People who have children are much more avid consumers than people who don't. When you have even one child, you're spending A LOT more than you would, if you didn't have any children. Just watch a mother of five on an average day at walmart.
Capitalism wants people to have children. Preferably poor children, born out of wedlock, into broken homes, who will be forced to work jobs they can get, because they themselves now have children they need to provide for. And the cycle repeats...
What, 'capitalism,' doesn't want, is single people, and people in relationships, who 'aren't,' having children. No children means far less consumption. Raising children makes consuming necessary. Living for yourself makes consuming, largely optional, aside from rent/real estate, oil, food, and the occasional household good or luxory item; but children REQUIRE: diapers, food, schooling, medical treatment, etc.. etc.. etc..
Just off the cuff, birthrates decline for the following reasons, as societies become more advanced:Certainly, kids are expensive, and it's a fact that this has been exploited by the industry of toys and childcare, for example, so that specific markets could be consolidated, but their golden age is long gone. This alone is very suggestive. The relative relevance of such industries has been steadily declining following the downward trend in birth rates. Plus, if capitalists are indeed so very interested in keeping birth rates up, it begs the question of why they're going down. In fact, if you look closely, state-sponsored child support seems to be intended more as a way of appeasing the proletariat, particularly in European nations, rather than a serious attempt at increasing birth rates, and in any case they've been instituted as part of the policies of the welfare state and social democracy, which are themselves aimed precisely at appeasing the proletariat. When the bourgeoisie and its direct representatives actually decide to interfere with demographic trends, it's generally to sterilize and exterminate poor people, such as in Peru under Fujimori, something that might seem paradoxical since they rely on their cheap labour and the very existence of a reserve army of labour for their economic activities. It goes to show how this situation is complex.
Of course, I'm not creating an impromtu sociological theory here, with all of the research it would naturally imply. I'm just speaking my mind. I may be right, I may be wrong. Judge for yourself.
This seems like a non hateful take on things
Yeah, I think inexperience and past failures play a big role. I think there's a mental block there for those who have failed so much in the past. It's like a fat person who loses a lot of weight and looks great but thinks they still look bad. Plus, women can sense when a guy doesn't have a lot of experience. If I could have just one success, it would be like a snowball effect. The more success someone has, the more confidence they have. That's another problem. Women like confident guys, but if you don't have any success, how are you supposed to gain confidence? It's like people who first graduate from college. Employers want experience, but how are you supposed to get experience if you don't get hired in the first place?
I don’t think that many people are attracted to only confidence though. It’s a whole package. Confidence is a useful tool for achieving, like so many other traits.That's why confidence to me is such a garbage indicator of someone's character or value. People can become confident from superficial things like being good looking, or being very socially adept. It has actually very little to do with someone's actual character and personality. Being attracted to confidence is like being attracted to a man's height or a woman's long hair. It's superficial.
Confidence is more a starting point imo. No it won't compensate for shitty social skills, bad appearance, or negative feedack, but at the very least you need enough of it to muster up the courage. Self-loathing tends to come across in weird and off-putting mannerisms.True confidence is a result of having success. Absent of success, confidence is merely delusional. For example, a man can have great confidence about his ability to play baseball but if he cannot hit, catch, throw or run very well then he is not a good baseball player despite what he thinks about himself.
The same goes for dating. If a man has a lot of confidence but is not having any luck with the women he is attracted to then what he believes about himself is irrelevant and he very likely does not have the looks and or height to get the results he is seeking.
In fact, in many ways a man's looks & height are his confidence because a tall, good looking man will be viewed as confident due to his physical attractiveness. At the same time a short, ugly but confident man will be labeled an arrogant creep by many women only because they are not physically attracted to him.
Whoa bro, you are like my Tyler durden. Of course, I follow up with studying and philosophy and somewhat psychology too. But, I am short and unhealthy shape. I'm somewhat mysogynistic and I am not ashamed of it. I don't even see the point of being with someone (only for sexual pleasures). So, I ask myself, do I really need this person in my Life? No. It's ok to be alone, after all no one is gonna follow us to hell .There's a story to how I found this forum (I was reading the "List of internet phenomena" Wikipedia page when, after a few clicks, I got here), but that's for another time. Since I'm here anyway, I'm gonna tell you guys and girls my story (because why not?).
I've given up dating.
Just this year I've met 3 different women, all of which rejected me. Now, I'd be perfectly fine with rejection if it weren't for the fact that they'd seem interested at first, but then lose interest for no discernible reason.
Actually, scratch that, I'd be totally fine with rejection even then, only if it didn't feel like all the time we spent talking and doing stuff together were only means for them to judge me. Like there was no fun involved, only business as usual.
I've always believed that relationships should be about accepting our special other for who they are, including every quality and flaw that they have, but apparently some women (and they are not few) have different ideas.
Normally, I'd believe, even if you don't end up feeling sexually attracted to someone you've been dating, the experience of dating that person should be enough to keep a friendship going. Beats me why you'd date someone you don't feel sexually attracted to, but to each their own.
But no, once again some women seem to have different ideas.
Furthermore, by discussing this issue directly with them, I was able to confirm that, indeed, I was being judged. And I don't mean judged like the way you'd judge if a person has the same life goes that you do, or, in other words, whether you're on the same page or not. I mean it in an immoral way, as if people were nothing but objects that you can throw away when they're no longer convenient to you.
This is wrong.
What's more, I was able to ascertain the precise reason I was rejected. In at least 2 of the 3 times I was dating, those girls claimed they didn't feel sexually attracted to me because (guess it...) they found me boring.
Like I'm some type of court jester that exists only for the purpose of entertaining women. Sure, you'd like to have some fun with your special other, anyone would, but that fun comes (or should come) from the basic, fundamental fact of human company, of human interaction which you get to experience by pretty much being in the company of anyone who isn't straight-out revolting. Now, that doesn't mean that you should consider every human being that isn't straight-out revolting a potential mate, just that you can't expect people to be particularly entertaining all the time. It's like people are starting to forget the most basic, obvious things.
I'm tall (1,84m), good-looking (at least believe so), have my own house, have a relatively good financial standing, I'm a normal person in so many ways, there's just this one particular, special thing about me - I'm somewhat shy, don't like to go to parties, don't like places with too many people, and I very much like to study and talk about philosophy and all of that related stuff.
It's like these girls want to feel some sort of animalesque lust or fall in love when they've just met a man. You date a person one time and that is enough for you to positively conclude that that man is unequivocally, irretrievably boring? This would be unbelievable had I not seen it with my own two eyes.
This is completely absurd. Talk about unrealistic standards.
And then there's those guys that wanna tell you that you have to change yourself in order to get the girls. Just imagine that.
If every woman I meet is gonna be like that not only I'll be satisfied remaining single, I very much prefer it that way.
What are your thoughts on this matter? I don't wanna sound misogynistic, but if I told you that this whole experience didn't leave me a little more misogynistic than I was before, I'd be lying.