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 ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
I have no knowledge of that.
Have you any data?
If you read that, then surely only in some women's magazine!
See my post #13: Older men tend overall to "pair up" with older women, i.e., to father children with women who are likewise older, so their children will be more prone to Down Syndrome - but if you control for that effect (of older men generally pairing with older women), the increased susceptibility largely disappears.
The quality of an 80-year-old man's spermatozoa may not be "all that hot" - but then the probability of him conceiving naturally, even with a 20-year-old woman - is miniscule. But if he does succeed in impregnating her, the statistical chance of the resultant child suffering from Down Syndrome is still lower than if, say, two 45-year-olds produce a child.
Think of it this way: Race cars have to be "fit" to cross first the finish line; defective race cars (or race cars driven by bad drivers) won't usually even reach the finish line.
But even a defective finish line can be reached by the race cars.
Spermatozoa are the "race cars;" ova are the "finish line."
Regards,
HST, Returning to God’s plan is the only way out of this mess.
AND, since we know what the LIEberals are up to, we can work together to destroy their "vision!"
Down’s and autism are not the same thing.
“Moving to the next one” hasn’t worked out so well, has it?
No.
“Moving to the next one” hasn’t worked out so well, has it?
Recently a “Husband Super Store” opened where women could go to choose a husband from many men.
It was five stories tall, with the men increasing in positive attributes as you ascended.
The only rule was, once you opened the door to any floor, you HAD to choose a man from that floor; if you went up a floor, you couldn’t go back down except to leave the place, never to return.
A couple of girlfriends went to the shopping center to find some husbands...
First floor
The door had a sign saying, “These men have jobs and love kids.”
The women read the sign and said, “Well, that’s better than not having a job or not loving kids, but I wonder what’s further up?”
So up they went.
Second floor
The sign read, “These men have high-paying jobs, love kids, and are extremely good looking.”
“Hmmm,” said the ladies, “But I wonder what’s further up?”
Third floor
This sign read, “These men have high-paying jobs, are extremely good looking, love kids and help with the housework.”
“Wow,” said the women, “Very tempting.”
But there was another floor, so further up they went.
Fourth floor
This door had a sign saying “These men have high-paying jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak.”
“Oh, mercy me,” they cried, “Just think what must be awaiting us further on!”
So up to the fifth floor they went.
Fifth floor
The sign on that door said, “This floor is empty and exists only to prove that women are impossible to please.”
PS I am married (21 years this week!) to a High School FRiend. DW #1 went sideways after 27 years of marriage.
Maybe finding a life-mate in High School works?
One of the best articles I have read on the subject. Thanks for posting.
Speaking for myself, I wasn’t ready at the end of high school.
But high schoolers back then were much more mature at that age than most today. It was a different time.
Both sexes share the blame, IMHO.
“The pill” and the multi-million dollar abortion industry are factors, as well.
Who wants to father a kid in their seventies?!?
“The Pill” is the big one.
No, we all know how men have always been horny - willing to mate with almost every and any woman who hadn't climbed a tree or ducked behind a rock on the count of three.
But the introduction of "The Pill" - combined with the corrosive effects of feminism - unleashed female sexual reluctance and resulted in the present chaos.
The mere existence of "The Pill" would not have turned our sexual and reproductive world topsy-turvy if society had not simultaneously bought into the notion that free sex and bastardy were now okay, from a moral standpoint.
Just as the widespread availability of firearms in the U.S. is not "to blame" for increasing murder rates, "The Pill" alone is not "to blame" for increasing promiscuity rates.
If the members of society had remained restrained in their sexual behavior and controlled their sexual proclivities, "The Pill" would not have made a dent in our demographic landscape or sexual culture. If established sexual norms and social pressures had not been simultaneously thrown overboard, if severe social disapproval (for sexual incontinence, illegitimate children, etc.) had remained in place, we would have been spared this turmoil.
Besides feeding general licentiousness, it also turbo-charged female hypergamy and brainwashed women into thinking that education and career were more important / less dangerous than marriage and family, or that they could "have it all."
The result: Droves of 35 to 40-year-old women who only now are coming to the realization that they have squandered their prime years, and that slaving for a corporate overlord is not, after all, as fulfilling as marrying and founding a family.
Regards,
A rich man with no heirs?
I have several FRiends who fathered children in their 60s.
“Actually with men, don’t the chances for having a child with Down’s Syndrome go up after age 40?”
the increase in risk to the fetus is almost exclusively with the female due to the complexity of replicating new eggs over the decades ...
the male sperm contributes only one set of chromosomes, whereas the female egg contributes one set of chromosomes plus the prototype for all cellular organelles and cell structures that all subsequent cells are patterned after ...
it’s always been an ignorant myth that the chromosomes contain ALL of the information necessary to make a new creature: perhaps even MORE information is contained in the structures of the egg itself than in the chromosomes ...
Too bad “The Pill” got invented!
KYPIYP, KYPO and humiliation worked when I was a kid.
I read the entire article. It was interesting.
There are no stigmas anymore about sex outside of marriage. There are no stigmas anymore about casual sex with casual dating relationships.
I don’t know if an official study has been done of this, but I have heard that if you have multiple sexual partners, it makes it much more difficult for you to form a strong pair bond with someone eventually.
So even if people think, if they’re young and single, they’ll have fun with many people, then, eventually try to find someone to settle down with, their ability to do so may be impaired.
And as far as marriage goes, all marriages have issues. There’s no stigma about divorce anymore. So i’m sure some divorces happen because people run into a rough patch, and they think this has to be the end.
I hope and pray to, but since that is the WEF’s published agenda the whole hell on earth that should exist should be for Davos and the adherents to that agenda.
KYPIYP, KYPO and humiliation worked when I was a kid.
“Flies spread disease...so keep yours closed!”
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.