Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/15/2025 7:25:53 AM PST by Taxman
A woman in her late thirties posts a simple complaint online: “Men can have kids into their seventies. I’ve only got a few years left. That’s so unfair.”
Within hours, her mentions are a war zone. Some men sneer about “geriatric eggs.” Others write manifestos about feminism and hypergamy. A few women defend her, but the thread collapses into the same argument we’ve been having for decades.
In Britain, a thirty-four-year-old woman recently sued her ex-boyfriend, claiming he had “stolen her childbearing years.” After ten years together, he ended the relationship without fulfilling his promises of marriage and children. Now, she’s demanding enough compensation to pay for in vitro fertilization, arguing that at her age, the damage is irreversible. The story, which may or may not be apocryphal, made international headlines (New York Post, Nov. 9, 2025).
None of this is about fairness. It’s about biology.
Both scenes expose the same raw truth: the difference between men and women starts in the body. Women face a narrow reproductive window and carry the heavier cost of sex and childbearing. Men can father children for decades and are built to compete for access. That single asymmetry — who can bear life, and when — shapes everything that follows.
Feminism can deny it, but it can’t erase it. The entire struggle between men and women — resentment, rivalry, dependency, love — traces back to unyielding biological facts.
Biology and the Social Machinery
Men and women were never designed for identical roles. Men are stronger and more expendable. Women are fertile for a brief span and pay a higher price for reproduction. Left unmanaged, that imbalance leads to chaos: predation, jealousy, neglect. Civilizations that survived learned to harness male aggression into protection and tie sexual access to responsibility.
That is where social machinery began.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Please explain! I don't understand!
Regards,
Good fix. “Work” is vague and meaningless without context.
Abandoning children and marriage - and God - that’s the problem
Albion Wilde: Not always... there was a cultural habit among the poverty-stricken Irish [...]
Please, don't quibble! What MarlonRando said is OVERWHELMINGLY true!
For the vast majority of human history and pre-history, teen moms were the RULE!
Or do you really believe that hunter-gatherer tribes would have survived if the girls waited until their 20s to marry and bear children?! Or that in early agrarian societies that would have functioned?!
The human species would have gone extinct!
Regards,
The "free love" colonies of Oneida, NY or French communes or et cetera were oddities that had NO serious impact upon general thinking in the U.S.
They were seen by the vast majority as, at best, curiosities - at worse, as dens of inequity.
No serious American thinker ever pointed to the practical application of "free love" and developed a significant following.
Regards,
With dating apps even average and ugly women get attention from higher value men from anywhere in the world who know the game. Women love the attention and men love the easy sex.
With dating apps even average and ugly women get attention from higher value men from anywhere in the world who know the game. Women love the attention and men love the easy sex.
And here we are!
A powerful enough government can temporarily do most anything to people and make them live artificially.
As far as thinking that women want to, or could continue down this path that their vote has led Western Civilization, you have to ask, do women even know what they want and can their current thinking overcome human biology, and besides, history will intervene, a soft society will be conquered by an unsoft society and restart the nature clock all over again.
And do these churches have any significant impact on how 99% of all Americans age 18-35 feel and behave? Esp. re. their sexual behavior?
In earlier, small-town America, one would have risked being shunned by the whole community for "inappropriate" behavior!
Regards,
I’m old enough to remember the 1970s, which was after the invention of the pill and before most people knew about AIDS. After a date or two, men did indeed expect women to hand over their bodies. If a man refrained from pressuring a woman for sex on the very first date, he thought he was a real prince of a guy. But if she didn’t put out after the second or third date, he was furious because he’d wasted his time and money on her. He’d call her names and leave her in a rage, easily finding another girl who’d give him what he wanted. Girls who wanted to wait until marriage had to compete with all the easy girls out there. Women had given away all of their leverage.
So yes, it’s not just “feminism.” There is plenty of blame to go around for both sexes.
I believe that, when taken in context, it is abundantly clear that I mean "short-term" or "apparent" benefit.
Regards,
There, fixed it for yuh!
I am convinced that dating apps are, for the majority of women, the equivalent of online porn, for those men who indulge.
A couple of dozen of nice "likes" (or whatever they're called), and the women don't even need to go on a date. Rather, they're "good" for the next six weeks.
Regards,
LOL! WE FReepedem AND we CREEPEDEM!
I miss the DC Chapter gang, also! We did have some fun, and I’d like to think we made a difference!
Hope all is well with you and yours.
I rarely post any more — lurk mostly. BUT, I often make short comments on threads that interest me.
HST, I HAD to post this article — Ms. Wilson’s essay title caught my attention, and I am glad her essay was insightful and thoughtful. Her clear thinking on this subject is most welcome — not woke, indeed!
Ms. Wilson hs a firm grasp of the obvious.
My Revolutionary War ancestor died at 78. He had 21 children by three marriages (18 of the children were still alive when he died). The youngest was about 5 years old when he died. His third wife was about the same age as his oldest children.
I will grant that many of today’s 20 year old kids are immature and don’t make good decisions.
64 years ago, when I was 20, we had a draft — you flunked out of or didn’t go to college, your shiny little ass was sent to a boot camp!
It seems to me that back in our 20s, we, both men and women were more mature and that we HAD to think ahead, and I believe that the prospect of military service forced us to grow up and make good decisions.
Oh, you could, IIRC, get a draft deferment if you were married with kids.
Today’s kids don’t have to grow up, so they don’t! Life is, as you noted, “easy.”
BTW, I have made a “conscious decision” to not drink Starbucks coffee!
Was it Ms. Wilson?
LOL!
So yes, it’s not just “feminism.” There is plenty of blame to go around for both sexes.
Great post. Thank you.
I believe that, when taken in context, it is abundantly clear that I mean “short-term” or “apparent” benefit.
I don’t think it hurt, though.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.