What's the implied (final) solution to this extremely concerning situation, bucko? 
Hey Siri what's the average cost of raising a child
Hey Siri, what's the minimum wage
I really do mean this non-rhetorically: what do these bazinga chuds propose about his "concerning!!" issue? It sure as shit isn't material aid for women.
Consider that capitalists view workers as, essentially, livestock and you will get your answer (this is also why I believe veganism and socialism are linked)
absolutely, I think a lot of this stems from animal husbandry applied to people
Look out, we got a live one in this thread. If you look at his "both sides" comments and read between the lines, you can see how much he's salivating for that aforementioned livestock.
The old-school r/cth energy is always at its strongest whenever a conservative dipshit wanders in, lol
Hexbearites are siblings. We will constantly antagonize each other over the dumbest shit but if someone from outside comes after any of us, we unleash our fury as one
Hexbear, setting aside outdoor cat struggle sessions when a stray "both sides" conservative shows up:
Show
We're all outdoor robo-cats here struggling against each other but if somebody shows up we form into a Voltron.
That feel when Hexbear is about to dunk some "what about the false rape accusations" chud:
Show
false rape accusations
I've never understood this. Have you tried not raping people? Women will put up with a lot of fucked up shit before they try and report something. Then these incels rant about how you can't be in a room alone with women or talk to them at work without getting reported for harassment.
It says a lot about you when you think false rape accusations are real.
Voltron: Defender of the Universe. It was a big thing when I was little. I'm old.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086824/
Here's the intro, for kicks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HgWCp79nzI
It was also one of the very first 3 anime series aired in Poland ever, in 1990 by the pirate TV, others were Yattaman and Captain Tsubasa but i couldn't remember the third one, thanks.
That's pretty cool to know. My very first anime experience was Mazinger, localized as "Tranzor Z." Was a good time, got me started on mechas.
It also featured a female sidekick mecha with boob missiles. Even as a preschooler I loved that.
Also fun fact: every anime in Poland for first few years were either in French or Italian dubbing, which makes discussions about Dragon Ball for example pretty funny, when characters like Hercules (Mr. Satan) or Little Heart Satan (Piccolo) appear.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
why he so caked up slangin that vanilla pound out there
Bit time: Jordan Peterson stops the grift and becomes a leftist upon seeing what is no different than cock milking.
Usually it's tax for childless. Though current iteration of christo and bazinga fash might want to go further.
conservatives [...] support organizations that provide essential supplies and care to pregnant women and mothers
lmao no they don't, conservatives have spent decades systemically dismantling every form of assistance for mothers. Their credo is "there is no such thing as society" and if you can't afford to raise your kid then fuck you, that's your problem not theirs, pull yourself up by your boostraps
Telling a baby to push itself out of it's own womb because it hasn't been issued bootstraps yet.
There's a reason why children conveniently don't exist or get mentioned in Atlas Shrugged.
The title was actually the result of somebody asking Atlas what to do if a baby starts crying.
It's funny because for all their posturing about "protecting children," kids are everything conservatives despise: weak, unable to produce value for capital, and not yet fully assimilated into the neoliberal propaganda machine.
Who does that economic "boost" benefit? Because we're sitting on 40 years of neoliberal policy that has squeezed the working class to achieve it and the benefits sure as shit haven't trickled down. I'd say that's enough time to draw conclusions from the data.
you can't pay women to have kids. not saying you're doing this but a lot of the time when this gets brought up on here male leftists love to go on as if material supports will make women go back to being broodmares. it's a reactionary and essentialist view. when women are afforded more reproductive rights and general freedoms to choose their own way in life, they have less kids. it's not a purely economic issue.
It is primarily economic issue but not in that sense. Subsistence farmers tend to have a lot of kids, because each kid expands labour power of the family, improving the quality of life of all its members. In industrialized urban society each kid is a drain on family's resources for the next 20 years and family's quality of life plummets, and then capitalism makes it even worse. We know that even in medieval times birth rates in cities were atrocious, despite minimal women's rights.
I bet people would have more children with more equitable ways of actually raising them, instead of the ol' dumping all reproductive labour - unpaid - on women. Money for domestic housewives was a thing they used to talk about in feminist circles in the 70s, more as a thought exercise, but there really is something there. By that I mean the crying out for justice and equitability and liberation not that we should just pay people with uteruses to pop out babies lol
I agree with this. Having access to more public resources related to raising a child, and maybe if families were structured so that other family members other than the parents could help, it would make raising a child less daunting. Still won't be easy but I am sure people would be more receptive to having children.
In the current situation, if you are a parent living in an isolated nuclear family having to work long hours you are fucked. Raising a child becomes extremely difficult. I found /r/regretfulparents a while back and seems like 90% of the posts are complaining about having no help, including from their husband most of the time.
Yeah sometimes divorcing a husband can actually lead to LESS work and higher quality of life because of how little said husband was doing before, just adding mess and being another mouth to feed
there's probably a healthy middle ground between "all women should be permanently pregnant" and "no kids ever". Like, building a world where we can sustainably support the continuation of humankind, while also leaving room for people wanting to go childless or have a big family, is not the same as wanting to control who gets how many children. We also have to think about the fact that the last few hundred years have been very chaotic and rapidly changing and it's very hard to determine where the """natural""" ( I know natural is not a thing really) birthrate should be in the context of a normal, non fucked society existing in a cooperative global environment because we haven't seen one of those yet.
straight women are having fewer kids and can't afford the ones they do have
The solution to this is to complain about queer people!
I guess it's comforting that my enemies are braindead and childish?
Maybe they should raise the quality of men a little
No hexbear I swear to god I'm not starting another interminable struggle session if the above made you mad go touch grass and hold someone you loves' hands
I think the core of chud dudebro thinking is that they are fine exactly as they are and the entire world must break itself apart to fit their every whim and desire.
The idea that a relationship should begin with a friendship built on mutual trust and respect is anathema to their worldview
They are owed things, they don't think they have to earn anything
They are the main character, and they expect "NPC" helpmeets to cater to senpai's every whim.
Ah, but they do want to raise the quality of men.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.
Just make men men again and put an end to the soy menace.There's a live one in this thread that'd probably take your post completely seriously and tip his fedora gleefully at you.
Show
I'm sorry that I lowered the quality of men by discarding that label
There has been no increase in undesirable women though, unless you're counting women who assert themselves and demand better as "undesirable"
so many men saying they're not looking for relationships anymore because they feel like the women that are left aren't worth it.
incel nonsense
This is funny to read
Saying that doesn't hide your rage tears very well.
we're seeing so many men saying they're not looking for relationships anymore
I have a bad feeling about where this is going.
because they feel like the women that are left aren't worth it.
Yep, called it.
false sexual assault allegations
There it is, was waiting for that. You one of those turbo creeps that wants cooling-effect retributive punishment for any woman who can't land a conviction against their attacker in a court of law? You that lost posting here, you sad little boy?
it can be easy to just blame the other side.
You came here to do exactly that, you transparently pathetic piece of misogynistic shit.
We're also seeing droves of good women asking "where are the good men?"
"Tradwife" TikTok grifters are there to grift you, and quite frankly, you deserve to be grifted. They'll make better use of your money anyway.
Yep, once again another CHUD that thinks only men should be allowed to pick and choose and not women (despite claiming to support traditional gender roles). I can't help but wonder how many conservative women are disappointed by modern conservative men?
"RedPillWomen" on
is full of "tradwife" types that express open contempt and disgust for the men of "TheRedPill." 
You haven't experienced schadenfreude until you've seen complaints by Laura Southern and Tara McCarthy about sexism in conservative spaces. They're were like "Why are all these white supremacist men harassing me, a white woman?"
You are a pathetic man child with no value and absolutely no desire to do any growth.
The women that you claim are undesirable wouldn't want you because you're a child that refuses to grow. You claim you don't want these women because it hurts your ego knowing that you're genuinely repulsive to them.
You don't want an equal that likes you because you actually put an effort into being a better human being. You want a subservient pet.
The ironic thing is that these women aren't undesirable to you. You want them. You just don't want to change to get them.
I do feel a little bad for the guy though. The inceldom preys on their insecurities and in fact increases their alienation by making them shittier to be around.
Sure, that's true if you consider undesirable women to be those unwilling to be fuckable property.
Another "both ways" enlightened centrist that mysteriously reeks of right wing fedora tipping.
Good gravy, you even do the "real" prefix in your handle like your dear leader. SAD!
not many culprits in this thread, but i feel i must bring this up. often leftists (and i will say, especially men) like to point at "material conditions" as more or less the sole reason for declining birthrates. often going as far to imply that the issue would simply go away (i.e. birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago) if the right economic supports existed, or say, under a communist framework. this is not only a myopic view, it's reactionary and essentialises women basically to the right wing view of being broodmares for men. the reality that many leftists still need education on, is that when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids. this is a material reality. i won't argue that everyone being poorer isn't a factor in falling birthrates, but it is not the only one, and any future revolutionary project will have to grapple with the issue in more realistic and inventive ways than "improve material conditions and birthrates will return!" it's idealist and wildly misogynistic.
I think declining birth rates are fine as long as people are comfortable and happy and therefore they should have improved material conditions anyway.that's fine, just saying it's something future society will have to plan for and figure out. i don't have all the answers it just grinds my gears when men act like "just pay women and they will go back to having kids" is somehow a woke idea or even holds any water at all. not saying you were doing that, and like i said there are thankfully few culprits in this thread but i still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last couple struggle sessions about this.
Sorry but what is the issue to solve for actually? I don't even understand why declining birth rates would be a problem in the first place? There would just be less people around no?
Edit: oh I read another comment further down that sounded off on a few issues with population drops. Seems complicated, so I'll have to do some research.
I think declining birth rates are fine
Even the chuds implicitly acknowledge this when they mention overpopulation. The only reason they care about birth rates falling is their racism
When people say improve material conditions, I believe most are referring to making birth and raising a child essentially free.
I believe many socialist countries have had state funded childcare, and obviously many have socialized medicine. This allowed women to both work and have children.
Yeah, as women gain more autonomy and reproductive rights, the birthrate will go down, but we should at least make it as easy as possible for those who do want children.
Anecdotally, I know three couples who want to have children, and all of them say they can't because they can't afford it. They all had to move back in with their parents, too. I can't help but feel money plays a major role here because it creates a barrier of entry to those who do want kids.
Then again, anecdotally, to your point, my wife and I can afford children but simply don't want any. We aren't the only ones.
when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids.
The Soviet Union broadly had low birth rates (positive connotation) due to this, right?
not something i have much knowledge on unfortunately, would love to read a proper Marxist/sociological analysis of the phenomenon though. i have a copy of Women, Family and the Russian Revolution that's high on my list, perhaps it will hit that topic.
It's also a view that does not match reality. The material conditions are much worse in most nations in the global south and raising kids is more difficult, yet people in these countries are still having lots of children. In fact, one might obverse that the opposite is true, the more wealthier countries and societies are having the least amount of kids. So "improving the material conditions" by giving people access to education, birth control, etc has resulted in less people having children, as you already said.
While I don't know why that is, I'd guess that a clash between traditional patriarchical values and more modern egalitarian values could be at play. Creates a dissonance that leads to long term relationships failing or not even being considered as an option in these societies.
While I don't know why that
I don't know in general, but especially when moving from rural to more industrial/city based work, the incentive to reproduce is different. Traditionally, having children has been seen as beneficial in rural economies because the family is building its labor force, and the family works together as a unit to provide more stability overall. Wage labor in cities is more individualized and doesn't require the family unit to achieve a singular goal together, so children begin to be viewed as a drain rather than a benefit.
Exactly, the priorities of women have changed with their entrance into the professional workforce. Society has not kept up with how this changes the incentives regarding children, has not rectified the fact that having children is detrimental to professional careers for women.
birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago
what is severely misunderstood about "birthrates 100 years ago" or "developing country birthrates" on both the left and right is that it isn't individual economic pressures that guide the explosions in population we see with industrialization. there aren't rural masses that are mass migrating to urban centers anymore. we already have the sanitation improvements that made phenomenal growth possible in those cities. unless you take it all away, kill everyone excess of 1860s numbers, you can't fucking do it again with the same tools!
(i.e. birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago)
I don't disagree with your main point in that "just improve the material conditions it's so easy!!!" is very wrong and there's way too much misogyny thrown around when this topic is brought up, but this part isn't true, I'm pretty sure not a single person on this site wants to go back to a fertility rate of over 3 here (which is what it was in 1924 in the united states), because it would cause massive population overgrowth, the main concern is getting it to (or at least very close to) 2.11 so that the population remains steady. And I do think there's another side to this conversation, in that a lot of people on the left also very much stick their fingers in their ears and insist that dramatic population drops won't cause massive societal problems, because talking about it brings in too many racists and misogynists (bleating about fertility rates has been a racist dogwhistle for decades as well).
For my 2 cents, I don't think this is problem is necessarily insolvable. I think there's 3 main things besides improved economic that could get people to willingly have more kids.
The first is that pregnancy and obviously especially birth just fucking sucks for women and just makes having kids much more disadvantageous for the woman off the jump. Even just the pregnancy can have life changing effects on your body, let alone giving birth. Maybe this is too bazinga tech brained, and is decades if not over a century away, but I think artificial wombs are the obvious solution. It will immediately revolutionize reproductive labor, and equalize the day one burden on women and men. I think a feminist from like the 70s or 80s wrote a book about this one time, right?
The second is that childrearing is still unfair to women. Men still don't take their fair share in reproductive labor even post birth (not to mention home care labor or emotional labor). Additionally, having children (and even not having children!) disadvantages women far more in the work place as they are passed over for promotion due to pregnancy, childbirth, or especially the employer's fear of it. I think this is far more simple to solve, especially for socialist countries, as evidenced by the massive gap between women's participation in STEM between even former soviet-bloc countries and western ones (not that these places are perfect of course). With state-led intervention (idk maybe make all men take "respect women" classes in school would help lol), these problems should be especially solvable.
The last is that there's too much opportunity cost in being a parent. By this I mean you lose out on a lot of freetime becoming a parent compared to being childless, because we don't really raise kids communally anymore. If you're lucky the kid's grandparents will be willing to help, or other close family members. If everyone in society helped with raising kids, this would free up a lot of parent's time, and make being a parent far less unappealing. This is the problem I'm least sure how to deal with, because how do you get people to live communally? I'm very interested to see how Cuba's family code turns out, and I'd love to see something like it implemented in a more industrialized society to see how that changes communities.
I tried to do some quick research on this, and all of the rhetoric was very grow the economy focused. I didn't find any compelling arguments on why population decline would be an issue. Any reading you recommend?
I saw that there was a lot of estimates and concerns like half a century out, but is half a century out even considered "sudden"? Like the number of people we have right now is very arbitrary right? So why is it so important we maintain it?
all of the rhetoric was very grow the economy focused.
yes like I said I almost never see communists talk about this, either they hand wave it off and say immigration will solve it (when fertility rates will drop below replacement everywhere eventually) or that it only matters under capitalism it's ok if the economy shrinks. so I don't know if I've ever seen anyone on the left try to grapple with it
the biggest concern I have is for the elderly population, as the population of younger people in proportion to older people (who also keep living longer and longer in most countries) shrinks, it gets harder and harder to care for them, both in healthcare but also just them being able to take care of themselves. Nursing homes are already overcrowded and understaffed and rife with abuse, and while in large part it's just capitalism, it will also pop up under socialism if the proportion gets out of control. https://www.ncsl.org/health/comprehensive-policy-approaches-to-support-the-aging-population here's an article talking about it in the context of the US
I'm also concerned that the population could drop faster than we automate, leading to severe actual labor shortages causing shortages in essential goods. This is something that I am more concerned about in the case of the transition to socialism coming after all the fertility rates have already dropped around the world.
Ultimately a lot of this probably won't matter if climate change kills us all in 50 years so then again thinking about it probably won't end up mattering anyways 🤷
Yeah that makes sense. But yeah it definitely does feel a little cart before the horse though in regards to all of the impending doom scenarios we have actively unfolding lol
Dude, you're literally running propaganda for maintaining the economic system that not only makes having children unaffordable but also destroys community, atomises people and makes forming meaningful relationships increasingly difficult.
But sure, it is those feeeeemales who are to blame.
The ruling class, fretting about the peasants not breeding enough:
Show
To be fair, they have tried making life much harder and more more expensive for the peasants, but that hasn’t worked so far.
When Elon becomes president (they will change the rules) he will round them up at gunpoint and force them to be government provided girlfriends to incels.
Whats concerning is this beady eyed fuck's father got a second child with his step daughter that he raised as a toddler.
They utterly hate each other, and yet
basically became the same thing, up to and including the pathologies and preference for specific kinds of vacation plans. 
I would love to be single and childless in 2030. That would mean I get to live independently and carve a life for myself that has meaning on my terms.
Why that concerns a blood-emerald billionaire is irrelevant.
I remember during one of his fake threats to leave the public eye, he said he could be living a luxe life with models and I'm like, go do that, pay the models well for their time and stop getting concerned about the lack of bang maids for racist men who smell like milk.
he could be living a luxe life with models
The fact that he's this openly divorced and has to pay settlements after trying to offer horses for handjobs suggests he wouldn't do that well if he tried to do the "cruising on the USS Titty Coke" thing instead.
He'd be more like "Notch," that /r/dr@ma nazi with walls full of rotting candy in his Beverly Hills mansion and perpetual loneliness because he was too creepy to stop putting off guests at his parties.
He's clearly not someone who can function with human levels of attention and resources. I'd like to see him try and inevitably fail, but you're right, I wouldn't want to put this on anyone, much less models who would experience a lot of harm by being in his presence.
Now if he tried making sex bots, I could live comfortably with that. He'd never be able to create sapient AI.
But I'd still worry about Groxanne.
Ever read about what tends to happen to sex robots at trade conventions only hours, if not minutes, after they're demo'd out to the techbros testing them out?
They get destroyed. There's a lot of creepy nerd rage percolating up in that group of people.
That's why for the sex robots' sake I hope that actual sapience never happens to them under such conditions.
What is it with these breeding fetish weirdos and wanting more sapient beings to exist just to suffer?
Class interests, I think: whether they are fully aware of it or not, line only goes up if there's enough surplus labor producing surplus labor value. The ruling class doesn't add to that value: it feeds on it. Vampire imagery is not new to Marxism, nor is the idea of the ruling class sucking.
Show
(CW: SA)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/610ec648-b348-423a-bd3c-04dc701b2985
I've read stories like this, and worse, where the robots were (CW: "simulated" sexual violence)
spoiler
almost instantly choked, punched, and torn apart with a stampede-like momentum the moment the techbros at the trade convention got their hands on them.
The techbros are not okay.
“People can be bad,” said Santos. “Because they did not understand the technology and did not have to pay for it, they treated the doll like barbarians.”
This reminds me: surely, slaveowners that paid for their slaves treated them well, right?
People talking about material conditions but the truth is straight men are just creepy weirdos and they are getting creepier and weirder.
I admit you may be on to something. Way too often I do see shit getting dismissed or even excused by self-described leftists by saying "material conditions" as if people just look in their wallet, check their bank accounts, and that determines whether they're going to be monsters or not.
Usually it's in defense of treats with horrid propaganda where the self-described leftist feels immune to the messaging and proclaims everyone else consuming the treat is, too, while insisting "material conditions" make those otherwise-propaganda-immune people decide whether they're going to be kiddie creepers or join the military to enjoy atrocities or the like, which is itself an atomized way of looking at the world that is itself sounding a lot like internally-processed and unnoticed propaganda indoctrination that serves the purpose of making it so they don't have to feel bad or even a hint introspective about whatever they're consuming.
If i was him, I'd use my billions to fake my death, get cosmetic surgery and just live out a quiet and comfortable life. But he's clutching his meme lord persona so hard.
Could have been like Tom from MySpace, where he just fucked off with a big payout and just sort of chills all day without any worries.
Still bourgeoisie, but by comparison a lot less harmful.
At least when i think of Tom, I only picture that silly picture from MySpace.
He aged weirdly well. Maybe because he's just enjoying being a rich guy instead of craving the construction of Torment Nexuses and establishing christofascist police states:
Show
He's not a good billionaire, by definition. Maybe closer to a benign tumor that's a low priority for excision.
get cosmetic surgery
Any more and parts start to fall off. Either that or for some reason guy have the most artificially looking natural face i've ever seen.
Musk had six kids with his first wife, Justine Wilson, three with his ex-girlfriend Grimes and three with his Neuralink executive Shivon Zilis.
Hmm.
How long were he and Grimes together? 3 kids seems like a lot for the time period
Three kids, four years.
X Æ A-12, Exa Dark Sideræl, and Techno Mechanicus.
He's such a narcissist that he can't even process the idea that other people aren't just less wealthy clones of himself with the same breeding fetish.
Sorry bro, just finally taking your advice about "minding your own business". If porky is free to do with his profits whatever he wants at the expense of society, I'm sure that society can handle any supposed "consequence" that comes from a drop in fertility rates.
Besides, I've seen y'all cut jobs left and right, we don't need so many workers anymore, remember?
aside from the obvious material reasons causing it (which are the actual problem), is 45% of all women between 25 & 40 being "single" (who cares?) and childless in the US an actual problem? that statistic seems catered to seem controversial to tradfreaks, but without the context of other countries and a look at trends over time, it is meaningless to me.
like if somebody came to my door and said, "half of all the women in this neighborhood between 25 and 40 are single and childless!", my first impulse would be to say, "why do you know this? what's wrong with you?"
It's designed to outrage unfuckable chuds that see less feeemales wanting to fuck as less feeemales wanting to fuck them. It's a numbers game to them, and they see number go down.
It’s kind of funny because I can guarantee that a lot of chuds may personally know at least one woman that would like them back, but of course men are somehow allowed to have standards.
Even in the conventional lib framing of the world, almost half of America votes Republican every election cycle. So why are they complaining there’s no conservative women out there for them?
It's genuinely funny to me that
's "RedPillWomen" community absolutely loathes the "RedPill" men community. They tell each other to stay the fuck away from them because they're lazy gross parasites that want a mommy bangmaid.
thinking that if material conditions improve women will go back to having kids the way they did in the past is reactionary btw
i was never gonna be able to have a kid anyway so all these single women doesnt sound bad to me
Hopefully, sounds rad tbh.
