I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking

[DeadPoolX 9]

I see it this way: She's rationalizing. Since she's concentrated on her career and never found a man whom she loves enough to marry (and possibly have kids), she wants to tell herself that's the situation for all women who have focused on their career. Using feminism as the reason (and her mother), that gives her something and someone else to pawn the blame off on.

She made the willing choice to forgo any possibility of a serious relationship in favor of her career. Whether or not that was a wise choice depends on the individual and their mindset. However, no one forced her to do that. If she had wanted, she could have been a housewife and mother (nothing wrong with those choices), but she made her decision. For better or worse, she now has to live with it.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Speaking of that, I was confused which page of the feminism manual said that you can't have a LTR and a career. That one is new to me.

[Danno 1,228]

It's seems to be working out well for you and many other families however, is it a wise "long range" plan?

What I mean is: if everyone were doing what you do (in fact many are) you will have cut the population in half in one generation.

IN my wifes Country this is a huge problem as having single kid is like normal.

Seems the only solution is to import folks from countries which embrace large families.

The problem is modern life. Back 200 years ago, it made perfect sense to breed like a rat. You needed an heir, chattel to marry off, free labor, old age caretakers. A good percentage of your children would not live to adulthood, so you needed to have as many as possible to increase the odds. Children were pure economic sense.

Today, what of that is true? Absolutely none of it for your average city dweller. And then to boot, First World children are outrageously expensive and provide next to nothing for the family economically. Most children born in the First World will survive to adulthood, no problem. What is the incentive to having large families or even more than one or two children? I guess I could ho them out like circus freaks on TLC for some cash, but otherwise? I just simply do not see the point.

We agree there is no need to give birth to a whole tribe of children

But I think "replacement levels" of fertility might be reasonable for a developed country.. thats 2 kids per couple. True there are some parts of the world with excessive child birth but Clearly thats no a problem we have in the west, in fact the opposite is the case, we have a bunch of people heading toward old age and a declining work force to pay this burden.

AS you scroll down the page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._fertility_rate

and see what the fertilization rates are for each country, it becomes obvious that many of the countries which have the most to offer the world in education and advancement ... (which seem to be the greatest harness on fertility rates)... are themselves dieing off.

[msu17 0]

I dont understand the thinking so many women have that having a career and a family are 2 exclusive things. There are choices in life. You know how much work it takes to get to the career position you want and how much time it takes to have kids. Figure out where you want to compromise. Also why do women feel they need to make the compromises and their husbands don't. It takes 2 to make a family, so compromises should be made by both parties. For instance I have higher earning potential than my husband, so we've agreed that he will be home more.

I agree with Danno that the intelligent citizens of the world should be having more kids. If we aren't careful we are going to breed out intelligent people