Louise Perry has put her finger on the biggest challenge we face as a species: that we have embraced a culture that is hostile to children, motherhood and families. And she also has put her finger on the direction forward: we must change this culture by exploding the myth that all traditional institutions are evil and wrong. Brava Louise!
Culture hostile to having children because is hostile to men. feminists like Louise Perry are responsible for this. Women can have all the kids they want. Keep men out of it No sane man should get married or have a long term relationship given the divorce laws and the toxicity of modern women.
It is evil and wrong if it oprrsses people. We do not owe anyone our fertility. This thought process of controlling people because you think it's right is wrong in all cases.
Brilliant Louise. You made me think about previous practices my mum experienced after child birth. She was nursed for 14 days. I was discharged after 24 hrs. Feeling lost and alone. If my daughter has a baby I will ensure she definately has the traditional lying in time.
I was in the vanguard of the 70s feminism. Many of the women were heroic in challenging the unfairness, disrespect and discrimination that had pertained for centuries, the problem was that we had no template for women's equality, so we looked to male power patterns, believing that the only answer was to put on the jocks and play rugger with the boys! It took me two decades to realise that what we should have fought for was for equal support, respect and fairness for the essential work of bearing and raising the human race, without which all the other high status jobs would-be pointless and meaningless.
"Many of the women were heroic in challenging the unfairness, disrespect and discrimination that had pertained for centuries" that's a gross misreading of history. if you think that women were oppressed the whole time leading up to the 60s, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Men looked after and were responsible for women. They did (and continue to do) all the back breaking work in society (construction, agriculture, factory work, fighting all the bloody wars). My problem with feminism is that it sounds exactly like a baby's whine, with its one-dimensionality
When my sister gave birth to her first child, our mother drove 250 miles to the city she was in and stayed with her for over 3 months. My sister said it was the most positive and supporting action she has ever received.
About lying in. I watched a TV program about an elephant herd and the arrival of a newborn was greeted with such joy and celebration by the adult females!! Now I understand how important society and community took motherhood
5:58, to Louise's point that third wave feminism suggests that motherhood reduces the opportunities of women in their careers, I would point out that for women who choose to prioritise their familes - and ergo their children - that actually whilst it may restrict their opportunities in full-time work, women are today uniquely capable of treating their childrearing years a part-time career, whilst they also potentially choose voluntary or part-time work alongside. I would rather get by on one or one and a half incomes, than two incomes, if the difference is having children rather than going on more holidays per year. Motherhood is the noblest career to have.
First we have to get rid of the stigma that exists of women who are content to put their children and family first. Who are content to just be mothers and housewives. Currently, there’s a culture of thinking less of these women.
@@viviennedunbar3374 fair enough, but that is not at all how I meant it. I worked from the age of 15 yrs till I married at 27 yrs old. I WAS a stay at home mother! I AM still a housewife, but I am many other things besides. I had many job and I always said it was the hardest job of all. The stigma comes from people thinking there’s something wrong with us if we prefer to bring up our own children or don’t need to or feel the need to work. Not every woman has that luxury though. My husband has a good job, but very long and odd hours. One of us needed to be the anchor and it was me. I’ve always been content to do it, but, others have made me feel "less" for doing so.
It's fine if that's what you want to do. It's fine if you have a husband that can make to support this. The problem is alot of families don't have that luxury. Oh between 18 to 22yrs really? The problem is owner and bosses not keeping up with the price of living.
I'm 65,I never had Kids possibly become I came from a broken family and was possibility terrified the same miserable pattern would repeat itself on a child,notwithstanding that I abused alchohol from 16 till I was 39,possibly due to my own painful background.To the future I travel
This is what some conservatives miss. They keep ignoring the people who had kids they don't want, because they were told that having kids are a must. Some people are opting out in order to break the cycle of dysfunctional families.
It's not having kids that a case needs to be made for. Plenty of women WANT more kids than they have. But they've already got, say, two. And from that they've learned that every baby sentences them to 2-3 years of the most dreadful isolation. That there's no help. That caring for a baby means neglecting your older children. That you can spend 2-3 years recovering from a pregnancy-induced hernia, be barely able to lift your own baby (much less keep up with your laundry and clean your floors), and this doesn't entitle you to any help or sympathy from anybody. "You're the one who wanted kids. Deal with it. *I* went back to work two weeks after you were born." Grandparents are far away and feel no obligation to help. Your neighbors are people you don't know. Your husband is away at work most days. You're absolutely on your own. But hey, being a mom, greatest job in the world, right? Right??.... right? No, it f*****g sucks. A case needs to be made for reviving a culture where women help each other, where homes are large enough to accommodate extended family groupings-- grandmothers, spinster aunties, even teenage cousins-- where you aren't seen as a useless human wasting your life if you *don't* hold down a fulltime job or have a "career" but instead devote a large amount of time to your household and the children in it. Where women dropping in "to visit" each other is a normal thing, not a big production that has to be planned out two weeks in advance. A case needs to be made for re-orienting culture toward the raising, protecting, and nurturing of children-- even for people who haven't got any children. Make childrearing something *other* than a prison sentence, and I guarantee women will have more children.
One thing I strongly agree about is that reversal of falling birth rates is the gold mine that will define the powers of tomorrow. "The first group of people that can crack this problem, will have the world before them. Let it be us." And this will be, for me a mid-20s man, well within our lifetime. I will be in my mid-40s, God willing, when the babies born today enter the workforce, and the military. For the country that turns the tide, and has many of those, it will be an empire defining advantage.
Much of Africa has high birth rates. I guess if we bring back subsistence farming and make children the only pension, every country will have high birth rates.
I didn't know how to be a Father mine's left home at 7 and went USA when I was 10 and made no contact.He ceased to mean anything me.As much contempt I have there isn't a day goes by I don't think about him and he is 21 years gone.That is just what this life serves up sometimes.I will survive
Explain the ponzi scheme? I can guess Pension or other programs. Hey maybe Very Wealthy could pay Taxes! But we get Ponzi scheme. Never mind Lawful gambling Wallstreet.
@@jscullyandmulderx25 The stock market price is only pushed up because there are more people buying stocks each year because of population growth. When population declines and the ponzi scheme of more buyers coming in to buy is gone the stock market will crash.
I think it’s too late. She wants to hit the brakes on modernity .. but there’s no brakes on this train. Women are going to literally choke to death on feminism
It's coming to the point where the only solution is for trans to have wombs surgically implanted in them and produce the next generation.This is crazy fantasy and I dont believe in the trans movement but not enough women are having kids.
This is why I found Distributist Dave interesting. He reviewed Bioshock and explained why it was a huge joke about Ayn Rand. One point he made was how Ayn Rand had no children and that Galt's Gulch was not known to have children. That couldn't be sustained.
When women joined the workforce, prices for all goods and services, especially housing, doubled, because of the assumption of two incomes. The economy has doubled the cost of living due to women working full time jobs. This is highly detrimental to our long term health as a nation. It is the cyanide in the kasava. Louise Perry's address was brilliant. Elizabeth Warren pointed out the economic costs of a two income family - otherwise I agree with her on nothing. Advantage is taken of additional wage earners.
Why does there have to be a case for it? It's what healthy organisms do, if they don't they're maladaptive and die out. It should be the default to have kids and anyone who claims to not want them should be viewed with strong suspicion.
unfortunately, nationalizing everything doesn't work. Only if it did we would be in better shape. But you can't, as you well know Louise, change people with external motications, unless those motivations are genuine. the reason for groups succeeding isn't the good things, it's the religion that binds the goodness and molds the hereditary and eventually biological values. And while we service evil corporations above all else , like BlackRock with our confidence it's at least a double headwind at very best. and further those same people, that you need for such, are quite opposed to your interests, because it is by traditional standards of religion against homosexuality and sexual well wishing ideals that makes them do what works. You cannot through idealism and compassion fix the inherent genetic reality of this issue.
Indeed. I often say that if people who don't want children don't fall into the trap of having them, the shitty parent gene goes extinct, and we lose nothing.
Kids cost money. Therefore, i dont have them. Money is more important. Having kids, just burdens yourself and makes you more reliant on your boss. No thanks. Make money and run out the clock.
@@jasonseng5463 the biggest famines start from lack of population, not enough farmers, not enough doctors, not enough people to keep supermarkets open, not enough train drivers not enough Pharmacists etc. The problem is in the west we have a huge aging population and when they are old and retired, there won't be enough children now that will then be adults to keep society going when the older generation can't work. For the first time more than 50 percent of 30 year women in England are childless. So if that doesn't change you'll have half the amount of people looking after double their number. Which isn't sustainable. So it's time people "lie back and think of England" !!
@@jasonseng5463You don't need to understand it. Natural selection will gladly take your defective genes out of the gene pool. But not after you live your elder years in penury. When there aren't enough young workers, the paper money you saved for retirement won't be worth anything.
Nice long list of PRO having kids. I could make an even loger list for the CONs. Do you know the term cherry-picking? Oops, I forgot to say at the start "speaking as an Antinatalist."
No, Its not fairly balanced. If you took every human, you could place everyone of them on the island of Man. Consumption and greed, is killing the planet.
Population collapse WILL happen if this keeps occurring though, this as is promiscuity, lower smv women because of that, therefore taken less seriously to be a wife and throw the pill on top of that!
That is the result of capitalism imperialism. Marx was perfectly correct about this. Feminism is a reactionary ideology and the result is only for benefiting the men at the top.
@@chrisa5631 in 300,000 years of homo sapiens existence our present population is orders of magnitude greater than at any point prior to the 20th century. In fact, there's good contemporary evidence that the Roman Empire collapsed because the carrying capacity of the land was exhausted, precipitating the dark ages where the population of major cities shrank markedly; mass decentralisation naturally occurred, and wars were being fought with MUCH smaller numbers compared with antiquity
The problem is, lyin-in takes women away from the workforce. There are some women who would see that as oppressive and fight against it. And the current western economy doesn’t benefit from losing labour for a month on a large scale. Also, the nuclear family works best in a capitalist system, because an extended one (with female kin close by) would mean people have to rely on getting local jobs they are qualified for and can support them and their families, all the while being there for the mother post birth. I guess there needs to be a balancing act in the end, there will always be tradeoffs.
@@erikbrus8388 How many men between 18-35 are prepared to be husbands and fathers? Virtually none. A big problem is women who want to be married and have children young finding any men who would cooperate. Don’t suggest older men as no father or mother I know would hand their daughter off to a man a lot older than her, and most very young women find them physically repulsive anyway. Historically (I.e. from records from the Middle Ages onwards) the average age for marriage has been around 23 for women and 28 for men. It’s a myth that young women were marrying much older men, these were very much the anomalies, such as aristocratic and otherwise very wealthy families who were trying to retain land and control. My daughters are 20 & 22, traditional Catholics and don’t find men much over 25 appealing. My nephew is engaged to be married and he and his bride are both 24.
@@viviennedunbar3374 "How many men between 18-35 are prepared to be husbands and fathers? Virtually none." because the modern woman is an ersatz man. We're not gay
@@viviennedunbar3374 I have two daughters and I have no problem with my daughter‘s one day dating over men as long as they are born against Christians know if you’re saying like my daughters 19 and he’s 50 that’s weird that’s definitely weird but if she’s in her 20s and he’s in his 30s or late 30s. I don’t think that’s a problem at all people make age such a big deal when men and women are different women mature sexually a lot faster and we have a biological clock and men’s biological clock last a little longer so there’s a balance and I would rather have my daughter be with a man who has some experience in life and is able to guide her and take care of her
Louise Perry has put her finger on the biggest challenge we face as a species: that we have embraced a culture that is hostile to children, motherhood and families. And she also has put her finger on the direction forward: we must change this culture by exploding the myth that all traditional institutions are evil and wrong. Brava Louise!
The culture is hostile to women.
Culture hostile to having children because is hostile to men. feminists like Louise Perry are responsible for this. Women can have all the kids they want. Keep men out of it No sane man should get married or have a long term relationship given the divorce laws and the toxicity of modern women.
It is evil and wrong if it oprrsses people. We do not owe anyone our fertility. This thought process of controlling people because you think it's right is wrong in all cases.
Absolutely brilliant speech! So few people can see the extent of the problem but Louise obviously can. Bravo
Brilliant Louise. You made me think about previous practices my mum experienced after child birth. She was nursed for 14 days. I was discharged after 24 hrs. Feeling lost and alone.
If my daughter has a baby I will ensure she definately has the traditional lying in time.
Louise Perry's loveliness and brilliance is an inspiration. Thank you in the name of women and families everywhere.
Regurgitating right wing talking points is not brilliant. A monkey could do it.
Amazing, Louise! Can’t wait for the next book!
Very good. This is what "interpreting the signs of the times" looks like.
I was in the vanguard of the 70s feminism. Many of the women were heroic in challenging the unfairness, disrespect and discrimination that had pertained for centuries, the problem was that we had no template for women's equality, so we looked to male power patterns, believing that the only answer was to put on the jocks and play rugger with the boys!
It took me two decades to realise that what we should have fought for was for equal support, respect and fairness for the essential work of bearing and raising the human race, without which all the other high status jobs would-be pointless and meaningless.
"Many of the women were heroic in challenging the unfairness, disrespect and discrimination that had pertained for centuries"
that's a gross misreading of history. if you think that women were oppressed the whole time leading up to the 60s, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Men looked after and were responsible for women. They did (and continue to do) all the back breaking work in society (construction, agriculture, factory work, fighting all the bloody wars). My problem with feminism is that it sounds exactly like a baby's whine, with its one-dimensionality
When my sister gave birth to her first child, our mother drove 250 miles to the city she was in and stayed with her for over 3 months.
My sister said it was the most positive and supporting action she has ever received.
About lying in. I watched a TV program about an elephant herd and the arrival of a newborn was greeted with such joy and celebration by the adult females!! Now I understand how important society and community took motherhood
5:58, to Louise's point that third wave feminism suggests that motherhood reduces the opportunities of women in their careers, I would point out that for women who choose to prioritise their familes - and ergo their children - that actually whilst it may restrict their opportunities in full-time work, women are today uniquely capable of treating their childrearing years a part-time career, whilst they also potentially choose voluntary or part-time work alongside. I would rather get by on one or one and a half incomes, than two incomes, if the difference is having children rather than going on more holidays per year. Motherhood is the noblest career to have.
If women have 3 babies between 18-22 and then have a career it won't be a problem
First we have to get rid of the stigma that exists of women who are content to put their children and family first. Who are content to just be mothers and housewives. Currently, there’s a culture of thinking less of these women.
@@Madoldcatlady for a start we need to not say they are “just” mothers and housewives. That is immediately stigmatizing.
@@viviennedunbar3374 fair enough, but that is not at all how I meant it. I worked from the age of 15 yrs till I married at 27 yrs old. I WAS a stay at home mother! I AM still a housewife, but I am many other things besides. I had many job and I always said it was the hardest job of all.
The stigma comes from people thinking there’s something wrong with us if we prefer to bring up our own children or don’t need to or feel the need to work. Not every woman has that luxury though. My husband has a good job, but very long and odd hours. One of us needed to be the anchor and it was me. I’ve always been content to do it, but, others have made me feel "less" for doing so.
It's fine if that's what you want to do. It's fine if you have a husband that can make to support this. The problem is alot of families don't have that luxury. Oh between 18 to 22yrs really? The problem is owner and bosses not keeping up with the price of living.
A very lucid and coherent analysis of our predicament.
It's great to see some actual conservativism again. Keep up the awesome work!
Finally someone focusing on the genuine issues we face as a society...
thank you
Can’t have progress without motherhood. No more babies, no more future for society. It’s a slow crumble. She’s right on the money 👏🏼👏🏼
Great speech
The erosion of the extended family and grandparent care arising in part from a self centred worldview is also to blame.
Excellent. I also recommend Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson (demographers) on this topic
I'm 65,I never had Kids possibly become I came from a broken family and was possibility terrified the same miserable pattern would repeat itself on a child,notwithstanding that I abused alchohol from 16 till I was 39,possibly due to my own painful background.To the future I travel
This is what some conservatives miss. They keep ignoring the people who had kids they don't want, because they were told that having kids are a must. Some people are opting out in order to break the cycle of dysfunctional families.
It's not having kids that a case needs to be made for. Plenty of women WANT more kids than they have. But they've already got, say, two. And from that they've learned that every baby sentences them to 2-3 years of the most dreadful isolation. That there's no help. That caring for a baby means neglecting your older children. That you can spend 2-3 years recovering from a pregnancy-induced hernia, be barely able to lift your own baby (much less keep up with your laundry and clean your floors), and this doesn't entitle you to any help or sympathy from anybody. "You're the one who wanted kids. Deal with it. *I* went back to work two weeks after you were born." Grandparents are far away and feel no obligation to help. Your neighbors are people you don't know. Your husband is away at work most days. You're absolutely on your own. But hey, being a mom, greatest job in the world, right? Right??.... right?
No, it f*****g sucks.
A case needs to be made for reviving a culture where women help each other, where homes are large enough to accommodate extended family groupings-- grandmothers, spinster aunties, even teenage cousins-- where you aren't seen as a useless human wasting your life if you *don't* hold down a fulltime job or have a "career" but instead devote a large amount of time to your household and the children in it. Where women dropping in "to visit" each other is a normal thing, not a big production that has to be planned out two weeks in advance. A case needs to be made for re-orienting culture toward the raising, protecting, and nurturing of children-- even for people who haven't got any children. Make childrearing something *other* than a prison sentence, and I guarantee women will have more children.
Yeah it was called Christianity
It doesn’t suck your attitude does.
@@sofiabravo1994Both things can be true at the same.
One thing I strongly agree about is that reversal of falling birth rates is the gold mine that will define the powers of tomorrow.
"The first group of people that can crack this problem, will have the world before them. Let it be us."
And this will be, for me a mid-20s man, well within our lifetime. I will be in my mid-40s, God willing, when the babies born today enter the workforce, and the military. For the country that turns the tide, and has many of those, it will be an empire defining advantage.
Much of Africa has high birth rates. I guess if we bring back subsistence farming and make children the only pension, every country will have high birth rates.
This was excellent. ✔
I didn't know how to be a Father mine's left home at 7 and went USA when I was 10 and made no contact.He ceased to mean anything me.As much contempt I have there isn't a day goes by I don't think about him and he is 21 years gone.That is just what this life serves up sometimes.I will survive
Maybe we need an economic system that isnt a ponzi scheme.
Explain the ponzi scheme? I can guess Pension or other programs. Hey maybe Very Wealthy could pay Taxes! But we get Ponzi scheme. Never mind Lawful gambling Wallstreet.
@@jscullyandmulderx25 The stock market price is only pushed up because there are more people buying stocks each year because of population growth. When population declines and the ponzi scheme of more buyers coming in to buy is gone the stock market will crash.
Very brave Woman
Thank you
I think it’s too late. She wants to hit the brakes on modernity .. but there’s no brakes on this train. Women are going to literally choke to death on feminism
Modernity is fundamentally incompatible with anything that can last
It's coming to the point where the only solution is for trans to have wombs surgically implanted in them and produce the next generation.This is crazy fantasy and I dont believe in the trans movement but not enough women are having kids.
And will convert en masse to Islam.
Isn't that one of their top kinks? 🤔 Seems like a win-win situation...
@@JeffCaplan313 "Their" top kinks? Who are they?
Wow. No conservative speech has given my libertarian mind so much to think about as this one.
She nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.
This is why I found Distributist Dave interesting. He reviewed Bioshock and explained why it was a huge joke about Ayn Rand. One point he made was how Ayn Rand had no children and that Galt's Gulch was not known to have children. That couldn't be sustained.
Unfortunately the relatives are either too far away as we see the habits of movement around the country as a right, or they are out at work!!
What a brilliant speech. Every MP should see this but all they are interested in is getting re elected and not actually doing anything useful.
When women joined the workforce, prices for all goods and services, especially housing, doubled, because of the assumption of two incomes. The economy has doubled the cost of living due to women working full time jobs. This is highly detrimental to our long term health as a nation. It is the cyanide in the kasava. Louise Perry's address was brilliant. Elizabeth Warren pointed out the economic costs of a two income family - otherwise I agree with her on nothing. Advantage is taken of additional wage earners.
giving women the vote was such a massive mistake.
No kids means no future and massive poverty in a very short time for All
how'd they get Hera to speak at a conservative conference?
Why does there have to be a case for it? It's what healthy organisms do, if they don't they're maladaptive and die out. It should be the default to have kids and anyone who claims to not want them should be viewed with strong suspicion.
They tend to be the ones calling themselves "progressive".
You just made a case for it.
@@tgbrfvolik I really made more a case against the opposing position
If someone refuses to have children because of "climate change", aren't we better off not having their mutations in the gene pool?
Good, then encourage the maladaptives to stop breeding. I often joke that if the Idiocracy stopped breeding, what would be lost?
Sorry Louise, but the first people to crack that problem will not be the UK or the US, it looks like it is going to be Hungary.
Israel has a good replacement number - Women have average 3 babies.
Hungary has a lower fertility rate than the USA. Their pro-natalist policies aren't reversing the trend.
Look at the world population curve over the past 2 centuries. There had to be a correction. We went into overshoot.
8:05 She almost got it. All feminism is bad. Its fundamental value is you don't need no man
The new Little Mermaid is all about that tenet
Because contraception is degeneracy. There, FIFY
unfortunately, nationalizing everything doesn't work. Only if it did we would be in better shape. But you can't, as you well know Louise, change people with external motications, unless those motivations are genuine. the reason for groups succeeding isn't the good things, it's the religion that binds the goodness and molds the hereditary and eventually biological values. And while we service evil corporations above all else , like BlackRock with our confidence it's at least a double headwind at very best.
and further those same people, that you need for such, are quite opposed to your interests, because it is by traditional standards of religion against homosexuality and sexual well wishing ideals that makes them do what works. You cannot through idealism and compassion fix the inherent genetic reality of this issue.
Indeed. I often say that if people who don't want children don't fall into the trap of having them, the shitty parent gene goes extinct, and we lose nothing.
Kids cost money. Therefore, i dont have them. Money is more important. Having kids, just burdens yourself and makes you more reliant on your boss. No thanks. Make money and run out the clock.
They actually don't cost as much as you think. Unless you spoil them.
@@Egyptianfaith I really don't understand the fascination with having kids. Waste of money and time.
@@jasonseng5463 the biggest famines start from lack of population, not enough farmers, not enough doctors, not enough people to keep supermarkets open, not enough train drivers not enough Pharmacists etc. The problem is in the west we have a huge aging population and when they are old and retired, there won't be enough children now that will then be adults to keep society going when the older generation can't work. For the first time more than 50 percent of 30 year women in England are childless. So if that doesn't change you'll have half the amount of people looking after double their number. Which isn't sustainable. So it's time people "lie back and think of England" !!
@@jasonseng5463 we need to get making babies for our survival! 😉
@@jasonseng5463You don't need to understand it. Natural selection will gladly take your defective genes out of the gene pool. But not after you live your elder years in penury. When there aren't enough young workers, the paper money you saved for retirement won't be worth anything.
Nice long list of PRO having kids. I could make an even loger list for the CONs. Do you know the term cherry-picking? Oops, I forgot to say at the start "speaking as an Antinatalist."
the world is overpopulated
No, Its not fairly balanced. If you took every human, you could place everyone of them on the island of Man. Consumption and greed, is killing the planet.
Population collapse WILL happen if this keeps occurring though, this as is promiscuity, lower smv women because of that, therefore taken less seriously to be a wife and throw the pill on top of that!
That is the result of capitalism imperialism. Marx was perfectly correct about this. Feminism is a reactionary ideology and the result is only for benefiting the men at the top.
@@chrisa5631 in 300,000 years of homo sapiens existence our present population is orders of magnitude greater than at any point prior to the 20th century. In fact, there's good contemporary evidence that the Roman Empire collapsed because the carrying capacity of the land was exhausted, precipitating the dark ages where the population of major cities shrank markedly; mass decentralisation naturally occurred, and wars were being fought with MUCH smaller numbers compared with antiquity
Yes, so spread feminism to where women usually queef out 5 kids and can't feed them all.
Great speech!
The problem is, lyin-in takes women away from the workforce. There are some women who would see that as oppressive and fight against it. And the current western economy doesn’t benefit from losing labour for a month on a large scale. Also, the nuclear family works best in a capitalist system, because an extended one (with female kin close by) would mean people have to rely on getting local jobs they are qualified for and can support them and their families, all the while being there for the mother post birth. I guess there needs to be a balancing act in the end, there will always be tradeoffs.
If women have 3 babies between 18-22 and then have a career it won't be a problem
You mean the years they're riding the CC in college?
@@erikbrus8388 How many men between 18-35 are prepared to be husbands and fathers? Virtually none. A big problem is women who want to be married and have children young finding any men who would cooperate. Don’t suggest older men as no father or mother I know would hand their daughter off to a man a lot older than her, and most very young women find them physically repulsive anyway. Historically (I.e. from records from the Middle Ages onwards) the average age for marriage has been around 23 for women and 28 for men. It’s a myth that young women were marrying much older men, these were very much the anomalies, such as aristocratic and otherwise very wealthy families who were trying to retain land and control. My daughters are 20 & 22, traditional Catholics and don’t find men much over 25 appealing. My nephew is engaged to be married and he and his bride are both 24.
@@viviennedunbar3374 "How many men between 18-35 are prepared to be husbands and fathers? Virtually none."
because the modern woman is an ersatz man. We're not gay
@@viviennedunbar3374 I have two daughters and I have no problem with my daughter‘s one day dating over men as long as they are born against Christians know if you’re saying like my daughters 19 and he’s 50 that’s weird that’s definitely weird but if she’s in her 20s and he’s in his 30s or late 30s. I don’t think that’s a problem at all people make age such a big deal when men and women are different women mature sexually a lot faster and we have a biological clock and men’s biological clock last a little longer so there’s a balance and I would rather have my daughter be with a man who has some experience in life and is able to guide her and take care of her