New Scientist Magazine is now a Left/Liberal, Postmodernist, Marxist, Neo-Darwinian, Propaganda Rag

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
And here is just one of the many articles that contribute to my view.



I swear, when my subscription runs out, I'm not re-subscribing!
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I don’t know a lot about this magazine, but it immediately give me an impression, and not a very good one. At the right-top, top trending articles: Having kids makes you happier, but only when they move out

Articles exactly like the above are not new but also rather common place in mainstream media

Apparently responsibilities are a burden and there is absolutely no joy or meaning in good parenting and seeing (hopefully) your children become independent, strong, kind hearted spirits.

It’s an attack on family values.

Mainstream science is entropic and stands in the way of society and people living a truthful and moral way of life.
 
Last edited:

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Oh wait, reading the article a second time tells me the writer or researchers does not convey the message that children and parenthood are always a burden.

But yes, I don't if I'm right, but what I'm seeing in the MSM is an overall trend that having children and raising families goes against happiness. Guess I got triggered or something by the title of the new scientist article.

Sorry for the noise.
 

DianaRose94

Jedi Master
Oh wait, reading the article a second time tells me the writer or researchers does not convey the message that children and parenthood are always a burden.

But yes, I don't if I'm right, but what I'm seeing in the MSM is an overall trend that having children and raising families goes against happiness. Guess I got triggered or something by the title of the new scientist article.

Sorry for the noise.
I feel you. However, articles, in particular articles with a feminist slant about how having children is imposed on women and not something fruitful really annoys me because it doesn't take reality in consideration. I don't think having children is a road to happiness and if your children turn out to be jerks, it could lead to serious despair, but human beings don't have better option. Even though it has been discussed that we are all food for the moon, I believe that reproduction is a natural thing and that it's anti-human to go against it the way feminists do. If people looked carefully at their life and the life of others, they would quickly understand why.

In my previous job, I was surrounded by childless women in the 40s and 50s and they were some of the most miserable people I have ever met. These were women with stable jobs who filled their time with empty holidays and silly hobbies. They had nothing. Sure it's nice to have extra time and income because there isn't any children to take care off, but it makes your life empty. The thing is nobody likes to admit to themselves and to others that they're miserable and that they regret their life choice. This article kind of sum up some of things I've noticed: 'Any woman who says she's happy to be childless is a liar or a fool': Take it from a woman who's given up her dreams of motherhood at 44, says KATE SPICER

By the way, this isn't unique to women. Men experience the same thing from what I've noticed and stories I've been told. Also, there's something that I've seen about people that don't want children is that often the reason they give for not wanting kids is not the real reason. Sometimes, it could be something as simple as it didn't work out with my previous partner or maybe they're unhappy about a completely different aspect of their life, or they just want to be "cool".

What I'm going to say is kind of strange, but I think for their own sanity, people do need the problems that come with having kids or else they literally have nothing to do. They need to have to think of things outside themselves. I don't have children, so I may be missing something, but this is a general observation.

Also, what bothers me, is that absolutely nobody talks about what it's like to not have children when you get old. It's one thing to be alone when you're 30 and healthy and it's another when you're in your 50s and struggling with illness. Provided your children aren't rotten, they would be the one looking after your wellbeing if you're old and ill. Who does that when you're alone? Even if you have siblings and nephews and nieces, they can't always give you the time and attention that you would have received from your own children. One of my former colleague had a serious health scare and thought she had colon cancer from which both of her parents died. So, she underwent a battery of tests. This is a woman in her 50s. After those tests, she wasn't so well and she had to ask one of her friends in her mid-40s, also childless to go pick her up at the hospital. We were very friendly and it was clear to me that this woman was really afraid of what would happen when she grew old.

My sister used to work in a care home. There was a clear difference in the mental health of those with children and those without. Imagine a 80 something man or woman, old enough to be your grandfather sobbing that he has nothing and nobody around him.

A lot of people these days are just nuts or live very sheltered lives.
 
Last edited:

Odyssey

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
And here is just one of the many articles that contribute to my view.



I swear, when my subscription runs out, I'm not re-subscribing!
Since I don't have a subscription I could only read the very beginning of the article but that was enough. Referencing that massive pervert, Alfred Kinsey, (who "interviewed" other massive perverts, pedophiles and sexual deviants from the dregs of society for his book and applied their behavior to everyone ) is enough to turn my stomach. Any mag that takes Kinsey's "research" as gospel has absolutely no credibility. This book lays it all out: Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Since I don't have a subscription I could only read the very beginning of the article
Here's the full article:

TWO things are clear about human sexual orientation. First, it is biological; second, it is complex. Sexual behaviour, identity, attractions and fantasies don’t line up neatly. Consistently, biologists fail to recognise this.

In their 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey and his collaborators showed how male sexuality varies smoothly, from a majority identifying as completely heterosexual to a minority who identify as gay. Men “do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual”, wrote Kinsey. “The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats.” He concluded the same for women five years later.

Biologists often look for factors related to sexual orientation, be they genetic, hormonal or in the brain. It is easier to search for differences between two starkly different groups, so the smooth variation in sexuality Kinsey described collapses to an artificial binary: heterosexual or homosexual, or sometimes heterosexual or non-heterosexual.

How the boundaries of these categories are drawn varies wildly. In some studies, “homosexual” means anyone who identifies as mostly or entirely gay or lesbian; in others, anyone who has had any type of same-sex experience. Bisexual people are either lumped in with gay and lesbian people in a non-heterosexual category or excluded for being “inconsistent”. Women can also be excluded, as female sexuality is often considered too variable.

Why does this all matter? As Rebecca Jordan-Young discussed in her book Brain Storm a decade ago, by distorting sexual orientation to fit what we assume it is, we risk editing out the most informative data points – and drawing false conclusions.

As an example, take the recent book The Goodness Paradox by the evolutionary psychologist Richard Wrangham. This is an excellent account of human cognitive evolution, but in a section on homosexuality, Wrangham writes: “Homosexual men also have somewhat feminized face shapes and shorter, lighter bodies than heterosexual men, most likely from relatively low exposure to testosterone in the womb” and “Homosexual men who take a strongly male sexual role, for example, seem less likely to have had low exposure to prenatal testosterone than those taking a more female role.”

Wrangham accepts the findings are “not always consistent”. But the underlying science speaks of small variations between people, not stark contrasts. A recent study in Canada (sample size 863) did find that gay men are slightly shorter than heterosexual men. Other studies find no difference. A recent detailed analysis of the faces of gay men found a “mosaic of both masculine and feminine features”, and that independent observers rated gay men as looking more masculine.

As for linking sexual roles in gay men to developmental hormone levels, that requires a long line of causal links through complex, inconsistent and indirect evidence. Increasingly, it looks like the conclusion is too simplistic: another false dichotomy along the lines of “male” and “female” brains that ignores immense variation within groups.

Ultimately, this issue matters because it isn’t just biologists who divide the world into gay and straight. The science of sexual orientation informs the law and the societal and self-perception of minority groups.

The persistence of negative stereotypes and discrimination against those of different sexual orientations is precisely why the biological sciences must be careful when studying this area. We need clear, unbiased answers about the biological nature of sexual orientation – even if those answers are complex.
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In my previous job, I was surrounded by childless women in the 40s and 50s and they were some of the most miserable people I have ever met. These were women with stable jobs who filled their time with empty holidays and silly hobbies. They had nothing. Sure it's nice to have extra time and income because there isn't any children to take care off, but it makes your life empty. The thing is nobody likes to admit to themselves and to others that they're miserable and that they regret their life choice.
They are not the only one, the author of the hitserie ''Sex and the City'' (see article below) regrets the same. Might be an interesting read.

‘Sex and the City’ Author Regrets Not Having Kids: I Felt ‘Truly Alone’

"When I was in my 30s and 40s, I didn’t think about it."

An author who helped usher in a new era of sexual liberation admits that not building a family made her feel "truly alone."

Candace Bushnell's novel, "Sex and the City," helped spawn the wildly popular HBO series of the same name, in which a group of affluent Manhattan women experience the joys and pratfalls of sexual independence. Speaking with the Sunday Times, however, Bushnell said she regrets not having children prior to her divorce in 2012.

"When I was in my 30s and 40s, I didn't think about it," Bushnell said, according to Fox News. "Then when I got divorced and I was in my 50s, I started to see the impact of not having children and of truly being alone. I do see that people with children have an anchor in a way that people who have no kids don't."

Bushnell and her husband, ballet dancer Charles Askegard, divorced in 2012 after 10 years of marriage — which she said caused her to go without sex for five years. "It's not that long when you get to my age. I know women who have gone longer," she said.

Her experience in exploring middle-age loneliness served as the inspiration for her upcoming book, "Is There Still Sex in the City?" Speaking with Deadline, Bushnell said the lives of 50-something women have changed drastically over the decades and are virtually the same as women in their 20s.

"It didn't used to be this way. At one time, 50-something meant the beginning of retirement — working less, spending more time on your hobbies, with your friends, who like you were sliding into a more leisurely lifestyle," said Bushnell. "In short, retirement age folks weren't meant to do much of anything but get older and a bit heavier. They weren't expected to exercise, start new business ventures, move to a different state, have casual sex with strangers, and start all over again. But this is exactly what the lives of a lot of 50- and 60-something women look like today, and I'm thrilled to be reflecting the rich complexity of their reality on the page and now on the screen."

The new book, which already has a television deal on the table, will focus on a group of single, middle-aged women from New York City who move to the Hamptons in order to start anew. Similar to "Sex and the City," the upcoming novel was inspired by her own experience as a childless, single woman in her 50s, Bushnell told the New York Post.

"We're all single women without children. And you think about, what are you going to do when you get old?" she said. "If you don't have kids, you realize, 'Who is going to take care of me?' Your girlfriends."

"It was a weird, great communal living where your best friends who are like your family are right across the street and you can run and see them any time and you're there for each other," Bushnell said. "We live within walking or biking distance [of each other]. We get together usually for Sunday brunch. And sometimes we have a paddle-boarding lunch."
Maybe I'm getting carried away with this. But I wonder if she realizes now how much damage she caused by her toxic influence on the thousands (if not millions) of women who are now in her position emotionally but not financially.

My sister watched this serie, shows like these are adding to society problems. Pandering to the most shallow, spoiled, mean, lazy, and bitchy type of women out there.

Living single in the city, working a job only 10 minutes a week, having enough money to rent an apartment in Manhattan, drinking mimosas in the morning and cocktails in the evening with your girlfriends and hooking up with guy after guy until settling down with Mr. Big who is, of course, tall, handsome and rich, who can fly her to Paris for brunch on a whim.

In summary, when they already wasted the best ages of their lives. They think they can carry on forever with a life of promiscuity, alcoholism and hangovers, and when they know they are about to ‘’hit the wall’’ (over 40 years of age), even for the second or further time, they still believe "Captain Saveahoe” will propose, even when they have nothing to offer. They are not young anymore, they can't have kids, and they have a void due to their soulless personality.

Freedom is careless, irresponsible, & selfish when it comes to these women. In their case, they reap what they sow.

That said, this was my overall personal impression of the series. (I haven't seen every episode)

I feel you. However, articles, in particular articles with a feminist slant about how having children is imposed on women and not something fruitful really annoys me because it doesn't take reality in consideration
From what I understand, strong family values are one of the pillars that keep society and ''The School'' function in an upward way. It can teach us a great deal about how to care for each other the right way. Feminism (and series such as Sex and the City) further damage the normal relationships between men and woman and damage the family value unit as a whole.
 
Last edited:

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
DianaRose 94 said: In my previous job, I was surrounded by childless women in the 40s and 50s and they were some of the most miserable people I have ever met. These were women with stable jobs who filled their time with empty holidays and silly hobbies. They had nothing. Sure it's nice to have extra time and income because there isn't any children to take care off, but it makes your life empty. The thing is nobody likes to admit to themselves and to others that they're miserable and that they regret their life choice. they regret their life choice.
Well I think that having kids or not is an individual decision that people can be miserable with or not (or a mixture of both!). People can be happy or not with this depending on circumstances but I think the crux of the matter is that even with kids (or not) there will always be something essential missing (that is, the pursuit of KNOWLEDGE) that can never be fulfilled with just persuing materialistic stuff and/or fulfilling the biological mandate from nature to propagate the species. I think this biological mandate might be coming from the Will of nature itself (the Absolute 3 of Mouravieff), which is, perhaps, one of the Laws of the universe that Gurdjieff talks about. What I mean is this. We must breath to live but who or what created this law? We didn't. But some higher intelligence, some 'greater Will' did. It is from a greater Will that we 'must breathe' so that we may live which overpowers our individual will to not breathe. If we should decide to not breathe then the greater Will from natural law will overpower it.

This might also apply to the biological mandate (so to speak) which drives people to have kids. No problem with that of course but it's still an existential drive which comes from nature, like breathing, and not necessarily from our selves. So people will always feel that something essential is missing especially if the kids are grown and gone. The yearning for objective knowledge will always be there, throughout, and this is the beginning of developing our own Will, our Individuality, which is not mandated by natural law but I guess by higher laws.

The main problem is this I think. People seek materialistic stuff in our rampant narcissistic culture, even with having kids, but their main concern is what they have for themselves. That defines them, it defines their identity and worth and their reality. But what if it should be that the true reality, the true measure of a society that establishes it's identity and worth is what people can truly, essentially, give?
 
Last edited:
The main problem is this I think. People seek materialistic stuff in our rampant narcissistic culture, even with having kids, but their main concern is what they have for themselves. That defines them, it defines their identity and worth and their reality. But what if it should be that the true reality, the true measure of a society that establishes it's identity and worth is what people can truly, essentially, give?

kenlee
Yes dude.

I think you might have hit the "target."

It is not something to reach any definitive conclusion, but my own life experience "validates" your reasoning.🤔
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom