SCI Freezing ova not working out well for many careerist women

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Of course, lots of them are doing this over 15 years older than when they should have, going by ova health declines with advancing age, being best no later than age 18. Oh, and a woman post-40 who technologically could pull this off, is still facing the daunting hurdle of finding a husband who'll go along with this.

============================================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-didnt-quite-work-out/?utm_term=.21c955919327

The Struggle to Conceive With Frozen Eggs

by Ariana Eunjung Cha
JANUARY 27, 2018

Brigette Adams became the poster child for freezing your eggs. But things didn't quite work out how she imagined.

Brigitte Adams caused a sensation four years ago when she appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek under the headline, “Freeze your eggs, Free your career.” She was single and blond, a Vassar graduate who spoke fluent Italian, and was working in tech marketing for a number of prestigious companies. Her story was one of empowerment, how a new fertility procedure was giving women more choices, as the magazine noted provocatively, “in the quest to have it all.”

Share your experience: Have you started fertility treatments?

Adams remembers feeling a wonderful sense of freedom after she froze her eggs in her late 30s, despite the $19,000 cost. Her plan was to work a few more years, find a great guy to marry and still have a house full of her own children.

Things didn’t turn out the way she hoped.

In early 2017, with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to start a family on her own. She excitedly unfroze the 11 eggs she had stored and selected a sperm donor.

Two eggs failed to survive the thawing process. Three more failed to fertilize. That left six embryos, of which five appeared to be abnormal. The last one was implanted in her uterus. On the morning of March 7, she got the devastating news that it, too, had failed.

Adams was not pregnant, and her chances of carrying her genetic child had just dropped to near zero. She remembers screaming like “a wild animal,” throwing books, papers, her laptop — and collapsing to the ground.

“It was one of the worst days of my life. There were so many emotions. I was sad. I was angry. I was ashamed,” she said. “I questioned, ‘Why me?’ ‘What did I do wrong?’ ”

In an age when egg freezing has become so popular that hip employers such as Apple and Facebook cover it as a perk and grandparents help finance the procedure like they might a down payment for a house, there’s surprisingly little discussion about what happens years later when women try to use them. Fertility companies tend to advertise egg freezing — “oocyte cryopreservation” — in scientific terms, as something that can “stop time.” And many women believe they are investing in an insurance policy for future babies.

But the math doesn’t always hold up. On average, a woman freezing 10 eggs at age 36 has a 30 to 60 percent chance of having a baby with them, according to published studies. The odds are higher for younger women, but they drop precipitously for older women. They also go up with the number of eggs stored (as does the cost). But the chance of success varies so wildly by individual that reproductive specialists say it’s nearly impossible to predict the outcome based on aggregate data.

A number of Adams’s friends were also early adopters of egg freezing; today they are facing a similar reckoning.

Amy West, 43, a professor in Los Angeles who attended the D.C. area’s Sidwell Friends School growing up, is one of the lucky ones. She had a baby boy 22 months ago and has numerous eggs left over. Carolyn Goerig Lee, 46, a nurse from Haymarket, Va., froze 25 eggs and planned to have a large family with them. She successfully gave birth to twins, but the other eggs were abnormal or lost to miscarriage. Then there is MeiMei Fox. After the 44-year-old Honolulu-based writer got married, she tried to use her frozen eggs. The whole batch of 18 was destroyed while being shipped from one clinic to another.

imrs.php


Brigitte Adams’s Bloomberg Businessweek cover and sonograms sit on display in her bedroom in Manhattan Beach

The four women’s experiences underscore the incredible uncertainty involved in egg freezing. James A. Grifo, a fertility specialist at NYU Langone Health who is one of the pioneers of the procedure, calls the whole notion of being able to “control” your fertility — perpetuated by the media and embraced by feminists — destructive.

“It’s total fiction. It’s incorrect,” Grifo said. “Your whole life it’s beaten into your head that you’re in control and if you can’t have a baby, you blame yourself. There has to be more dialogue about what women can be responsible for and what they are not responsible for.”

NYU Langone began offering elective egg freezing in 2004, one of the first programs in the nation. Since then, about 150 babies have been born using thawed eggs, Grifo said. That represents a 50 to 60 percent success rate — hardly a guarantee.

An increasingly popular procedure
Forty years ago, before “let’s chill” egg freezing parties were in vogue, before “The Bachelorette’s” Kaitlyn Bristowe and other celebrities were tweeting about “taking control” of their future, young working women were already being warned about their waning fertility. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen famously wrote in 1978 that a woman’s “biological time clock can create real panic.” Since then, countless scientific experiments, advice books and talk show hosts have delved into the topic.

Doctors now know that the No. 1 factor affecting a woman’s ability to have children as she grows older has to do with eggs. At the moment she is born, a woman has all the eggs she will ever have already in her body. They are finite, and they sit there in the ovaries, aging. Each month, beginning at puberty, a single egg is released. Even in a healthy young person, the eggs are of varying quality with a certain percentage being flawed in structure or number of chromosomes. That’s one reason it can take months or years to get pregnant, and why miscarriage is common.

imrs.php


Around the age of 35, women confront a “fertility cliff,” when the chances of becoming pregnant decline sharply as the eggs decrease in number and quality. By age 40, the average woman has a 5 percent chance of getting pregnant in any given month. By 45, it’s 1 percent.

In an unfortunate and unfair twist of nature, men are believed to replenish their sperm at a rate of 1,500 a second through most of their lives; there are documented cases of men remaining fertile into their 90s. Age also affects the quality of sperm, according to numerous studies. But the effect on fertility is markedly less dramatic than in women.

Thus the need for “social” egg freezing as it exists today, and why more and more women are willing to pay $10,000 to $16,000 per retrieval cycle, plus hundreds of dollars in yearly storage fees, to put their eggs on ice. While there are no comprehensive national statistics, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which represents the majority of fertility clinics in the United States, found in its latest survey that the number of women freezing their eggs is skyrocketing — from 475 in 2009 to nearly 8,000 in 2015.

The procedure is growing rapidly in popularity: Gina Bartasi, the former chief executive at fertility benefits company Progyny, predicts that as many as 76,000 women could elect to freeze their eggs this year.

Amy
Amy West, an academic with degrees from the University of Virginia and Stanford University, is well aware of the research on female fertility. In her 20s, she vowed to have a child by the age of 37. But as 37 approached, she was unmarried and working long hours as a not-yet-tenured assistant professor. So in 2011, she decided to freeze her eggs.

Everything went great, and she got 26 eggs — a very large number.

Three years later, at the age of 40, West was ready to use them. It took two tries and four months to get pregnant, but today, West is the mother of a healthy toddler, with plenty of eggs left over.

“Those eggs really paid off for me. I never imagined being a single mom. Now I think about having more,” she said.

imrs.php


Carolyn Goerig Lee embraces David Lee, 2, while Clara Lee and Michael Lee, both 4, play at their home in Haymarket, Va.


Carolyn
Carolyn Goerig Lee first got the idea to freeze her eggs from Oprah Winfrey. The show aired many years ago, before the procedure was commercially available, but Lee vividly recalls a female doctor, single and in her 30s, talking about the need for the technology.

In 2008, Lee was 37 and starting to think about children just as egg freezing was taking off. She had been dating a great guy she met at the McLean Bible Church and, despite their different backgrounds — he is a Korean American engineer and entrepreneur, she is a Hungarian-German-Irish nurse from a military family — they seemed to click. But she was in Seattle and he was in Virginia, which made their future somewhat iffy.

So with his support, she froze her eggs. Because of her age — 39 by the time she decided on a clinic and went through with the procedure — and the results of her blood work, her doctor advised two rounds. It nearly doubled the cost, but it gave her a better shot at having a baby. She got a total of 25 eggs.

Fast forward a few years: Lee and the engineer married and were ready to have a family. Initially, they were worried they had too many eggs.

“The idea of fertilizing 25 eggs was a little overwhelming,” Lee recalled. But once they started the process, they realized that each egg was not necessarily fated to become a child.

Reproductive health specialists sometimes describe the success rates of thawing eggs, fertilizing them and transferring them to the womb as resembling an inverted pyramid: You start with a certain number of eggs and lose some at every step.

imrs.php


While the freezing process has advanced significantly in recent years, 5 to 15 percent typically don’t survive the thawing process. The eggs that make it are fertilized with sperm. The resulting embryos are left to grow for three to five days and graded on certain characteristics. The most promising are then transferred to the woman’s womb, where only some adhere to the wall of the uterus, the first step in a successful pregnancy. From there, the pregnancy faces the usual risks, including spontaneous, unexplained miscarriage.

Lee says she is grateful for her twins, a boy and a girl who are now 4 1/2. But she and her husband always yearned for a larger family. After losing the rest of her eggs, Lee had another set of twins using eggs donated by her younger sister and, last week, she gave birth to a fifth child also using a donor egg. She says she’s “over the moon” happy.

“The best piece of advice I have is have a backup plan if your eggs don’t work. It’s not the end of the world,” she said. “You can still be a mom.”

MeiMei
When MeiMei Fox froze her eggs at 37, the process went more smoothly than she expected. The retrieval, where the doctor removes eggs from the ovaries with a long needle, went without a hitch. She remembers going home and taking a nap.

“I was thrilled and thought it was the best decision I ever made,” she said.

Fox immediately started dating “without thinking about long-term commitments but just enjoying the moment.” She blogged about her experience in HuffPost. As fate would have it, she found “the love of her life,” a filmmaker and fellow writer, months later. The two were soon married.

For almost two years, they tried to get pregnant naturally. When Fox was about to turn 40, she decided to use her frozen eggs.

She was living in Los Angeles; her eggs were in San Francisco. Her new clinic called her old clinic and had them shipped south.

“They knew from the minute they opened the package something was wrong,” Fox recalled. A lab tech later showed her the straws in which the eggs were stored, and how they had leaked.

Fox was beyond devastated. But after three years of traditional IVF and fertility treatments with her current eggs, she gave birth to twin boys.

“There’s a happy ending, but with a lot of pain and heartbreak and $100,000 along the way,” she said. “Their grandparents are always asking if I started their college fund. I’m like, ‘The college fund went into creating them.’ ”

Brigitte
Soon after the Bloomberg Businessweek story ran, emails began pouring into Brigitte Adams’s inbox. Women from all over the world wrote to ask for her advice. She launched a blog, Eggsurance, which grew into a thriving community where people shared tips about egg freezing.

In Adams’s story, many other young women saw a road map for a happy life. As the years passed and egg freezing took off, she became the de facto poster child for a generation of women considering the procedure.

But that painful March day, when the last of her frozen eggs failed to produce a pregnancy, Adams said she realized how one-sided the conversation about egg freezing had been, and how little information was available about what she calls “part two” — when you actually try to use those eggs to get pregnant.

“There is a huge marketing hype of it, and overpromising,” she said.

So Adams dusted off her laptop, and began trying to make sense of her situation.

First, she said she learned that the fertility industry is very “cagey” about providing data on success rates. “It’s easy for them to say there isn’t data right now. And really there is. There is some data. It’s just not pretty data,” she said.

Individual clinics are often reluctant to share their own information, she said, and many don’t refer patients to academic studies that attempt to quantify the probability of success. Only a few such studies exist: A 2016 Fertility and Sterility study of 137 women who tried to use their frozen eggs found that women who froze 10 eggs at the age of 36 faced a 30 percent likelihood of achieving a live birth. Last year, researchers writing in Human Reproduction calculated that the same women should have a 60 percent success rate based on their mathematical model.

Second, Adams said many clinics sell women on a single egg retrieval procedure without mentioning that more may be needed to harvest enough eggs to produce a successful pregnancy. This is what happened with Adams. When she recently reviewed her tests, she said they clearly showed that her fertility already had been in decline, suggesting that she would need more than 11 eggs to conceive. The lack of advice was “unconscionable,” she said. “I was never told that x, y and z were a possibility.”

While she is still a proponent of egg freezing, Adams said women need to be better educated about the possible outcomes, including the bad ones, and the industry needs to be more transparent.

“We are only seeing half the story, which is a very optimistic story,” she said. “But, really, you need to see both.”

Her own story has a happy twist.

After a dark period of mourning and soul-searching, Adams began IVF again, this time with a donor egg and donor sperm. On a recent weekday afternoon, she was lying on an exam table staring at a computer screen — her first ultrasound.

imrs.php


Brigitte Adams holds sonogram prints of her pregnancy at the Center for Fetal Medicine in Los Angeles. After her own frozen eggs failed, she is pregnant with a donor egg and donor sperm.

Picking out a sperm donor was fun, she said, like perusing an online dating site to find the ideal mate. Trying to select an egg donor, on the other hand, was “excruciating,” she says: “You are thinking, ‘This should be me. ”

Adams says she is trying to control her emotions, given the ups and downs of her long journey. But then the doctor comes in and locates the thud-thud of a heartbeat, and her eyes start to water.

The baby, a girl, is due in May."
 

ShyGirl

Veteran Member
Oooooh, happy happy end to a really sad story about stupid, arrogant people trying to mess with The Plan. The Plan, is The Plan for a very good reason. Woman need to wise up. A choice is a choice and you live with it but you can't have all possible choices.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I think freezing eggs is a wonderful technology for young women FORCED to have chemo, have uterine cancer and even what I had (PCOS) because it provides a CHANCE of pregnancy when the medical situation is sorted either carrying the child themselves or in the case of the emergency hysterectomy from cancer or injury an experienced family member like a sister and/or the womb transplants that are now becoming possible (though the anti-rejection drugs make that kind of risky until medicine sorts that).

And while I would never tell someone NOT to freeze their eggs if they can afford it, I wouldn't depend on it for "life planning" either; while some women can happily carry babies (even naturally conceived ones) way until their late 50's that is rare (oldest natural mother was I think 64 and that is so rare as to almost not be possible and I'm pretty sure she had a large family first).

This is starting to sound a bit like a lot of private clinics making a lot of money, not that I totally blame them; there was also a lot of hype and self-delusion going on with these procedures; but what might give an otherwise healthy 19-year-old a chance at being a mom at 29 (after the chemo, the mastectomy etc) is very different from a young women who simply thinks "ah sure, I'll just freeze my eggs and pop um out at 45 and be a Mom."

Nature doesn't work like that usually...

Part of the problem is the "new normal" for the educated/professional classes that "you don't have children until you can afford them" which my Mom would say (in the case of people that have some incomes, even a limited one "If you wait until you can totally afford them, you will never have them."

She didn't mean people on welfare should have 12 kids, she meant that the natural life cycle being what it is; if at least one parent is employed and there's a roof over your heads and money for food and fuel; waiting until you have "all the money" for everything a parent THINKS they will "NEED" will ensure that the babies never happen.

She would also have said that it will take sacrifice, hard work and live very frugally but that is the choice that needs to be made for most people when having kids.

Simply telling women they have to delay child rearing longer and longer so they can "make enough money" just doesn't work well with human biology.

While finding what to do with people willing to work for whom there are no paying jobs is ONE of the largest issues I think for the 21st century (at least the next few decades) how to reconfigure society so younger women can go back to having kids is probably the SECOND one.

If the second one isn't solved, eventually the first problem won't matter anymore...
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Important point here...

Is that since larger cells don't survive freezing well, and ova are HUGE cells, embryos freeze way better than do unfertilized ova. Of course, that means that women wanting to delay having children via cryogenics would need to make up their minds THEN who they'd want as the genetic father. Since most guys want their own or to forget the whole idea of raising children, that either means bastardy (single motherhood), or stay with the guy who sired them. One more point in favor of doing the whole motherhood thing the traditional way if possible, and I'm a guy who has kids via egg donor/gestational surrogacy, neither via my wife.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Is that since larger cells don't survive freezing well, and ova are HUGE cells, embryos freeze way better than do unfertilized ova. Of course, that means that women wanting to delay having children via cryogenics would need to make up their minds THEN who they'd want as the genetic father. Since most guys want their own or to forget the whole idea of raising children, that either means bastardy (single motherhood), or stay with the guy who sired them. One more point in favor of doing the whole motherhood thing the traditional way if possible, and I'm a guy who has kids via egg donor/gestational surrogacy, neither via my wife.

A lot of men can have serious infertility problems these days, even when rather young; this happened in my own extended family but in general, using a good matching "donor sperm" is easier (if the women are still fertile) than eggs in a test tube.

Sadly I was born a bit too soon for UVF when I married, we talked about it and also (believe if or not MS) talked about using the Nobel Prize Sperm bank since husband is above genius IQ and while you can't be certain of anything, we wanted a higher chance of a highly intelligent child,

We ultimately decided against this for personal (and my own) health reasons, but we did discuss it; of course, I now know that even if I had married at 18 my chances of carrying a child to term were nearly zero but the science wasn't there at that point.

But I do think society is going to have to figure out a way for young women (and yes couples) to pair bond earlier and have their kids, or face an even larger problem in the future.

I also don't consider myself useless because I couldn't have kids, that's why I spend as certain amount of time being an "auntie" to the children of others including extended family.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
We have known THAT for thousands of years...

But I do think society is going to have to figure out a way for young women (and yes couples) to pair bond earlier and have their kids.

That is for women to marry when:

1) they have had no other sex partners beside their husbands;

2) to believe they will be worse off and not profit from divorce (MUST include mothers usually losing custody of weaned children in divorce or separation).

Further:

3) for marriage to be the best option available for most women (the "prostitute" or "nun" options traditionally being the only other ones);

4) avoidance of both contraception and feeling they have the right to be supported by a husband indefinitely when they voluntarily no longer have regular sex with him;

5) strong religious faith that is widespread and sincere;

6) for cads and sluts both to have major negative consequences (for example, cads seducing and abandoning "good" girls once often could expect to rapidly lose their rental apartment, employer, church, and club memberships, while "homewreckers" use to routinely DIE in pre-1970s movies ala the ending of "Fatal Attraction", showing how they were viewed);

7) return both of "family wage" jobs and many jobs being reserved for one sex or the other only (why TF do we have any women on oil rigs, as firemen, in mines, tree logging, on deepwater fishing boats, or mil ground forces?);

8) exclusion of unmarried or frivorce-filing people from more jobs (not just running for high political office);

9) no individual casting of votes by women, returning to either their husband or father casting a vote on behalf of the entire household/family;

10) ending most welfare.

The list goes on, but is known. Just look at Western societies were set up when their demographics and marriage/divorce rates were healthy, and you'll largely know how things have to be for Western countries to survive.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Ending contraception altogether would result in 1930's to 1970's Ireland, lots of now single Dads raising between four and twelve kids because their wives died in childbirth or complications from having too many children too close together.

They are also just now discovering the mass graves where the children of "unwed" Mothers were dumped after being starved or neglected by the very people (and churches/nuns) who were supposed to support and protect them. If they didn't look cute to bring in money via adoption, they were fed gruel and water for the most part, then dumped in mass graves along with the stillborn babies; in one case in the SEWER.

Most of the women had no choice but to have large families because if they "denied" their husbands even on doctors orders, they could be abandoned (just like you suggest) or in the lower income levels the husband just "went aboard to find work" and deserted the family.

The same thing was common during the Great Depression in the US, I won't repeat the entire story of my grandmother raising three tiny babies dragging them with her to scrub floors when her legal husband proved to be a CAD (he did it to two other women later); he was always treated just fine, my grandmother was told she was a "horrible" Mother or her husband "would not have left" and told to put her kids in an orphanage and report to the workhouse but she refused.

She also died of "old age and overwork" per the doctor, at age 42...

There has to be a middle ground between the world you suggest (which in the GOOD OLD DAYS was not all that wonderful) and the current situation where many people simply wait too long to have kids at all.
 

helen

Panic Sex Lady
Minnesota Smith, old friend, as a newly widowed - what am I now? Still a wife? - I noticed that you omitted suttee from your list.

My granchildren are enthusiastic about having more of my time, although they are too little to understand why. My employer thankfully allowed me to continue supporting myself. My adult children will not let me fade away unnoticed - particulary the parents of said grandchildren when child care is needed.

Just a gentle reminder that blueprints for a perfect world don't work for real people.
 

compchyk

The Computer Chyck
and I suppose if a husband comes home one day and says "I want multiple relationships along the line of a wife" I'm supposed to sit back and take it then? I'm supposed to let that be a model for my children? So I'm supposed to be chattel and not be able to get out of said situation then?

That's why I didn't marry the a$$hole (2x) because that wasn't the model I wanted for *my* children. fwiw 3 wives later he realized that outlook on life wasn't worth it......
 

willowlady

Veteran Member
9) no individual casting of votes by women, returning to either their husband or father casting a vote on behalf of the entire household/family;

Forget it! How about something rational, instead, like passing a basic citizenship test, including knowing about the constitution and the bill of rights, for all citizens before they can register to vote. And go ahead, just try to get the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act repealed.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
I noticed that you omitted suttee from your list.


Just a gentle reminder that blueprints for a perfect world don't work for real people.

And the Burka, let's not forget about the burka.
Good point Helen-no perfect people in this world.
And there are lots of people who simply are round pegs that will never fit square holes. Both men and women.
Mothers, nuns or whores? Whereas men can be fathers and anything they want?
Sorry MN, come election time, I'm not voting for you to be God.
You would have to design a better world than that.
 

Rayku

Sanity is not statistical
I don't agree with freezing any reproductive constituent material.

Depending upon which source you read, there are between 150-200 million orphans in the world and rising. Every year there is another 1.2 million trafficked children added to the list, ~64-72% of which are girls depending upon the source. I personally believe those numbers to be sorely underestimated.

With so many unwanted lives/children out there, this argument reeks of selfishness to me. Want career first? Fine. Don't want to do it naturally? Then don't. However do consider the alternative of adoption.

We have one of our own genetically and four through adoption. If laws need to be changed its adoption laws. It's not an easy or cheap task as it is but in my biased opinion it's worth it. The first time they call you dad or mom, or when you see the look in their eyes when they realize they are home now. Then you'll know of what I speak.

My .02
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Forget it! How about something rational, instead, like passing a basic citizenship test, including knowing about the constitution and the bill of rights, for all citizens before they can register to vote. And go ahead, just try to get the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act repealed.

TEOTWAKI is likely to cancel voting by ANYONE. Think the Roman Senate was meeting during the last sack of Rome? Me neither.

Besides, there is NO Constitutional right for anyone in particular to vote. Voting /= liberty, after all. I'd trade my right to vote in a second for the taxation/regulation situation we had in 1912.
 
Last edited:

Freeholder

This too shall pass.
Save yourselves the stress, ladies.
You can't reach a blovating narcissist with reason.

Actually, his points aren't all bad, he's just a little too blunt about how he states them (I'm being polite when I say blunt, LOL!). And he does need to keep in mind Helen's points -- the real world doesn't line up neatly with the ideal. There always needs to be room for the exceptions. The laws or customs need to be for the people, not the other way around.

Kathleen
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
I think the take-a-way from this is that the tech isn't all it's advertised as being. If you want kids, it's still best to do it young.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
I don't agree with freezing any reproductive constituent material.

Depending upon which source you read, there are between 150-200 million orphans in the world and rising. Every year there is another 1.2 million trafficked children added to the list, ~64-72% of which are girls depending upon the source. I personally believe those numbers to be sorely underestimated.

With so many unwanted lives/children out there, this argument reeks of selfishness to me. Want career first? Fine. Don't want to do it naturally? Then don't. However do consider the alternative of adoption.

We have one of our own genetically and four through adoption. If laws need to be changed its adoption laws. It's not an easy or cheap task as it is but in my biased opinion it's worth it. The first time they call you dad or mom, or when you see the look in their eyes when they realize they are home now. Then you'll know of what I speak.

My .02

So, as long as there are any used cars in the world for sale (of any make or condition), no one should be allowed to manufacture or sell any new cars? That would make just as much sense.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Cardinal...

Sorry MN, come election time, I'm not voting for you to be God.
You would have to design a better world than that.

Please compare the U.S. of 2018 to that of 1912. Which one was better in terms of:

1) Border protection
2) Average IQ
3) Educational system quality at each level
4) Ubiquity and depth of Christian faith
5) Expenditures and casualties in foreign wars
6) Illegitimacy rates
7) Divorce rates
8) Obesity
9) Government intrusion into everyday life
10) U.S. native stock families bearing children WRT replacement rate
11) Ethics in business and government
12) Tax rates
13) Suppression of ideologies that want us all dead or enslaved (i.e., Islam, anarchists, Marxists, feminists, etc.)
14) Abortion rates
15) Premarital sex rates
16) Psychological depression (hint: probably >10x higher now)
17) Recreational opiate use
18) STD frequency and lethality
19) Clarity and utility of philosophy
20) Homosexuality/transsexuality/etc.
21) Affirmative action for underachievers by race, sexual perverts such as homosexuals, and known criminals
22) Abundance of other real wack jobs like Santeria/voodoo, Scientologists, Unification Churchies, Hare Krishnas, cannibals, group sexers, etc.

(Yes, our dentists and doctors do a much better job now, but zip of the above ways our nation has worsened was a necessary price for that.)

The future doesn't look too bright if we even make it there. The Star Trek scenario of lots of racial diversity, feminism, and internal peace and prosperity was never going to happen.
 

TBonz

Veteran Member
:lkick:
Minnesota Smith, old friend, as a newly widowed - what am I now? Still a wife? - I noticed that you omitted suttee from your list.

:lkick:

* *

9) no individual casting of votes by women, returning to either their husband or father casting a vote on behalf of the entire household/family.

Sorry, sport, try and take the vote away. Got news for you. Life in the 1800s and early 1900s is done. Not going back.

Sign me, faithful wife, not a man-hater, but not a friggin' doormat either.
 

hunybee

Veteran Member
I also don't consider myself useless because I couldn't have kids, that's why I spend as certain amount of time being an "auntie" to the children of others including extended family.

you are not useless. God has a plan for every person, and they are not all the same plan. yes generally throughout history the majority of men and women have children. there have always been some that could not. society can be cruel sometimes, but so many that have not been able to have them have contributed to society and to families in wonderful and very needed ways.
 

Rayku

Sanity is not statistical
So, as long as there are any used cars in the world for sale (of any make or condition), no one should be allowed to manufacture or sell any new cars? That would make just as much sense.

That's not what I said or implied. Your analog is BS. You're being an ass imo.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
And the Burka, let's not forget about the burka.
Good point Helen-no perfect people in this world.
And there are lots of people who simply are round pegs that will never fit square holes. Both men and women.
Mothers, nuns or whores? Whereas men can be fathers and anything they want?
Sorry MN, come election time, I'm not voting for you to be God.
You would have to design a better world than that.

Like I've OFTEN said, I feel SO sorry for his wife and his daughters............
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Please compare the U.S. of 2018 to that of 1912. Which one was better in terms of:

1) Border protection
2) Average IQ
3) Educational system quality at each level
4) Ubiquity and depth of Christian faith
5) Expenditures and casualties in foreign wars
6) Illegitimacy rates
7) Divorce rates
8) Obesity
9) Government intrusion into everyday life
10) U.S. native stock families bearing children WRT replacement rate
11) Ethics in business and government
12) Tax rates
13) Suppression of ideologies that want us all dead or enslaved (i.e., Islam, anarchists, Marxists, feminists, etc.)
14) Abortion rates
15) Premarital sex rates
16) Psychological depression (hint: probably >10x higher now)
17) Recreational opiate use
18) STD frequency and lethality
19) Clarity and utility of philosophy
20) Homosexuality/transsexuality/etc.
21) Affirmative action for underachievers by race, sexual perverts such as homosexuals, and known criminals
22) Abundance of other real wack jobs like Santeria/voodoo, Scientologists, Unification Churchies, Hare Krishnas, cannibals, group sexers, etc.

(Yes, our dentists and doctors do a much better job now, but zip of the above ways our nation has worsened was a necessary price for that.)

The future doesn't look too bright if we even make it there. The Star Trek scenario of lots of racial diversity, feminism, and internal peace and prosperity was never going to happen.

So per you---ALL our troubles now are due to the fact that we failed to "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant."

Interesting how the SAME argument is used to say that ALL our problems nowadays are due to the (fill in the blank):
N-words
Illegals
Liberals
Satanists
Communists

etc., etc.


When the SOLID TRUTH IS---

ALL our troubles come from the fact that OUR PEOPLE HAVE FORSAKEN GOD.

and therefore He has LET us have our OWN ways----


a TERRIBLY dangerous place to be in...........
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Thanks, Hunnybee, I just now saw your kind words (having sort of dropped out of this thread some time ago) I know I'm not useless; I was responding to MS who seems to think that women who are childless are pretty useless.

Even when it comes to babies, I can't count the number of young mothers (including one who gave birth 17 years ago when she and her husband were living with us for a few months) that never had siblings they remembered; that never had other children in their lives growing up (very common these days) and who had no idea how to properly hold a baby, bath a baby, "normal" newborn/three month/six month milestones etc, etc...

Babies don't come with an instruction manual and as I said to my friend "we aren't cats, we don't come into the world knowing the basics" and "even a Mother Cat that had a good Mommy Cat will do better from the start than a bottle raised orphan Mother Cat; even they learn from experience."

Yes, these "good" young Mothers read the books, the pamphlet from the doctor's office etc; but that is very different from being faced with a tiny little being whose head doesn't even hold up without help (and worse when Daddy decides that "his" child is stronger and doesn't need their head held - yep, we had that one too to deal with once - the child is now a young adult and survived lol).

This is another issue that simply isn't talked about and needs to be; that so many young women and young men (yes, even those willing to be legal husbands) don't have a clue about babies and small children because they don't remember actually dealing with any.

So no, I'm not useless even when it comes to babies, even if I still struggle sometimes with the new "easy" nappies that don't need diaper pins (and boy does that date me lol!)
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Actually, no...

you are not useless. God has a plan for every person, and they are not all the same plan. yes generally throughout history the majority of men and women have children. there have always been some that could not. society can be cruel sometimes, but so many that have not been able to have them have contributed to society and to families in wonderful and very needed ways.

Mitochondrial analyses have shown that through the time humans have existed, 80% of women, but only 40% of men, got to reproduce. There have been plenty of periods of time where there was de facto polygamy/serial monogamy as we have now, where a few men substantially monopolized the nubile years of a disproportionate part of the most attractive women, often followed by partial or full social and economic abandonment of even those women once inevitably old/fat/child-worn. These times were nearly always underachieving economically and often violently disordered, because they did not appropriately (productively) channel both male and female sexual behavior, so that the bulk of people of BOTH sexes had more to gain from achievable lifelong monogamy. Look at Haiti and U.S. inner cities, along with many Muslim areas of the world where polygamy is still common, as what you get when monogamous family life is either denied (for very many men) or societally harmful alternatives are widely available (for women) such as frivorce theft and the welfare system instead of submitting to a man as a wife in marriage.

Yes, God has a plan for everyone, I believe. For women that don't marry, that's a life of celibacy and being industrious within Biblical boundaries (e.g., no attempting to exercise theological or political control over men, humility, etc.).
That sounds a whole lot like what people normally think of when someone uses the word "nun". Gee, looks like I've got it nailed so far! ;)

Harlots, no, they're NOT part of God's preferred plan for humanity, but then there are always going to be fallen women who are 1) best expelled from polite society, 2) undeserving of the same societal honors and status as women who are Proverbs/Ephesians/ Corinthians wives and mothers, so 3) not allowed to claim support as if they had behaved pro-civilizationally, and 4) are more humanely tolerated than just imprisoned for life or put to death.

Dalrock had a wry, even humorous, analysis of harlotry here:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/sex-cartel/

Sex Cartel!

"...grerp has an outstanding post titled More on "Susan Walsh vs Friedman and Marcotte", where she describes the gradually changing landscape for women due to the sexual revolution:

In 1965 you could get a husband without sleeping with someone
In 1975 you could get a fiance without sleeping with someone
In 1985 you could get a boyfriend without sleeping with someone
In 1995 you could get a date without sleeping with someone
In 2010 you’re lucky to get a phone number if you don’t have sex first.


The irony of course is that feminists created this sort of inflation when they pushed for the sexual revolution. They saw women’s sexual power as a coin the patriarchy was preventing women from spending. Feminists took the tack of a young child: “I never get to have any fun!” As a result they inadvertently flooded the market, devaluing the coin of women’s sexual power.

A group of women in New York City who want to marry bankers has recognized the cost of this devaluation of women’s sexual power. Even though they have likely lived anything but a traditional life, they want a return to tradition when it comes to marrying rich men. As a result they repeat the old saying “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”. They yearn for a simpler time, when golddigging was easier. They explain in their post titled Sexual Revolution and Feminist: Wrong. Grandma: Right.

Just think about it. What if every single woman out there stopped having sex. No more one night stands. No more casual hook-ups. No more f*ck buddies. No more ex-sex. No more let’s start having sex and if it’s good then attempt to backtrack into a relationship. The boys of New York would have to start working for it!

holstein_cows_large1.jpg

Closing their legs until the cows come home

They are proposing a sort of cartel, which allows women to collectively hold out for a better deal. This same model has worked quite well for OPEC, allowing oil producers to fetch a much higher price than they otherwise would receive. However cartels need moral or legal force to be effective. Otherwise everyone will encourage everyone else to hold out while they sell for whatever they can get. I’ll use the example of our golddigging friends in NYC to illustrate.

Lets say these women are serious, and decide to form a union (a form of cartel). They will need a suitably union sounding name if anyone is going to take them seriously. I propose: Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity. But there are other women having sex with bankers out there, so we need to identify them as well. These women aren’t in it for the money, but for the pure enjoyment of the sex and the ability to exercise their sexual power. Lets call them Sisters Lusting for Unlimited Titillation. To save space, I’ll refer to each group via their acronym in the rest of the post.

So lets say the WHOREs call a city wide sex strike. Do you think the SLUTs are going to take this lying down? Of course not! They’ll just enter into a backdoor agreement with the bankers and continue as usual. In addition, not all of the WHOREs will honor the strike. Some will claim they will honor the strike (lie) and then secretly cheat on the agreement. Thats right: lying cheating WHOREs. So if you are a banker, you have all of the SLUTS and lying cheating WHOREs you can handle. This naturally will bring the golddigging WHOREs to their knees.

What the golddigging WHOREs need is a method to enforce the strike. Labor unions use a combination of social pressure and legal protection to achieve this. However, the WHOREs are not in a good position to try to shame the SLUTs, so they probably won’t get enough social sympathy to enforce the strike or have the laws changed. After all, most of the WHOREs were in all likelyhood SLUTs until very recently, and as I mentioned earlier many of them are actually lying cheating WHOREs. More importantly, feminists have been very successful in creating an aversion to shaming SLUTs. Not too long ago shaming SLUTs was commonplace. But now as a blogger with a diverse audience I for example wouldn’t consider using slut shaming language, even to make a point. Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.

It is important to note that not all women are golddigging WHOREs, lying cheating WHOREs, or SLUTs. There is another category which is often overlooked in the manosphere. These women understand that marriage is something much more than a vulgar economic transaction, and they take it very seriously. Unfortunately as we saw in the beginning of the post, these women can end up paying a price for the actions of the SLUTs and the WHOREs."
 
Top