Beatrix Kiddo

This is great for Mexico. Illegals are good for the economy, commit practically no crime, and, of course, can't get welfare. They're nothing but upside and diversity 👩🏾‍🤝‍👨🏿

When you try to help a liberal by saying you actually enjoy motherhood over your old grueling banking job; a miserable 'pick me feminist' will scold you

@SchopenhauerOn @Rainmaker1973 well theres a lot of anti male bias. the fix isnt inaccurate anti female bias. but i agree, the whos better convo is dumb and pointless

@BeatrixdeSol @Rainmaker1973 I try to look at the world as unbiased as possible. And if everything I see a huge amount of anti-male bias while in my opinion no gender is "better" or "worse" than the other.

Recent research from Kyoto University reveals that female dogs actively assess human competence—while male dogs do not. Female dogs clearly prefer approaching humans who successfully complete tasks, such as opening food containers, over those who fail. In contrast, male dogs show no preference and treat both competent and incompetent humans equally. These findings, published in a study titled "Female dogs evaluate levels of competence in humans," indicate that female dogs exhibit a more advanced form of social evaluation, particularly when food or resources are involved. They pay closer attention to human actions and their outcomes, using this information to decide who is the most reliable partner for obtaining rewards. This competence bias suggests female dogs are more sensitive to efficiency and social results than previously thought. For dog owners, it means your female companion isn't just loyal—she's also quietly evaluating your ability to provide. These results highlight an intriguing sex difference in canine social cognition, potentially evolved to enhance females' chances of securing resources and survival. [Chijiiwa, H., Horisaki, E., Hori, Y., Anderson, J. R., Fujita, K., & Kuroshima, H. (2022). Female dogs evaluate levels of competence in humans. Behavioural Processes, 203, 104778. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2022.104778]

@LeeKurtiss @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 and its abundantly clear you dont have kids. you dont realize its the best 'work' available. i dont miss banking if thats what you genuinely believe happens remember you come from a place of assumptions - you would v likely be surprised at the reality, so stay curious

@BeatrixdeSol @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 Pick Me Girl!!! You're going to get soooooooo many men slavering over you for telling them exactly what they want to hear

Jordan Peterson drops a truth most modern families don’t want to hear: “Daycare under three — especially in the first year — is really not advisable. There isn’t any form of care that can replace a mother’s care in those early years.” He calls it “quite remarkable” that we’ve engineered a world where staying home with young children has become a luxury for most families — “as if by design.” Decades of research (still largely unchanged) shows the critical attachment window in the first 3 years is uniquely supported by consistent, responsive maternal care. Disruptions here correlate with measurable increases in stress reactivity, behavioral issues, and later emotional difficulties. The question we’re afraid to ask: Have we made motherhood incompatible with economic survival on purpose? Parents (especially moms of young kids): Do you feel this pressure — that staying home feels like a luxury you can’t afford? Or have you seen the difference in your own children between early daycare vs. being home those first years? Your honest take 👇

@LeeKurtiss @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 what are you talking about? mine are still young - im still young. currently im breastfeeding one, ive just entered 2nd trimester w the newest, and im keeping an eye on my 4yr and 3 yr old splashing water from a bucket. so im halfway to a target of 8.

@BeatrixdeSol @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 How many babies have you popped out then? 10? 15?

@wolfvus @InterestingSTEM thats what they are arguing though. that stress related miscarriage disproportionately effects male fetuses

@InterestingSTEM I am blocking this "STEM" account even if the results of the study are sound with such a low population the conclusion is anti-scientific. Plenty of possible causes for the observed phenomenon foe example: stressed immune system tends to produce more spontaneous miscarriages.

Stressed pregnant mothers are twice as likely to have girls because male fetuses are more fragile and die off while females survive the harsh conditions. Physically stressed women had only 31% boys vs 56% in healthy mothers. A solid 2019 study in PNAS tracked 187 women starting early in pregnancy and looked at a ton of stress signals: anxiety, depression, PTSD stuff, blood pressure, cortisol levels, inflammation, calorie intake, sleep- you name it, they measured 27 different markers. They split the women into three groups: - The "healthy" ones (about 65% of the group, basically low stress across the board) had the usual U.S. birth ratio: around 56% boys. - The psychologically stressed group (17%, really high anxiety/depression scores) dropped to about 40% boys. - The physically stressed group (another 17%, things like high blood pressure plus eating a lot more calories 500–600 extra a day but normal mental health) ended up with only 31% boys. That's roughly a 2:1 girl-to-boy ratio. Out of all 88 boys born in the study, 69 came from the healthy moms, while just 8 came from the physically stressed ones. The researchers put it pretty straightforward: really intense maternal stress early on seriously lowers the chances of a male fetus making it to term. Male embryos already start out a bit more fragile than females, and spikes in cortisol, inflammation, or other physical stressors seem to tip them over the edge.

@LeeKurtiss @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 yes, i think you have been brainwashed

@BeatrixdeSol @DougMoore659499 @newstart_2024 You mean brainwashed?

No. This is not actually a choice that women need to make. Almost everyone is confused about this, because the actual, functional mating customs of civilized humanity were almost entirely lost in the baby boomer great reset. In civilized humans, courtship between the sexes is initiated by the female. This is why civilized men hate cold approaching, and only r-selecting knuckledraggers are comfortable with the practice... along with men who have killed off their natural distaste for it because they had to learn it out of sheer necessity. Women generally hate this idea, because they don't like cold approaching, either. But I did not say cold approach. I said "initiate". What a woman is supposed to do, according the customs of actual civilization with functional mating rituals, is see a man she thinks she might like, and covertly signal an invitation to approach. This invitation is the first measure of a graceful social dance, where the steps are known to both partners. The signal is to be clear enough that the man understands its intent, but subtle enough that it can be plausibly denied if he proves to be distasteful on closer examination. It is then the man's responsibility to overtly approach and court. But this is not a cold approach, because he knows he has been invited. His responsibility is to not screw up a good beginning. Thus, no one is cold approaching. Look at the cartoon. You've seen it before. And this indeed how it works... but only in a broken culture. Because when both sexes understand their roles, the difference between the top and bottom panels isn't whether the man is objectively attractive or not, but whether Susan dropped a hint. The reason things work this way now is that Susan was brought up without the slightest inkling of what she was supposed to do. In fact, if you told her now that she's supposed to know how to accidentally drop a handkerchief, she'd probably resent the implication that she has any duties or bears any responsibility for doing anything at all. But power and responsibility together in both directions. If women have no responsibility to invite an approach, then they have no power to control who approaches them. And this is a power they desperately want. This is the true reason why they complain about how being approached is "creepy". They have an instinctive sense that men they don't want are not supposed to make a pass, but they have no idea how this is supposed to not happen. So they try to leave it to men to work out. And men, like women, and like every other carbon-based life form on the planet, are noted for their inability to read minds. There is no individual solution to a broken collective. Dire misunderstandings between men and women trying to find mates are simply one more symptom of the disease that caused the late twentieth century West to try to wipe the cultural slate clean, and reinvent all social customs from an undifferentiated soup of naive postwar liberalism. An individual woman who learns to drop a hint — and more importantly, understands that she should — is still powerless to force men around her to learn to pick one up, or to refrain from being a sex pest when she doesn't drop one. An individual man who learns to spot a hint is still powerless to read the minds of women who don't even know they are supposed to drop one, much less how. Humans, unlike almost all other animals, are not creatures of instinct alone. We are evolved to develop and use rituals. And thus we need to have those rituals, and to transmit them to the next generation. Or we will not thrive. Did every culture have a genteel lexicon of hints and winks and dropped handkerchiefs and how to hold a lace fan? Of course not. Mongol horse archers would think this was all effete nonsense. But Mongol horse archers never invented the radio or the airplane or machine tools or the air conditioner, either. So who cares what they would have thought? We had a way of courting. It was a dance, not a war. It worked. People were happy with it. Then some hippies decided it didn't work with their abstract and stupid philosophy. So it all had to go. And now even conservatives don't always remember what it is we're supposed to be conserving.

@CCrowley100 'scary stupid' basically

Theory of mind is the ability to recognize that others have thoughts and emotions separate from your own. Lower levels of IQ are associated with a reduced capacity for theory of mind, or its absence. The average IQ in Africa is around 68 to 70.

@MacSpdrm16 @aluisezc @KeoweeSCgal @WallStreetMav lol when they are young and theres more than one, and you also take care of the home, it absolutely is. happy to school you on that point if you want to push on what you dont know. when they are older and if you use public schools, no. fyi the govt takes its fee for that garbage

@BeatrixdeSol @aluisezc @KeoweeSCgal @WallStreetMav First of all, that’s exactly what she said. What she wants is unfettered access to his money. And I don’t care if women stay at home with kids. But don’t feed me bullshit about it’s a 24 hour a day job. No. It’s not.

🤔🤔🤔

@MadelaineLucyH @SojuConnoisseur helping out - hes right, gross domestic product going up does not mean real productivity and certainly not quality of life going up. happy to provide many examples

“We pay workers too much for low productivity” Right, so let’s fix that! Cut a £500/week household to ONE income. Remove £25k from annual spending. Shops close, restaurants close, services vanish. Jobs halve. Congrats, you’ve solved productivity by collapsing demand! Brilliant plan.

Absolutely love this six-year-old’s take on economics. Let’s play with it, shall we? You decide not to work? Household income: $65,000 ➡️ $40,000 So, $25,000 removed from the budget, spend, and taxable income. Fair enough! Now you just don’t have that money to spend on shops, coffee, meals out, trips, trains, etc. So what, right? You’re happy without stuff! Ah. Lots of businesses shut. So your husband loses his job. And her husband. And her husband. And her husband. Uhoh. So: $0. With babies. No! You tell me, women didn’t work before! Yes, and we were all poorer. Dramatically poorer. You’re not going back to a cosy trad fantasy. You’re going back to overcrowded housing, low wages, and limited opportunity. Two incomes didn’t break the economy. They ARE the modern economy. Sorry!

@BassLordMemer @SlopHq poetry

@SlopHq If you go to work everyday and keep the war machine alive you are just trying to make a living

if you kill four people with a knife you are a monster. if you kill four people with a gun you are a criminal. if you kill four people with a 5,000 pound mercedes suv at 75mph in a 25 zone you are an elderly woman who made a tragic mistake and the judge considers your clean record

It is puzzling to me that the left is so sympathetic to the argument that we need workers and therefore should have mass immigration. If companies need workers, that means that workers have power to get good salaries and working conditions, which is supposedly a core goal of the left. Or at least it used to be. Now the core goal seems more to be to have mass immigration of non-Westerners.

@SideTweetz @KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav ah ill admit, i missed the more 'whenever i ask for it'. yeah this suggests a poor track record.

Everything is taken care of. She gets an amount of money to spend on anything she wants. She even admits that if she wants more, she gets it. The only reason to want more than that is to drain their finances, in which case, she should never be allowed near them. And I would say the same thing if it were reversed.

@robinhanson @Rainmaker1973 yea for sure. women like competence men like fertility

@Rainmaker1973 Might this just be a more general trend in female mammals?

@SchopenhauerOn @Rainmaker1973 ive been saying for a while women are drawn to competence not money, and men are drawn to looks because its fertility and good child bearing. both are good not bad tendencies you were close but bias rotted your brain (competence markers are cross species, but fertility not rlly)

@Rainmaker1973 Interpretation: female dogs' loyalty depends while male dogs' attention is unconditional. He will remain your friend when you are in a wheelchair while she leaves you for the "more competent owner"

@aluisezc @KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav turn her conservative then. an allowance is dumb and shes a stay at home mom, most conservative marriages involve a conversation when someone wants to spend xx amount

@KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav because you're old and maga I'm willing to explain this to you. We are talking about modern women, in this case this bitch is prolly liberal, we're not talking about conservative women 20-40 years ago. I'd agree with you if we were living in 90s-2000s

@tricktser @KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav she works a job that is high value. you must think theres no trade off to a mom working outside of the home and paying strangers to raise the kids

@KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav How is she trapped? Why does she want access to money that she isn't earning? How would he handle a situation if she overspends?

@SideTweetz @KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav so you dont think women should work at home and raise their kids? theres a trade off if he forces her to earn any fiat she wants beyond his 'allowance'

@KeoweeSCgal @MacSpdrm16 @WallStreetMav How is she trapped..? Is he preventing her from making money herself..? Is he preventing her from leaving..? Sounds to me like he's just preventing her from decimating their finances.

@GunthyElite @KeoweeSCgal @WallStreetMav no she mentioned shes a stay at home mom. she left the fiat economy to raise their kids, and he and others like you suggest using that her job is for her family against her. this comment is extremely anti-natalist

@KeoweeSCgal @WallStreetMav why would it be her money if he earned it?