The answer is obvious. Literally every single woman could answer it easily.
I know most here are too autistic to talk to a woman so let me try to illuminate it for you:
Becoming a mother is an all-consuming and irreversible trajectory change in life.
You are physically handicapped from the moment you get pregnant until a year after your kid is born. Your kids can't bear to be not physically attached to you for more than a few minutes until they themselves are at least two. You remain utterly dependent on your husband (or some other resource provider) and completely enslaved to your children's needs until the youngest is at least five.
And while yes you can start to do some other stuff after that point, if you actually stayed home and took care of your kids full time like you're supposed to, you now have a decade long gap in your work experience that permanently toasts your life time earnings and career growth.
Women used to have no choice in whether—and little choice in when—they would adopt this responsibility. Now they do. And that has changed their calculus.
Even women who want children and have some idea of how fulfilling the challenge of and submission to it can be will still hesitate to do it. And some will even opt out entirely. And this is a totally sane and rational response to the situation they find themselves in.
Just look at the results to this thought experiment I posted. Even when there is a 90% chance of a 20X return, only about a third would take it. When I changed it to more realistic numbers based on modern divorce rates, effectively no one took it.
These response rates are from autistic, intellectually dissident men, most of whom have little to lose. They are likely deep into the top decile of risk tolerance. What do you think the average woman (highly risk averse) would respond with?
The reason "women's politics revolve around the right to murder their own children" is the same reason men's politics revolves around our right to not die in wars or get divorced raped by family courts or get taxed into oblivion or get replaced by a bunch of low IQ freaks (and is also the same reason men are opting out of marriage).
Men having more diverse political interests is not because we are intellectually superior or whatever gay self-aggrandizing intuition autistic men are implying in this question. It's because innate to our biology and role in the species, we simply have more variance in what we need to care about.
For all of human history women's primary role was to raise the kids and men's was to take care of basically everything else. And for this reason we had the opportunity to choose our vocation. Our variance in vocation, and by extension interest, is simply a function of the fact that our job is not chosen for us by our biology like it is for women.
"Women are born valuable. Men must become valuable".
Both of these situations are a double-edged sword. Women have the benefit that they will be valued even if they do not develop themselves in any way what so ever. While men have the benefit that they have complete freedom to become whatever they want as long as it is valuable.
Women have the downside that if they don't want to be valued in the way their biology dictates: too bad. Sucks nerd. You don't get a choice. While men have the downside that if they don't want to develop themselves, they get expelled from the tribe and left to die.
In the same way that millions of lazy, stupid, or otherwise defunct modern men like to romanticize how women "live life on easy mode" by nature of being born valuable, millions of disagreeable, unattractive, or otherwise defunct modern women like to romanticize the male opportunity for agency and freedom of being able to choose your life vocation.
The question is like asking: "Why do so much of blind people's politics revolve around the right to cover everything in Braille?" or "Why do starving African people's politics resolve so much around getting food?"
Until a woman has a man she trusts to financial provide for and take care of her, literally nothing matters more than her ability to defer motherhood until that happens.
As male and female SMV continues to tank, so too will the birth rate.
The number of ethical, capable, and financially well off men as well as beautiful, kind, and supportive women is collapsing.
When these low SMV women try to find mates, there is slim pickings. So they have no choice but to defer motherhood. And eventually (we are already seeing this) they will abscond motherhood altogether, instead choosing to be effectively a man, choosing his carrer vocation.
Women being obsessed with "reproductive rights" is half innate biological necessity and half a symptom of the much broader decline of the sexual marketplace.
Mar 15, 2024 • 13 tweets • 2 min read
Why do some women get the hots for broke dudes with no job? Because women dont care about money, they care about FEELING SAFE.
I will explain as thread.
Some women achieve this feeling of safety via financial security. It’s probably the “most popular” method.
But there are plenty of other methods. Another popular one is feeling physically safe, so they look for big jacked dudes that will protect them from physical threat.
Feb 23, 2023 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Modernity aimed to elevate reason over superstition.
But all it actually did was replace old superstitions with new ones, claiming they were reasoned.
They weren’t!
Post modernity is the realization of this truth.
It may seem like post modernity is destructive but that is only because we are early.
Most people are still in denial. And most of the smart ones are still in anger, bargaining, or depression.
Feb 22, 2023 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
This piece is wild. Literally admits everything us “conspiracy theorists” have been trying to point out for 2 years.
“The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions…
Dec 25, 2021 • 15 tweets • 4 min read
Matrix Resurrections’ fundamental plot was actually very good.
A self reflection on how the left thought Postmodernism would free them from lies but simply led them to new different lies.
But the movie itself was fairly bad. Very MCU both in it’s acting and cinematography.
The post production and color filters stripped it of it’s depth. But I think was intentional.
The constant 4th wall breaking was also cringe but added to the philosophical point of it.
Sep 20, 2021 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
The fundamental error all politically interested people make is to think passing a law that aims to solve a problem is going to succeed at solving it.
99% of solutions dont work. govt or not.
Because of this, people vote their values, not for results.
people who love the environment want more EPA.
people who love health want more FDA.
People who love safety want more Police etc.
Whether any law or change actually improves these things doesnt matter. It is presupposed it will.
May 9, 2021 • 22 tweets • 4 min read
Why Bitcoin Fixes Everything
(thread)
A credit/debt based economy requires an inflationary monetary policy.
An inflationary monetary creates a credit/debt based economy.
If your principal costs MORE (deflationary) in the future, debt is a last resort
If it will cost less (inflationary), debt is a first choice.
May 1, 2021 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Few understood the internet in 1995. but also few fought it.
That’s bc people couldn't compare it to anything. So it was knowledge or nothing.
#Bitcoin OTOH can look like a lot of bad things (ponzi scheme, envnmnt harm, etc) making the uninformed fight it instead of ignore it.
Ironically, the same properties that cause the uninformed to fight against #Bitcoin are also what cause the informed to fight for it (it actually CAN make everyone money, it can also save the world including the environment from the externalities of fiat money, etc)
Apr 30, 2021 • 21 tweets • 4 min read
Why Is Crypto Twitter So Divided?
My preliminary thoughts (thread):
1. Bitcoin and not-Bitcoin are functionally two completely separate fields of study.
Bitcoin is in economics/government
The rest (Eth, DeFi, etc) are technology/finance.
Bitcoiners dont care about making wall street (leverage, derivatives, market making, etc) efficient or all the “cool tech” stuff of DeFi et al.
Non-bitcoiners don’t understand 50%+ of the world’s problems can be solved by replacing fiat money with hard money.
The question is like asking: "Why do so much of blind people's politics revolve around the right to cover everything in Braille?" or "Why do starving African people's politics resolve so much around getting food?"
