Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "The Sexual Revolution is Terrible for Women - Louise Perry" video.

  1. I disagree with the idea that "the pill" is, in the long run, terribly important in any positive way. The question that is currently playing out now, and will make an enormous difference through this century, is not whether women can delay (or forego) fertility. The question is should they (from a societal point of view), to what degree should they, and what are the consequences of their doing so to the extent that is happening now. 200 years ago (before sanitary plumbing, antibiotics, and vaccines), whether the pill was available or not, it would have been an extremely bad idea for women to take it. Any society in which a your average woman had less than 2 children (say, current-day England's ~1.6), would see a catastrophic population collapse within twenty or thirty years, as infant mortality took away a further 50% of those children. That society would then inevitably be replaced by a society that had a birthrate significantly greater than 2.1 -- 4.6 or so is typical for pre-scientific societies. That replacement would probably have been unspeakably ghastly. It is still legitimate to ask, whether a society's norms should include usage of the pill, and how much. Leaving aside health effects of this form of medical waste in the water supply, the simple question of whether a society can survive the progression of three or four generations while sterilizing itself to this extent, is still as critical as it was in pre-scientific times. It's clear that looking at today's numbers, by 2100 today's European culture is flat-out doomed. It will be replaced by a culture with far greater fertility numbers (2.1 at the least), and that society will look at its triumph over Europe, and congratulate itself on its wisdom regarding childbearing, and mock today's Europe for its foolishness and shortsightedness. Europeans will be very lucky if it does not include some unspeakably ghastly things as well, although the treatment of young bepilled working-class Englishwomen by some immigrant communities shows we're seeing that already.
    15
  2. "[Edit: In primitive societies, h]igh-status men have multiple wives, and low-status men have none" That, or the way men gain status is by doing lethally dangerous things, which results in more women than men overall.
    4
  3.  @JohnnyArtPavlou  "Trying to live within their means", or trying to maintain a lifestyle born of destructive fashions and peer pressure? If you leave out the Starbucks, avocado toast, and that overpriced cramped urban apartment, your "means" suddenly extend dramatically. Cooperate with others around you (parents, cousins, church -- you're going to church, right?) to get hand-me-downs of clothing, car seats, strollers, etc, as well as help with daycare, and suddenly baby expenses drop dramatically. If you bother to look, this is what those bigger-family cultures are doing already.
    2
  4.  @NicholasBrakespear  Check the edit. It's better for women to have standards, that's true, but it's best for society for there to be "a boy for every girl and a girl for every boy" -- and then have those standards motivate the boys to improve.
    1
  5.  @NicholasBrakespear  Getting married may be an achievement, but keeping the situation a happy one takes work - on both sides. Having children motivates the majority of men to set their expectations such that they need to steadily work and make the world a better place... especially when the broader society has norms consistent with this part of Natural Law. As far as citations go -- you can find evidence for societies with an Unmarried Male Crisis in writings as diverse as William T. Sherman's evaluation of threats to the peace in the defeated Confederacy during Reconstruction, and modern-day writings on "excess men" in parts of Utah and the Four Corners area where Mormons still practice polygamy. Then you have the most wildly successful societies of all time -- Victorian England and Postwar America -- where this wisdom was widely held. I'll definitely grant you that those societies had high expectations for the men as well, but that just reinforces my greater point. Those two successful societies followed on the heels of extremely unsettled times, by the way. The Victorians followed the Regency, whose mores closely resemble our own, right down to the flamboyant transvestism (which the Victorians almost successfully attempted to erase, for its destructive influence on society). The Greatest Generation followed the era of the Bonus Marchers. I'm not certain if encouraging women to leave the workforce and marry returning veterans may or may not have been a deliberate attempt to stabilize the lives of potential new Marchers, but it certainly worked. Anyway, if you can't find any citations, it means you're not looking.
    1
  6.  @annarboriter  Our social norms should reflect the fact that children are an order of magnitude more likely to be abused by non-related adults. One husband, one wife, their children. We need to make that the explicit goal of marriage. Exceptions should be just that, exceptions, and it should be crystal clear to everyone that that is not something any good person with any other option would choose.
    1