Does the Stereotypical Woman have a Vagina?
In my last post, I dealt with the word ‘misogyny’… pointing out that it is not ‘misogyny’ to blame women ( along with men) for the marriage crisis; the actual misogyny is denying women agency, denying that they could do anything to change anything.
And in this post, I wish to deal with a different word that was raised, "stereotypes”. Rick went on to say:
Blaming women in this context is based on stereotypes
This leads me to my question for this post… ‘Does the Stereotypical Woman have a Vagina?’.
This discussion started with a post stating that we shouldn't blame women for men's loneliness. I responded that the problem wasn't loneliness per se; it was a marriage problem and that, yes,. Women have their share of the blame, which led to the stereotype comment.
So, how is blaming women (along with men) a stereotype? Where is this reliance on stereotypes in that argument?
Well, one possibility, and the one I am going to address in this post, is that it is a stereotype to assume that women are designed to marry men, nurse children, and raise the next generation or, as I crudely put it, “It is a stereotype to say that the average woman has a vagina… And uterus and ovaries and milk-producing breast tissue.”
This brings us to the question: What is a stereotype? Surely, even the most radical transgender ideologue must admit that the average woman ‘person who identifies as a woman’ has these things. Indeed, the overwhelming majority!
So, what does stereotyping mean? As best I can tell, in this context, it is a form of reality denial. To be accused of promoting stereotypes when one states an actual fact. Something true and known throughout history but which our modern society, or parts of it, wish to deny.
The fact is that women have vaginas. And uteruses and ovaries and milk-producing breast tissue. And men don't. The way that societies function is that men and women get together in a relationship called marriage, and between them produce babies. And these babies grow up to produce the next generation of their society, rinse and repeat. Any society that does not produce and inculcate the next generation dies. It is a society that’s in the process of committing suicide.
Barring some technological advancement, only women are going to be having the children, so that means that in order for a society to avoid committing societal suicide, every woman will have to have at least an average of 2.2 children. This does not mean that all the women will have to have children, or even will be able to. It means that together, on average, the women of a society will have to have an average of 2.2 children. As a mean. Some have more, some have less, but on average… 2.2.
Now, there are at least two ways a society could do this. One way, the way that pretty much all societies have adopted throughout history, is for every woman to do her best to produce her part of the average, and, indeed, more than that Assuming that one woman in 10 is infertile, that would mean that the average woman should be producing at least 2.4 children. Which since it is impossible for a woman to have 0.4 of a child, would mean some women having at least 3 children to make up for the women that had only two.
The other way of handling the situation would be to designate a certain number of the women as ‘breeders’ and the rest of the women as ‘non-breeders’. Assuming that we tested for fertility, that would mean that if we had five breeders for every 10 women, in other words, 50% of the female population breeders, each breeder would have to produce an average of 4.4 children. Which, again, since you can’t have 0.4 of a child, means some would have to have five children.
Continuing to that extreme, if you only had one woman in every 10 as a breeder, she would have to produce 22 children. Now, I’m pretty sure that we couldn’t medically rely on that, so the number of breeders in this kind of population would have to be more than one per 10. If 2 out of every ten women were breeders, then they would each have to have 11… which still seems a bit high. So probably, the minimum would be three, which would mean just over seven children for each breeder.
That would be a solution that would make for a good science fiction book; and would probably produce some kind of difficulty in a few generations with inbreeding or somesuch. No society has ever done this, as far as I can tell.
But the solution actually being attempted by our society and proposed by my opponent, is to let each woman choose for herself if and how many children she has, without any pressure. That would be all very well and good, if the result didn’t still have to be that society produces an adequate number of children. So, somehow, that society would have to ensure that with each woman choosing for herself without any pressure, an adequate number of women would choose to have an adequate number of children.
Blame Game
Here we come to the real problem. Here we have to deal with the issue of how we get these women to choose to produce these children. Our society is perhaps the most anti-child and anti-marriage in all of recorded history. From the beginning of a girl’s life to well into her fertility decline, our society promotes dozens of things to the average woman as more important than having children.If our society is relying on individual women to voluntarily choose to have children they need to take into account the fact that he already exerts huge pressure on them to not have children.
If our society isn’t to commit suicide, pressure would need to be brought to bear, a lot of pressure, on women. On women to marry and bear children. And raise those children in our society’s values. Pressure in direct contradiction to the pressure that is already being brought to bear on them to stay unmarried, stay childless, and prioritise career and ‘happiness’.
Massive amounts of pressure would need to be brought to bear because massive amounts of pressure are already present in the other direction.
And let us remember that bringing pressure to bear on young women to marry and bear children is what societies have done throughout history. The mother who constantly asks, ‘When are you going to bring me grandchildren?’ is not an aberration, but the norm. It is our society, where mothers say, “Get your degree first” that is an aberration.
Conclusion
If you are content to live in a society that is committing demographic and cultural suicide, then you can go along with our society in its anti-marriage and anti-child prejudices. If, on the other hand, you think that there is some value in the society that you live in, then you will need to see that it cannot continue as it is.
We live in society, not as individuals. What one person does, affects every other person in their society. Your average young woman has a functioning reproductive system. At least, it would be functioning if she used it as advertised. The fact that she isn’t marrying and having children is a system of societal suicide and if not turned around, will lead inexorably to societal death. Our place in the universe being taken by those who will reproduce, and will raise their children in their values.
As always, I love comments! Agree, disagree, additions… I love them all
Yes. Next question... lol