4 ms·

Empty egg cartons? Today it’s seen as rather reductive to think of women as baby factories, but given the current fertility trend and its demographic and econo

Empty egg cartons? Today it’s seen as rather reductive to think of women as baby factories, but given the current fertility trend and its demographic and economic consequences, I wouldn’t trust people 500 years from now to be understanding or forgiving of us today. At least no more understanding or forgiving than we are of people who lived 500 years ago.

makeitdouble 3y ago
It will all depend on how much women will have a hand at researching history and presenting it to the general public. History will probably still be about narratives and perceptions.
- Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
  It’s not at all obvious to me that women 500 years from now will have the same values as women today, any more than the men. So while female inclusion in history writing obviously has an effect, I don’t think we can infer anything about what that effect will be.
hef19898 3y ago
You do know that you need both, a fertile man and a woman, to have offspring?
- eloisant 3y ago
  A fertile man can have hundreds of babies, a fertile woman has a limited output. So women will be the bottleneck.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    And how would that work in a society that is heavily leaning to monogami? Or repsecting the womens voice in that? Or squaring that with the manoshperes whining about declining male fertility? And no, a man cannot realostically have hundreds of babies. Unless, of course, you don't give women a voice in the process. And even then, only a small minority of men would actually be up to follow through with something that amounts to rape.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Genghis Khan is estimated to have had over a thousand children, it is an extreme example but it certainly is possible. About 8% of men in previously Mongol areas carry his Y chromosome. > Or repsecting the womens voice in that? Believe it or not, but some women actually wants to have babies with men even if they wont get a relationship from it. Why do you believe women can only want a monogamous close relationship? I know of a happy woman who had 2 kids with a guy she never had a relationship with, the kids are happy etc.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Because that is the norm, more or less everywhere. Unless you count societies in which men have so much power they can do whatever they want. And come in, Genghis Khan? And then such a laughable claim? How about Casanova then?
        Jensson 3y ago
        > And then such a laughable claim? What claim is laughable? Gengis Khan dominating the gene pool? That is what the data says. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/18861516/how-many-children-did-genghis-khan-have/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/18861516/how-m... > In 2003, evolutionary geneticist Chris Tyler-Smith discovered that eight percent of men across 16 different Asian ethnic populations shared the same Y-chromosome pattern. This pattern was traced back to a shared origin from about 1,000 years ago and to create so many descendants it is thought that this origin, or person, would have had to have a huge number of sons. Genghis Khan is known in contemporary literature for fathering hundreds of children in this area, so historians and geneticists presume the common origin of the chromosome is the first Mongolian emperor himself.
        hef19898 3y ago
        You seriously, unironically, link to the TV and Showbiz section of the SUN? And there I was, thinking Twitter would be the worst source I see on HN... At least it is not a TikTok short.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
    A man produces more semen than he knows what to do with, but has a limited capacity to provide a nurturing environment for a proverbial “barefoot and pregnant” wife and subsequent children. Going on a satyriasis-addled insemination spree will do nothing to help the demographic crisis, if anything it will make it much worse.
jamager 3y ago
Just in yesterday's news I read a telling stat: +40% of men think that women had gone too far in pursuing equal rights... in my country, a fairly progressive one. What's there to understand or forgive? This is unacceptable. Patriarchy is dominant culture in most parts of the world, and it utterly sucks, period.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thinkingemote 3y ago
  Understanding is good. You don't need to agree with someone but to understand someone is always good. To see the world through anothers eyes might be the only way how those who view progress as too far can be reached and talked with. How can someone willfully ignorant change their mind? Understanding isn't something that only ones enemies have to do. Understanding can be a prerequisite of forgiveness and necessary for peace. Many do not want to understand or forgive for many factors. Understanding these factors is good. (In a political context, personally I find politicians are able to understand others views most. They understand and can approach those with differing viewpoints)
  - jamager 3y ago
    I did interpret "understanding" as "being supportive to" and not as "comprehend incentives / PoV". In that case, fair enough, but I don't think there is a ton left to comprehend, as in, I am not seeing many new arguments as why men career opportunities must come at the cost of women's, etc. (An btw, not advocating / defending matriarchy either, but egalitarism.)
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  My house is largely matriarchal and I’d be surprised if it scores better on your suck scale.
  - geraldhh 3y ago
    most husbands will emphatically agree. i wonder if we're representative thou

makeitdouble 3y ago

It will all depend on how much women will have a hand at researching history and presenting it to the general public. History will probably still be about narratives and perceptions.

Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
It’s not at all obvious to me that women 500 years from now will have the same values as women today, any more than the men. So while female inclusion in history writing obviously has an effect, I don’t think we can infer anything about what that effect will be.

hef19898 3y ago

You do know that you need both, a fertile man and a woman, to have offspring?

eloisant 3y ago
A fertile man can have hundreds of babies, a fertile woman has a limited output. So women will be the bottleneck.
- hef19898 3y ago
  And how would that work in a society that is heavily leaning to monogami? Or repsecting the womens voice in that? Or squaring that with the manoshperes whining about declining male fertility? And no, a man cannot realostically have hundreds of babies. Unless, of course, you don't give women a voice in the process. And even then, only a small minority of men would actually be up to follow through with something that amounts to rape.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Genghis Khan is estimated to have had over a thousand children, it is an extreme example but it certainly is possible. About 8% of men in previously Mongol areas carry his Y chromosome. > Or repsecting the womens voice in that? Believe it or not, but some women actually wants to have babies with men even if they wont get a relationship from it. Why do you believe women can only want a monogamous close relationship? I know of a happy woman who had 2 kids with a guy she never had a relationship with, the kids are happy etc.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Because that is the norm, more or less everywhere. Unless you count societies in which men have so much power they can do whatever they want. And come in, Genghis Khan? And then such a laughable claim? How about Casanova then?
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > And then such a laughable claim? What claim is laughable? Gengis Khan dominating the gene pool? That is what the data says. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/18861516/how-many-children-did-genghis-khan-have/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/18861516/how-m... > In 2003, evolutionary geneticist Chris Tyler-Smith discovered that eight percent of men across 16 different Asian ethnic populations shared the same Y-chromosome pattern. This pattern was traced back to a shared origin from about 1,000 years ago and to create so many descendants it is thought that this origin, or person, would have had to have a huge number of sons. Genghis Khan is known in contemporary literature for fathering hundreds of children in this area, so historians and geneticists presume the common origin of the chromosome is the first Mongolian emperor himself.
        hef19898 3y ago
        You seriously, unironically, link to the TV and Showbiz section of the SUN? And there I was, thinking Twitter would be the worst source I see on HN... At least it is not a TikTok short.
- Tabular-Iceberg 3y ago
  A man produces more semen than he knows what to do with, but has a limited capacity to provide a nurturing environment for a proverbial “barefoot and pregnant” wife and subsequent children. Going on a satyriasis-addled insemination spree will do nothing to help the demographic crisis, if anything it will make it much worse.

jamager 3y ago

Just in yesterday's news I read a telling stat: +40% of men think that women had gone too far in pursuing equal rights... in my country, a fairly progressive one. What's there to understand or forgive? This is unacceptable. Patriarchy is dominant culture in most parts of the world, and it utterly sucks, period.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 3y ago
Understanding is good. You don't need to agree with someone but to understand someone is always good. To see the world through anothers eyes might be the only way how those who view progress as too far can be reached and talked with. How can someone willfully ignorant change their mind? Understanding isn't something that only ones enemies have to do. Understanding can be a prerequisite of forgiveness and necessary for peace. Many do not want to understand or forgive for many factors. Understanding these factors is good. (In a political context, personally I find politicians are able to understand others views most. They understand and can approach those with differing viewpoints)
- jamager 3y ago
  I did interpret "understanding" as "being supportive to" and not as "comprehend incentives / PoV". In that case, fair enough, but I don't think there is a ton left to comprehend, as in, I am not seeing many new arguments as why men career opportunities must come at the cost of women's, etc. (An btw, not advocating / defending matriarchy either, but egalitarism.)
dr_dshiv 3y ago
My house is largely matriarchal and I’d be surprised if it scores better on your suck scale.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  most husbands will emphatically agree. i wonder if we're representative thou