I'm stoic when I'm not slightly inconvenienced by an inconsequential thing, not on my period, not ovulating, not hungry, not within 4-ish hours of waking up, not within 6-ish hours of going to bed, have gotten at least 9 hours of sleep and every interaction I've had with another person that day has been positive and not in the least bit annoying or unpleasant.
>>34623536Oh, man, that made me laugh. I remember seeing a device demonstrated once that simulated menstrual cramps by electrically stimulating muscles in the lower abdomen. Men testing it would turn it up to 3 and say "okay, that's not too bad", then turn it up to 5 and say "Oh, Jesus, that's enough." Women were turning it up to 9 or 10 and saying "Yeah, that's about average."
>>34623536What's your definition of stoic? Bottling everything up until you get really drunk and embarrass yourself?
They are, but people will not like it if a woman is as stoic as a stoic men. Women are expected to be expressive, to laugh, giggle and smile easily, to be easily enthused. A woman consistently being curt, serious and emotionally unbothered will read as cold to most people. Especially women will straight-up pressure her into showing more emotional involvement ("you're not even reacting to this dramatic story!").
My ex would strive for stoic appeals but in reality it just made them unapologetic and insufferable under the guise of being logical or honest. Women armed with stoicism turn it into extremes to excuse brutal behaviors
>>34623551Historically, women would have been permanently pregnant. They might have experienced menstrual cramps around once a year.
>>34623547same lmao10/10 post
>>34623551>wow men can't tolerate a pain I go through monthly haha so weakYeah im pretty sure if I knew my balls were gonna ache for a week straight for the rest of my life, id say the same shit hooked up to a pain simulation.
>>34623660Holy shit, my ex was "stoic" but in reality she was just unapologetic in her bullshit and tried to spin it as "it's no big deal bro, good vibes" I quickly got fed up with her lack of ability to take shit seriously unless it mattered to her that much.
>>34624061[citation needed]
>>34623536I think women can be stoic. Most people arent though. None of my relatives are stoic, men or women.I know a guy who wants to be stoic but hell get upset over trivial things and make threats in a “calm” tone of voice
>>34623536Stoism requires being able to take control over your own emotional responses.Women are mostly emotional responses, so it's near impossible for them to become truly stoic.Fear not the thousand men who have lived their lives detached, fear the woman who has found inner peace.
Yes, but I’ve not met many stoic people at all, male or female. It’s probably just harder for us
>>34624566*Yes as in, we are able to be stoic
>>34624061Women weren't constantly pregnant all the time, consider how most people in the past were at least somewhat malnourished, constant pregnancy would be unwise. The reason why families were so big back then was because women would have kids into their 40s.
>>34623551Reminder that women who have undergone child birth report that kidney stones are more painful.“Muh womb-men are sooo stronk” yeah get fucked, my diet of Gamer Supps and tendies literally has given me exposure to greater pain than some foid can ever suffer because of her slimy genitals
>>34624829>chart>commentNTA, but you don't know how to read charts, do you? LFMAO
1/2>>34624829>Women weren't constantly pregnant all the time, consider how most people in the past were at least somewhat malnourished, constant pregnancy would be unwise.NTA, even though I agree with the first part in isolation, women were not constantly pregnant. That part is actually the only claim here that matches reality. But the reasoning that follows is doing a lot of heavy lifting without evidence. Malnutrition is not a defining condition of mid twentieth century United States in the way you are implying, and even in genuinely lower nutrition populations, fertility patterns are shaped far more by contraception, marriage age, breastfeeding practices, and cultural norms than by a simple idea of whether pregnancy is "wise." You are taking a broad historical intuition and attaching it to a modern dataset where it does not explain the pattern you see.>The reason why families were so big back then was because women would have kids into their 40s.This is where the argument breaks completely. The chart is literally about women aged forty to forty four, and it shows that births in that age range were always a SMALL MINORITY of total births. Even at the higher point in the 1940s and 1950s, we are talking about roughly ONE to TWO percent of women in that group giving birth in a given year. That is not a mechanism that can explain "big families."If late forties fertility were the driver of large family size, you would expect that line to be consistently high or dominant. Instead, it is low, it drops sharply mid century, and only rises again later due to delayed childbearing patterns, not because families suddenly relied on late pregnancies.
2/2>>34624829The real reason families were larger in earlier decades is much simpler and much more powerful. Women began having children EARLIER, often in their early twenties, and had fewer effective means to stop or space births. That produces more total children over a lifetime. Not late fertility. Early and continuous fertility is the engine. Late fertility is a small tail end of the story, not the motor.What I see is this: as maternal age rises into the forties, certain biological risks do become more common. The most consistently documented one involves chromosomal errors during cell division, which can increase the chance of conditions such as trisomy 21. There is also a higher likelihood of miscarriage and some pregnancy complications. That part of the record is fairly well established across large population studies.
>>34624566I'm a man and would have to agree.
>>34625174>The real reason families were larger in earlier decades is much simpler and much more powerful. Women began having children EARLIER, often in their early twentiesForgot to clarify, this is another factor of what I mean. Women had children earlier and longer back then. Assuming a 20 year old woman gave birth every 3.5 years, she would easily have 7 kids by the time she's 43. Most women had 8-11 kids, if she had one every two years she would have eleven by 43.
>>34625953Yep. My grandma had 8 siblings and her mom was still around long enough to actually be a grandma to my mom. Now I'll be lucky to give my mom her first grandkid because of how fucked things are.
