eugenic for conservative men. ... While fertility for conservative White women appears to be slightly eugenic, it is not because the smartest women are having most of the children. Rather, it’s the ones with only somewhat above average intelligence – the Sarah Palins and Michele Bachmanns of the country – who are having the most children, with 10% having 4 or more. Since among conservative men, it is the smartest ones who are having most of the children, this suggests that these men are married to women who are quite a bit less intelligent than their husbands (albeit, still above average in intelligence).
Continuing my ongoing investigation into fertility, I wanted to take another look at who’s having children. This post will look at fertility from a different angle: the spread in fertility by sex, IQ, political orientation, and education.
I was prompted to this by a recent article describing parenthood in Norway. It found that a fifth to a quarter of men from the Boom generation and the generation following had no children.
This finding is highly similar to what I found previously for the U.S.
Full Article Here
The Nuclear Family in the Modern World
Contributed by: The Odinic Rite on: 11/28/2012 05:50 PM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
One of the most important things many folk will do in their lives is to raise a family; so naturally, it calls for some of the most serious planning one will ever do in life. Hence, it is not unusual for folk to raise questions on the forum relative to family roles. And as a group united by shared visions and yet from diverse backgrounds, the replies often reflect this fact, which is only right and natural.
However, there is one ingredient of consideration that is rarely mentioned and which I believe needs more regard when the questions are being considered and that is of the role of “the family” within the wider framework of society. Such regard should help folk to find the right answers for their situation and also to establish some guiding structural principles that will form the bedrock of the values they teach their children. Establishing a proper understanding of the definition and role of such parameters is important, even before the twinkle of parental longing lights the couple’s eyes.
So now let us clarify what we mean by “the family.” Usually, we mean the “Nuclear Family,” that is, a group consisting of a father, a mother and any number of children living in the same location. Contrary to popular perception, it has not always been the predominating model. Indeed, it only became an independent model in Western Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries with the emergence of industrialisation and capitalism and the migration from the countryside into urbanised settings; for it was then that the nuclear family became a viable financial unit when before, it wasn’t. In particular, increased wages meant that working class folk were able to buy their own homes so that two parents and their children were not sharing their living space with others. Before this time, the nuclear family was generally embedded within the extended family, consisting of grandparents and other family members who all shared a common space – often the family farm.
Over the centuries it can be seen that the perception of the role of women in particular has shifted as political, social and religious considerations moved society firstly towards more patriarchal domination and ultimately to today’s materialistic, secular, multicultural society subject to the whim of politics and devoid of the natural bond of folk and community. Even looking back into the relatively recent history of our folk – the Viking Age – when the Great Ages were already well into the decline, women were highly respected and they wielded much power. It is not for nothing that Frigga holds the keys to the household: the woman of the house was responsible for overseeing all the household duties from spinning, weaving and making clothes, caring for the animals, preparing foods to feed them through the winter and of course, the welfare of the children. In richer families, slaves would assist her.
Marriage itself was a pragmatic affair based upon the union of family estates with the accumulation of wealth – especially in terms of land and animals – being of prime concern. Love – or even fondness for the partner – was often not a consideration, though it was regarded as a bonus if it did occur! Everything a woman brought to the marriage was her dowry: this often included a spinning wheel, linen, wool and a bed, the number of items and quality being dependant upon her family’s status. Everything she brought into the marriage remained as her’s and was passed down to her descendants. If her husband mistreated her, insulted her family, was a bad provider or lazy she could divorce him simply by calling witnesses and stating by the door and bedside that this was so!
The Squeeze and the Surrogate Family
Contributed by: The Free Northerner on: 11/15/2012 10:57 PM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
I came across this article (h/t: Instapundit) about the squeeze middle-aged folks, particularly women, are under as they are stressed caring for both their children and their aging parents. According to the article, it is supposedly difficult and stressful to care "for both their children and their aging parents while also managing their income-generating jobs and keeping their partners happy -- all at the same time."
To which the only possible response is: no duh.
It is difficult, if not impossible, because nobody was ever meant to do all that at once. People simply do not have the time and energy to deal with children, old people, a career, and other activities at the same time.
Traditionally, there have always been societal and biological mechanisms to deal with this, but, over the last few decades, we've decided to spit in the face of both.
Throughout history, these mechanisms have varied. Tribal structures, villages, and the like made raising children and taking care of old people a community thing for most people. Combined with the typical "low" age of average death, "early" child-bearing ages, and large families things mostly worked themselves out.
When people started living longer and tribal and community ties began to die due to the mass dislocations caused by industrialization and urbanization, society adapted by adopting what we now know of as the traditional nuclear family in the early 20th century. Combined with some help from local churches and community organizations this worked fairly well, reaching its apex in the decades following war boom.
In the nuclear family model, the family adopts a division of labour to help the running of the household. The husband works and the wife takes care of the family. Families have many kids and they have them at a young age, so when they get old, the children can care for their parents.
Given the realities of modern, mass society, this structure works.
Having children young (in your late teens/early 20s) provided future children to take care of you and makes it so that by the time you need to take care of your elders, your children are already nearing self-sufficiency. It means that you have your youthful vigor to raise your children when you need. (Did you ever think of why you are able to go with minimal and erratic sleep when you're young? It's because it lets you physically handle the realities of a squalling infant unable to tell time. You are not built to naturally be able to take care of young children in your 30s and 40s, you lose the vigor necessary to do so as you age.)
Having lots of children meant that there would be enough people to take care of you when you aged without it being an undue burden on any single child.
Having the wife stay home provided the family with a person who had the time to take care of the children. She had time to take care of elderly relatives. She had the time to take care of sick family members.
There was no generational squeeze, because the division of labour and proper family planning inherent in the nuclear family model gave each individual only what they could actually handle and there was no undue burden on any single family member.
When feminists, and others, criticize the "housewife", they miss the importance the housewife has for modern, mass society. Absent the traditional bonds of tribe and villages, anomie was destroying people in an urbanized, industrial environment.The development of the housewife held this back.
Virgin Brides are STILL Your Best Marital Bet
Contributed by: The Social Pathologist on: 11/13/2012 11:21 PM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
Back in 2010 Anthony Paik published a study which received widespread media attention at the time. The findings were "spun" in such a way to show that casual hookups could lead to successful long term relationships. Susan Walsh had a look at it and found that the media reporting was quite biased, but this is to be expected, as selective reading of the findings were supportive of the liberal social script.
He did manage to get another study published in 2011, however, the findings in this one could not be spun so easily and hence the media gave it only a nominal amount of coverage.
Titled, Adolescent Sexuality and The Risk of Marital Dissolution, the study attempted to find out whether adolescent sex was a risk factor working against long term marital stability, and if it was, whether the effect was causal or selective. The paper is available from here. (You can get the .pdf at the site)
The science of Slutology is still in its infant stages and Paik acknowledges that there have been very few studies done. He lists the previous work in the area and some of the mentioned papers have been presented on this blog previously.
Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners.
Now the question that Paik wanted to answer is whether premarital sex made a good woman risk or whether risky women engaged in premarital sex.
Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush
Posted by: John Young on: 06/14/2012 01:57 AM [ Print | 1 comment(s) ]
I’m not sure how many people outside the writer’s trade realize how much of writing is a cooperative process. That’s as true of those of us who write late at night in the privacy of a silent room as it is of the more gregarious sort of writer, the kind you can expect to find in a crowded café, surrounded by voices and music and the clatter of street noises coming in the door: every writer is simply one voice in an ongoing conversation that includes many other voices, some living, some dead and some not yet born.
As I write this week’s post, for example, it’s difficult not to notice some of the other voices in this particular conversation. The bookshelf an easy reach to my left has a row of brightly colored trade paperbacks by some of my fellow peak oil authors—William Catton, Richard Heinberg, Jim Kunstler, Sharon Astyk, Dmitry Orlov, Carolyn Baker and more. Close by, the rolling brown landscape of Arnold Toynbee’s A Study of History, all ten volumes, confronts the twin black monoliths of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, while Giambattista Vico’s New Science offers an ironic Italian commentary from one side. Other shelves elsewhere in the room contribute other voices: biology and ecology textbooks from my college days; appropriate tech manuals from the Seventies brimfull of unfulfilled hopes; old texts on the magical philosophy that forms the usually unmentioned foundation from which all my thinking unfolds; and a great deal more. Poets, as often as not, these days: Robinson Jeffers, William Butler Yeats, T.S. Eliot. Without the contributions of all these other voices, the conversation and thus my contributions to it would not be what it is.
Still, there are times when the conversational nature of what I’m doing becomes more obvious and more direct than usual, and one of those happened the weekend before last, at the Age of Limits conference I discussed in last week’s post. One of my presentations to that conference was a talk entitled "How Civilizations Fall;" longtime readers of this blog will know from the title that what I was talking about that afternoon was the theory of catabolic collapse, which outlines the way that human societies on the way down cannibalize their own infrastructure, maintaining themselves for the present by denying themselves a future. I finished talking about catabolic collapse and started fielding questions, of which there were plenty, and somewhere in the conversation that followed one of the other participants made a comment. I don’t even remember the exact words, but it was something like, "So what you’re saying is that what we need to do, individually, is to go through collapse right away."
"Exactly," I said. "Collapse now, and avoid the rush."
The Germanic Mother and the Zeitgeist
Contributed by: The Odinic Rite on: 06/01/2012 04:30 PM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
When Tacitus wrote his Germania, he mentioned, in awe, how much veneration our Heathen ancestors gave to women, especially mothers. The most ancient artefacts of our distant forebears that archaeologists – that is, taking into account the 3% with such a degree that actually find employment – have saved from the soil are symbols of fertility, well rounded women such as the famous Venus von Willendorf. But somehow, somewhere along the way, this veneration got lost, and changed to utter demonisation…
Recently, news reached me of a mother of ten, who was exposed as the moderator of a preservationist forum and publicly denigrated as a ‘Neo-Nazi’. This was not any woman, but the spokesperson of the parents’ council in two of her children’s classes, seen twice on TV in documentaries about multi-children families, a free artist and wife to a renowned IT consultant. Respectable German newspaper Die Zeit caught onto what the enemies of our folk reported about her, as she is publicly shamed. Any thinking person doesn’t do that to any woman, let alone to a mother-of-ten. My well-wishes go out to her, may she cope with that adversity.
To me as an Austrian, this is a déja-vu. In this year’s presidential election, the local National Conservative party, the FPÖ, fielded a female candidate, Barbara Rosenkranz. Also a mother of ten, and the only (!) member of the Austrian Parliament to vote against the EU Constitutional Treaty, now redefined as the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty back in 2005 (unlike our Irish friends, we had no referendum on whether we wanted this blatant step towards a One World Government, regardless of what our constitution says), she had much wind to sail against.
Now, despite retaining a dusty membership card somewhere in my legendary pile of lost documents, I am not in full agreement with all of this party’s policies, I have a mind of my own and think freely. In fact, I don’t believe that there is essentially a political solution to many of the problems that befall our folk; for a large part, there is a spiritual defect, with nothing for the common man to live for other than a measly pay check from a corrupt manager at the end of the month, and a spiritual defect always demands a spiritual answer. Which is why I am first and foremost an Odinist and all other interests and viewpoints, as diverse as they are, derive from this.
Either way, that candidate received a lot of denigration. When her nomination became public, the first outcry was from radical feminists – who should technically be proud of seeing a female candidate fielded – who declared her as a ‘breeding machine’ (my beloved mother, typically rather left-wing, was one of the few to honour her as a mother and vote for her). Bringing ten children into this world when abortion is freely available, and then even motioning for rights and recognition of the housewife for the work she does daily, had to be a sign of ultimate slavery to the evil white man. Somehow, my own grandmother still managed to be a stay-at-home mother for 15 years, after attending Medicine at university, and still squeeze in almost 20 years of work as a renowned pharmaceutical referent. And somehow my other grandmother never suffered a moment of depression despite having to bring up six children, not all of whom were always easy, tell me about it – my father is the best father one could wish for, but let’s just say he has his antics.
First Super Weeds, Now Super Insects: Thanks to Monsanto
Contributed by: Dr. Mercola on: 05/31/2012 01:42 PM [ Print | 0 comment(s) ]
A new generation of insect larvae is eating the roots of genetically engineered corn intended to be resistant to such pests. The failure of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt corn could be the most serious threat ever to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.
And the economic impact could be huge. Billions of dollars are at stake, as Bt corn accounts for 65 percent of all corn grown in the US.
The strain of corn, engineered to kill the larvae of beetles, such as the corn rootworm, contains a gene copied from an insect-killing bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.
What Kind of F4ckery is This?
Posted by: John Young on: 05/30/2012 01:40 PM [ Print | 1 comment(s) ]
My husband and I have been doing our best impressions of Mr and Mrs Twit for the past couple of days. We don’t resemble them looks-wise yet, despite my over-bite and my husband’s patchy beard, but we have been so spectacularly and childishly mean to one another that we might as well be Roald Dahl’s evil characters. Now it’s time to call it quits, before one of us sends the other up into the sky with 1,000 helium balloons.
The best – and at times – worst thing about being married with three children is that you can’t, unless you have a bank balance to match the Beckhams, just up and leave. You have to ride the choppy waves. And we have been doing this for the best part of the last decade, with ups and downs that would probably make a very hilly graph similar to the flashy double dip recession ones they show on the news. If this is the year of the itch, then we’re scratching without a thought for the angry, red rash that follows. But like I said, it has to stop, because it seems that our imminent seven-year wedding anniversary is a reminder that we have a strong dedication to making things work, for ourselves and the children.
To put an end to all this twittery I have been experimenting with a new way of thinking, and acting. It’s called the “How would you behave with your friends?” approach. It’s my way of trying to treat my husband better, because I realise that I’m usually decent to my friends. It’s easy to see why friendships differ so wildly from partnerships. If you take mine and my husband’s relationship, and probably most other peoples, then so many issues that arise in a marriage simply wouldn’t occur in even the best of friendships.