Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81314151617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 200

Thread: How Do You Feel About Ageing?

  1. #171
    One with Nature
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Víđálfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Dacian (Moldavia, Transylvania) & German (Buchenland, Austrian Empire, Mecklenburg)
    Gender
    Family
    Óđins mćr
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathenry
    Posts
    1,063
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,017
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,046
    Thanked in
    490 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    One thing which worried me and made me feel unfulfilled was because when I was younger, I had seen myself already married with children by that age, but it wasn't meant to be. It wasn't easy to find a suitable man of Germanic descent who could be the ideal husband, sometimes I'd either find someone who was nice but they weren't Germanic, or someone who was ethnically Germanic but who didn't want marriage or children.

    [...] We've also competition from younger women [...]. So this made me a little bit depressed
    I had quite the same feelings about turning 30, more or less.

    Honestly, after reading all the posts here in the last few days, I was making a list in my mind with all the men I "rejected"... To sum up, they either had dubious ancestry (some even had Gypsy ancestry), or they were obviously less intelligent than I am...

    I never cared so much about social status or formal education or whatever else, but just the quality of that person for what he is. I've been in a long term relationship with someone who has less formal education than me and it worked out for many years...

    However, the men I really saw myself married with and having a family (and children) with were just two: first one, when I was in my early 20's, we were together, and he said he didn't want to have children with me because I didn't have blue eyes like him (I posted here about that many years ago)... I was so heartbroken, I didn't even think to have children or family with anyone else after that anymore... for many years... The second one, much more recent, but I won't go into details this time.

    I guess the problem about ageing, and being overwhelmed by the passing of years, it has to do with the feeling that we didn't accomplish our goals for the time span. Regardless which are those goals...

    Personally I've been so traumatized after that first experience with the first man I wished to have a family with... that I didn't dare to think about such a thing any longer for many many years. And just when I recovered from that, it happened again. I guess I just have to accept I might have better things to do in this lifetime. After all, it won't be such a big lose for the Germanics if personally I wouldn't have any offspring, right? So why would someone care, honestly?

    There are so many things to do, and life is so short... The most tremendous feeling about passing of time is this about not accomplishing your goals, about not realizing what you aimed for.

    People fear death, and they aim to reach immortality, somehow, either through their genes being spread to the next generations, or through immortal pieces of art... or just important spiritual realizations that makes them be immortal after leaving the physical world.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Many men have become "feminists" in a sense as well in the last few decades, and specially Americans will be happy to explain you why the woman they've children with doesnt deserve aliments, because she's supposed to work, earn her own money and at the same time of course be a perfect housewife and take care of the kids like a stay at home mon, although this stance will force her to have 2-3 jobs just not to end up in a trailer park.

    Men also expect the women to "contribute" to family income. How many are really ready to take the role of the breadwinner alone and provide everything for their wife and children, house/flat, food, vacation, weekends out, hobbies etc pp? Oh, not so many.

    Which brings us to the point of "mate choice" and those "evil women" who're not happy with the men material available.
    It is very normal for a women (instinct/biology) to look out for a + compared to where she comes from. That was pretty easy in those days when women were barred from education and had no rights to begin with. Even traveller salesmen would probably provide a theoretical + to her if she happened to be born into serfdom f.e.

    Now, patriarchy is gone, women have been lifted up to the status of human being and like everyone else, are provided with education. And suddenly we find ourselves in a situation, where ranges of women no longer find that +, because men do not make as much use of this first class education system that we have, but also dont become respected and good/well-earning craftsmen often, but rather join the grey mass of "unimportant" suitwearing "business men" with boring jobs, which, while not exactly something to look down upon, because every society needs such ants I guess, but they're still grey, still boring, still so average that it hurts, and not rarely "metrosexual", very feministic-minded and absolutely not ready or willing (and due to their jobs, often also not able) to provide alone for a family.

    It's quite interesting (to use that disgusting internet language) that such a 5 of a man looks out for a 7 or 8, finds himself of course rejected because they dont play in the same class on no level, and then go whine about those "evil feminist women", while not even noticing the women within their own class of things, because in some lofty phantasy they think they're too low for them, they "deserve" something better. See, the thing is that men, in those "glory days of patriarchy", always had women 1 or 2 points lower than themselves. Why is it that men want suddenly something higher than themselves? This is the other side of the feminist coin, and men fell into that trap just as many women fell into the trap of "career" 'n stuff. This goes very much both ways.
    Very well said... and the part I put in bold... so many men today are like that, not men anymore... So it's not just women that changed, but also men...

    It looks like some people live in a different world, or who knows, maybe in their countries or local communities things are a bit different?

    No, men aren't the same as 50 years ago either... as velvet put the problem very well.

    I sometimes wonder how these "metrosexuals" will age... I don't even want to imagine!
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Víđálfr For This Useful Post:


  3. #172
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Scania Scania
    Gender
    Age
    22
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    415
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,586
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It's quite interesting (to use that disgusting internet language) that such a 5 of a man looks out for a 7 or 8, finds himself of course rejected because they dont play in the same class on no level, and then go whine about those "evil feminist women", while not even noticing the women within their own class of things, because in some lofty phantasy they think they're too low for them, they "deserve" something better. See, the thing is that men, in those "glory days of patriarchy", always had women 1 or 2 points lower than themselves. Why is it that men want suddenly something higher than themselves? This is the other side of the feminist coin, and men fell into that trap just as many women fell into the trap of "career" 'n stuff. This goes very much both ways.
    May I ask did you mean 1.) looks, 2.) status/wealthy or 3.) both ... with that ranking?

    Anyway I think ''knowing matters'' has a bigger role here than we often tend to think. Earlier as women knew ''nothing'' (except house holds, cooking, cleaning, rising kids) they might have looked up (adore/be proud of) even the simplest men who still knew/has learned something else. Today a guy who can not discuss general matters about the same levels as woman (or higher ... which even better), can not express himself, can not explain his own opinions ... feels pretty boring company. And quickly.

    At least in Scandinavia and in Finland; already decades more than 50% of University students have been women. And those are the women who exactly feels/faces it hardest to find the partners they are looking for. Not a girl who stops hers education after 9 years compulsory basic school (often with very bad grades) and ends to Lidl's cash desk. Still that is not so, because those girls/women are studying (like are very often blamed). Actually students can/could spend more (and also more freely) time to their own social life than same age young women who are already working. I know that pretty well (seen it). I still live at home (saving money => no study loans etc. ... me; a practical girl and I don't either party much) but those student girls or stablemates who lives in cities (college hostels or have rent a flat etc.) ... lots of ''freedoms'' to do/to not do things (= never same before ... never same after). Plus very few guys are really either looking for create a family (get married) in their early 20's. More like that happens in their 25's - 30's (earliest). Many academic women have graduated before that. It just is that many free men don't often even get those girls/women as their serious girlfriends/somebodies to date with ... more than once.

    Ok, there are women who also values manual skills (especially here in country sides), but even then man has to know enough.

    Men (still) wants to be the mental leaders of the families, and most of women feels the same ways. Today too many women, too often ... just feels that men they'll meet will not fit on that position/picture/role. Today women knows more, they value themselves more and they can survive alone (get foods on their own tables). As being so women will today (rightfully?) evaluate men via more critical eyes. Are women ... so to say ... ''allowed'' to ask/demand more from men now? I'll leave these ''philosophical matters'' to others discuss/decide.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  5. #173
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Wolgadeutscher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volga German
    Ancestry
    German communities in Russia
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Russia German Community Russia German Community
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    Traditionalist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    117
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    142
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    137
    Thanked in
    50 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnish Swede View Post
    Rule of most of mammals ... only the best of males will have rights to mate, not all of them. With many animals .... females determinate the place of bar and males duties are to reach that. Why humans should be very different?
    True to some degree however I am talking about highly unrealistic standards which few men if any are going to rise to.

    Take a look at these studies:

    even the tallest, broadest-shouldered and best-endowed digital hunks that the researchers generated fell short of perfection. "The optimum values appear to lie outside the tested range," they note, adding that the "maxima are more than two standard deviations from the population mean for each trait." That means that, for each trait, fewer than 2.5% of the men whom women encounter in the real world will be as generously proportioned as they might hope. Men with perfect scores in all three traits will be rarer than hen's teeth.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/fema...true&r=US&IR=T

    Some other examples from men's perspectives:

    Maybe the idealized romance part of it. I had an ex who, while we were going out, complained that we didn't meet "by locking eyes from across a crowded room and knowing we were meant for one another" or something. (We worked together and basically got together via a few drunken makeout sessions.)

    ---

    That you're going to know you found "the one" the second you meet them. Not all relationships happen like the movies, y'all! Life isn't a fairytale. Sometimes you go through some major bullshit (it's called life) before things work out. Sometimes it's easy. Or just because things are really hard in the beginning doesn't mean it's "not meant to be" or whatever the hell "live laugh love" poster preachings are. Relationships are hard because people are complicated & also, because life is not always kind no matter how kind you are.

    ---

    I went out with a girl once in college who said she's "waiting for her Disney moment." As in she wanted to meet the flawless prince who would take her away and everything would be perfect after that.

    ---

    That being in a relationship will automatically make her happy and if she isn't happy it's all your fault for not making her happy. How is your shitty job, shitty apartment and crazy family my fault? I have no connections to those things!

    ---

    That a guy is just supposed to know what's important to you and if he doesn't he's not the guy for you. I got into a huge fight once because I didn't do little "gestures" to show I cared. It wasn't that I didn't do gestures... because I did. I didn't do the RIGHT gestures. I didn't randomly buy flowers. I didn't randomly buy cards to show I cared. I didn't call her in the middle of the day to have a meaningful conversation.

    I did:

    Hang the curtains you bought in our bedroom without being asked and surprised you when you came home.

    Buy you a coffee maker for my apartment so that you could have your daily routine when you started your day.

    Stock your favorite breakfast foods at my place as well

    Try to make dinners you'd like

    Bought those plane tickets to see your family without asking for money

    Text you during the day while I am in important meetings to let you know I was thinking of you

    Change my schedule DRASTICALLY to spend more time with you

    Didn't make a big deal out of your little dog pissing all over my place when you stayed over even though you should have him trained better

    DOZENS of other examples

    But again, because it wasn't the gestures you wanted, they didn't count.

    ---

    My ex was like this too.

    Except I did used to by her flowers, write cute notes, and take her out on expensive dinner dates.

    What I didn't do, however, was text her back immediately, keep her as my best friend on snapchat, send her long and meaningful good morning and goodnight texts, and put her above everything else in my life every time.

    I didn't do everything she wanted all the time, so therefore in her mind, I wasn't giving her what she felt she deserved. It was a headache. My love was never enough love.

    You're not alone. Girls like this are common and ridiculous.

    ---

    Hookup culture and social media are convincing women that they are more desirable than they are. So you have scores of nice, well-educated 6s who are somehow still holding out for a rich model at age 30.

    This idea of absolute consumer freedom in dating means that there is no external pressure to actually work on and create a relationship. I think many of these women keep expecting that the next stud will finally be the one who truly loves her even though the last 20 passed.

    ---

    That being able to work out relationship problems isn't a necessary skill because their "perfect man" will be on the exact same wavelength at all times. Every couple fights, every couple has disagreements, and ending a relationship the first time you get into an argument is stupid and childish.

    ---

    That you'll be a set piece in their instagram life. The millennial women's obsession with instagram as their vanity mirror is a little off putting to me.
    https://www.elitedaily.com/dating/me...ations/1862728

    While there are similarities between the human and animal kingdom (for example female hypergamy - in the animal kingdom, the best of males will have access to and usually mate with more than one female, however humans differ from the animal kingdom in that they are largely monogamous. So the best of the best, the top % of men which fit the best standards will usually already be taken. That leaves a lot of surplus females as well as males who do not mate. Also unlike the animals kingdom, humans have a lot of sex for pleasure. Just because the top guy has secured himself a female does not mean that he will have children with her. When you place that into the perspective of preservation and aging populations, it doesn't look good.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Many men have become "feminists" in a sense as well in the last few decades, and specially Americans will be happy to explain you why the woman they've children with doesnt deserve aliments, because she's supposed to work, earn her own money and at the same time of course be a perfect housewife and take care of the kids like a stay at home mon, although this stance will force her to have 2-3 jobs just not to end up in a trailer park.

    Men also expect the women to "contribute" to family income. How many are really ready to take the role of the breadwinner alone and provide everything for their wife and children, house/flat, food, vacation, weekends out, hobbies etc pp? Oh, not so many.
    If women are going to demand they work and have equal rights with men it only comes to reason that they will be expected to pull their weight just as much. Before feminism pushed women into the workforce, men had no problem being the breadwinners. It's a system that has worked for millennia, until feminists came and destroyed it. Now wages have halved, and men no longer earn what they used to earn. Nonetheless, there are plenty of men who are still interested in traditional roles and would rather have a housewife than a career woman: https://forums.skadi.net/threads/101...-the-Housewife

    So a lot of men want the same things they've always wanted, while women want to have the cake and eat it. They are benefiting from feminism but demanding chivalry. While many women are doing much better than their male cohorts in the workplace (a lot of workplaces have diversity quotas and favor women) but still maintain the old expectation that the man pays for everything, even when they are not yet in a relationship. Look at this: https://forums.skadi.net/threads/197...-the-Free-Food

    And suddenly we find ourselves in a situation, where ranges of women no longer find that +, because men do not make as much use of this first class education system that we have, but also dont become respected and good/well-earning craftsmen often, but rather join the grey mass of "unimportant" suitwearing "business men" with boring jobs, which, while not exactly something to look down upon, because every society needs such ants I guess, but they're still grey, still boring, still so average that it hurts, and not rarely "metrosexual", very feministic-minded and absolutely not ready or willing (and due to their jobs, often also not able) to provide alone for a family.
    Despite feminism, it's still men who excel profession-wise, even in those professions that were thought to be a woman's domain (chef, cook). The majority of scientists and engineers for example are men. Now maybe some women might find that "boring", but perhaps they simply don't understand such jobs. And don't forget that women have been pushed into the workforce due to "affirmative action", many employers will favor someone because she's a woman and it looks better for their diversity quotas (they won't be accused of sexism). Women on the other hand also choose pretentious sounding professions (such as fashion blogger, model, personal trainer) but which are objectively no less "boring" than businessy suitwearing jobs. When it comes to education, a lot of women are well educated, but many of them have fancy sounding degrees in industries they will never work in. So what good is a fancy bachelor's or masters in culinary arts, psychology or communications if you work in a totally different domain. Men on the other hand are less fancy about their education. In fact, many of today's successful men didn't have any fancy education or degrees.

    It's quite interesting (to use that disgusting internet language) that such a 5 of a man looks out for a 7 or 8, finds himself of course rejected because they dont play in the same class on no level, and then go whine about those "evil feminist women", while not even noticing the women within their own class of things, because in some lofty phantasy they think they're too low for them, they "deserve" something better. See, the thing is that men, in those "glory days of patriarchy", always had women 1 or 2 points lower than themselves. Why is it that men want suddenly something higher than themselves? This is the other side of the feminist coin, and men fell into that trap just as many women fell into the trap of "career" 'n stuff. This goes very much both ways.
    That is women's projections, men don't have that higher standards in women than women do in men. Most of the time, men will not care about a woman's education or income, unlike women who often reject men solely based on that factor. As for physical standards, it's usually the women themselves who get the impression that men only want skinny women. In fact, men's ideal type of woman from a physical point of view is often 5-10+ kg more than what most women envision. Men also care little for other typical women's attention-grabbing strategies, such as makeup, fake nails and the like. Some men don't even notice such details.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wolgadeutscher For This Useful Post:


  7. #174
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    235
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    470
    Thanked in
    232 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Víđálfr View Post
    However, the men I really saw myself married with and having a family (and children) with were just two: first one, when I was in my early 20's, we were together, and he said he didn't want to have children with me because I didn't have blue eyes like him (I posted here about that many years ago)... I was so heartbroken, I didn't even think to have children or family with anyone else after that anymore... for many years... The second one, much more recent, but I won't go into details this time.
    I'm sorry to hear you've been through such an unpleasant experience. If you don't mind sharing, was this person's ethnic background German, or was it Romanian or something else? Because personally I've never met someone here (whether ethnic German or Romanian) who saw features such as non-blue eyes as such a big "deal breaker", including ethnocentric minded peoples. The only places I've seen it emphasised so much were online places, and by Varg Vikernes and his theories (he believed non-blue eyes means non-European ancestry), but his theories have been criticised for being subjective and unscientific.

    From the perspective of someone with blue eyes, I could understand if someone wants to preserve this eye colour - it's a rare, recessive, (for some peoples also aesthetic one), but all things being equal I don't think that eye colour in isolation could be such a deal breaker, especially if the person has many other good qualities, both moral and genetic... nor do I consider blue eyes to be "superior" to other eye colours.

    Blue eyes have both advantages but also disadvantages. For example, if you've blue eyes, you've a little bit higher risk to develop melanoma (cancer) of the eyes. The blue eyes of peoples affected by albinism have a higher degree of light sensitivity and a heightened risk for cancer from sun exposure. On an aesthetic level, while blue eyes can be pretty and sparkly, I've also seen peoples with green, hazel or brown eyes who had deep, fascinating eyes. For example I can remember even here on Skadi a woman (unfortunately I can't remember who it was) posted her photos once and she had a pair of really expressive, brown "doe eyes", similar to Anne Hathaway. Or as other celebrity examples a lot of women liked the eyes of Paul McCartney who was hazel eyed, or Audrey Hepburn (also hazel eyed). So my view it's not only the color but also the size, shape and orientation/location of the eyes and how they fit into the whole frame of the face. So I hope you don't feel lesser because of your eye color. Europeans and Germanic peoples have a broad range of pigmentations (hair and eye), it's what makes us diverse compared to other populations. The way I see it, if blue eyes was such a critically important trait for that person, they should have been honest from the beginning... but I've to say I don't understand this hair and eye color emphasis especially as hair and eye color can change throughout a person's life. Many babies are born with blue eyes and blond hairs but their pigmentations change throughout childhood and adulthood.

    Another thing is that having children with a non-blue eyed person doesn't mean your child won't necessarily have blue eyes. If that person for example has a blue eyed gene, like a blue eyed parent or other blue eyed peoples in the family, then it's also possible. It's even possible for two blue eyed peoples to have a non-blue eyed child (including brown), although this is a little bit more rare, but it's still possible. I've asked the same in the thread about Vikernes theories: I wonder what peoples who believe in the superiority of the blue eyes (or another hair or eye colour) would feel if one day they had a non-blue eyed child? Would they love this child less? Furthermore, if the child had a blue eyed sibling, would they treat the blue eyed child preferentially? Personally, I'd love my children the same way no matter their eye colour.

    Personally I've been so traumatized after that first experience with the first man I wished to have a family with... that I didn't dare to think about such a thing any longer for many many years. And just when I recovered from that, it happened again. I guess I just have to accept I might have better things to do in this lifetime. After all, it won't be such a big lose for the Germanics if personally I wouldn't have any offspring, right? So why would someone care, honestly?
    In my own experience, the first person who should value yourself is you, and not what other peoples say or think. If you desire to have children, then it's your decision, but if you don't, it's also your decision. Of course it's easier said than done, but I don't believe that we should let other peoples "make" those decisions for us and doubt ourselves because of others. I've also had negative experiences with partners which made me question myself. It was a little bit different experience which mostly revolved around commitment. I'm a person who firmly believes in monogamy but unfortunately most of my partners ended up being unfaithful to me. That also made me traumatised and wondering if there was something wrong with me, if I failed at relationships or to keep my partners happy. So I blamed myself instead of looking at the other person's actions, and this affected my level or trust in peoples. At some point, I almost gave up my desire for a partner, family and children, and strangely shortly after things started to change for the better. I hope the same for you, but more importantly personal happiness is the most important in the end. I also know peoples without children who are happy, there are many other things one can accomplish in their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Víđálfr View Post
    Maybe all we should care about is the spiritual world... of course, for those who aren't atheists. Even when you have children, you will still die and leave this world... and what matters most is what's going to happen with you after leaving this physical realm we're in now. The life after we leave this world... We should prepare for that, first of all... Having or not having children, this is less important in the big picture...

    Yes, if you meet the right man or woman to have a traditional family with, then why not? But our main purpose in this life should be to be prepared for what's going to happen after we die... This is an important thing in all great religions, not only in Christianity... How one prepares for death and what's beyond it, there are many ways, depending on one's own religion or spiritual beliefs. But in my opinion this is the most important thing when it comes about ageing. To be prepared to die properly... We never know when this moment will come... Some die unexpectedly young, so it can happen anytime... Better to leave this world properly, and I am not referring only to what we leave behind, but also to what we can actually take with us when we leave...
    I've to agree with this, unfortunately it's no longer a preoccupation for many peoples. A lot of peoples live just in the now and don't even believe there might be something after death. This leads a lot of peoples towards materialism and superficiality, shallowness. Drink as much as you can, consume, party, make a lot of money, etc... but what about after that? We can't take all that money with us once we are dead... but one day we may have to respond for our actions during our lifetimes, whether one believes in the Christian judgment or reincarnation or some other form of karma. In my view, the lack of belief in such concepts has lead to a lack of responsibility and care for what peoples do in life and beyond.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Siebenbürgerin For This Useful Post:


  9. #175
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid - Nordid - Baltid mix
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Scania Scania
    Gender
    Age
    22
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    415
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,586
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Víđálfr
    However, the men I really saw myself married with and having a family (and children) with were just two: first one, when I was in my early 20's, we were together, and he said he didn't want to have children with me because I didn't have blue eyes like him
    I prefer blue eyes ... but only as all my known ancestors have had light eyes. So no reasons to break that chain now. There are too few light eyed people in the world anyway (and even less in the future). But nothing is perfect in real life, so even as I carry very strongly light blue eyed genes I also most likely carry (hided) light gray/grayish blue eyed genes.

    Opposite if some families (your relatives) have also brown eyes, hazel eyes, amber eyes or even you ... eyes color hardly means much .... what your eyes are and what your partner's eyes are. Kids will get eyes what they will get.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  11. #176
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,446
    Thanked in
    645 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolgadeutscher View Post
    If women are going to demand they work and have equal rights with men it only comes to reason that they will be expected to pull their weight just as much. Before feminism pushed women into the workforce, men had no problem being the breadwinners. It's a system that has worked for millennia, until feminists came and destroyed it. Now wages have halved, and men no longer earn what they used to earn. Nonetheless, there are plenty of men who are still interested in traditional roles and would rather have a housewife than a career woman: https://forums.skadi.net/threads/101...-the-Housewife
    Look, when you make children, then divorce your wife, leave her alone with the kids and dont pay aliments because you think she should earn her own money, dont whine that the kids are neglected and not well raised and permantently in distress about their life, which is then treated with Ritalin or whatever. That's what I was talking about. Men take themselves out on those "premises" you said from their part of the responsibility.


    So a lot of men want the same things they've always wanted, while women want to have the cake and eat it. They are benefiting from feminism but demanding chivalry. While many women are doing much better than their male cohorts in the workplace (a lot of workplaces have diversity quotas and favor women) but still maintain the old expectation that the man pays for everything, even when they are not yet in a relationship. Look at this: https://forums.skadi.net/threads/197...-the-Free-Food
    Funny that you claim that men want the same things they always wanted, yet demand the women to play by "feminist rules".
    Inviting a women to a dinner is the very basic way to "date", of course you pay, because you want a "traditional" woman. And then you break the unwritten laws of dating, preclude from the start that you even get a "traditional minded" woman because you split the bill for the dinner and expect her to pay for herself and refuse to be "traditional" yourself, and then you whine about those "greedy women wanting the cake and eat it" (which is a completely liberal-feminist "argument"), making you look very disgrudged, envious and stingy, aka wanting the cake and eat it.

    The "instincts" of a woman will notice that you're neither ready nor willing, not even theoretically, to provide her with the security she needs to have a family.

    If you want a "traditional" wife, you need to get rid of this liberal-feminist nonsense and be traditional yourself, because otherwise you'll only ever "attract" feminists and not what you allegedly want, a woman ready to commit to a family and be then also dependent on the man. That's pretty much a recipe for eternal mismatch.


    Despite feminism, it's still men who excel profession-wise, even in those professions that were thought to be a woman's domain (chef, cook). The majority of scientists and engineers for example are men. Now maybe some women might find that "boring", but perhaps they simply don't understand such jobs.
    I was talking about the army of wanna-be "operational economists"/bachelor (Betriebswirtschaftslehre) students who will never find a job in that field either. This is not only boring, but just as superfluous a degree as gender studies is.

    They end up doing paper work in a supermarket or behind the glass boxes in banks or other such ultra-boring jobs with no prospect of rising up the ladder, because there simply is no ladder.

    Of course scientists, engineers etc are interesting jobs, but they are like, I dont know, 5% of the entire job market, and it's way below the 1% (even below the 0.1%) share when we talk about those who excell in their fields. Hardly representative of society or the men share of it.

    And don't forget that women have been pushed into the workforce due to "affirmative action", many employers will favor someone because she's a woman and it looks better for their diversity quotas (they won't be accused of sexism). Women on the other hand also choose pretentious sounding professions (such as fashion blogger, model, personal trainer)
    And they make a living out of it. See, I am too old to really understand that, but apparently it's a valid job market now. It's entirely dominated by women who fit themselves into niches that didnt even exist 10 years ago, and specially this kind of jobs (blogger, personal trainer, diet consultant, whathaveyou) would allow the women to have kids and a "traditional family" because they're not bound into a 9-5 job. It's actually pretty great, yet it's being looked down upon. Why?

    When it comes to education, a lot of women are well educated, but many of them have fancy sounding degrees in industries they will never work in. So what good is a fancy bachelor's or masters in culinary arts, psychology or communications if you work in a totally different domain. Men on the other hand are less fancy about their education. In fact, many of today's successful men didn't have any fancy education or degrees.
    The fancy degrees is a general problem. When "Betriebswirtschaftslehre"/bachelor was the latest fashion to study it was a common joke (pertaining to reality) that this was "studying to become a taxi/delivery service driver", because this is where most of them ended up with their fancy degree.

    That is women's projections, men don't have that higher standards in women than women do in men.
    Look into the Incel thread, watch some of the videos what kind of guys are whining about what kind of women reject them. This is not "women's projection" but indeed a worrysome trend.

    Most of the time, men will not care about a woman's education or income, unlike women who often reject men solely based on that factor. As for physical standards, it's usually the women themselves who get the impression that men only want skinny women. In fact, men's ideal type of woman from a physical point of view is often 5-10+ kg more than what most women envision. Men also care little for other typical women's attention-grabbing strategies, such as makeup, fake nails and the like. Some men don't even notice such details.
    This obsession with super-skinny looks is what is being promoted for decades already from those fancy fashion designers. And let's be real here, if a girl failed to look like a super-model (specially in the higher fields of the school system, that is their formative years of early adulthood, wasnt as much a problem in the lower ranges) she was made fun of, insulted as fatty, neglient to herself and what not. This was specially prevalent in the 70s-90s, and it's been widely - from all levels of society - suggested that looking like a supermodel and being successful goes hand in hand, so everyone who fell short was automatically doomed, creating generations of young people who considered themselves imperfect and even serious mental conditions like inferiority complexes.

    This is only slowly changing in recent years, bulemy isnt as much of a problem today anymore like it was 20 years ago.

    But that aside, I was mostly talking about "layers of society"/ranks, not looks so much. And both genders are somewhat forced to aim to look like a peacock, considering the generally grey mass of society (which ironically is so colourful that colours have become meaningless). People want to be noticed and present themselves, and the less interesting a person is on the inside, the more they need the look to "stick out" and be noticed.

    That both genders in reality look for/want some else than the superficial peacock swaggering around makes it harder for both sides to find suitable mates.

    Which brings us back to those worthless studies about the "superman" women allegedly want. The study said it itself, that what really matters lies outside the scale, because the reason why people find each other are not looks but other qualities. So you cant "construct" a supermodel-man on the computer and expect women to fall for it. The study then went way over the top by claiming that only 2% of men would fit into the range of expectations, when the reality maybe is that only 2% of women are so superficial and empty than they can be caught by looks/appearance alone in the first place.

    While those studies of course are loved by generally misogynist men for supporting their "argument", one should be careful to take the studies from "feminist gender-studies" (promoting liberal-capitalist ideologies) serious and project them on real people. If you start judging the "other gender" based on studies like this you've bought the feminist ideology hook, line and sinker just as much.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  13. #177
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Bleyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethnocentrism
    Religion
    Tradition
    Posts
    145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    132
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    167
    Thanked in
    63 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Funny that you claim that men want the same things they always wanted, yet demand the women to play by "feminist rules".
    Inviting a women to a dinner is the very basic way to "date", of course you pay, because you want a "traditional" woman. And then you break the unwritten laws of dating, preclude from the start that you even get a "traditional minded" woman because you split the bill for the dinner and expect her to pay for herself and refuse to be "traditional" yourself, and then you whine about those "greedy women wanting the cake and eat it" (which is a completely liberal-feminist "argument"), making you look very disgrudged, envious and stingy, aka wanting the cake and eat it.

    The "instincts" of a woman will notice that you're neither ready nor willing, not even theoretically, to provide her with the security she needs to have a family.

    If you want a "traditional" wife, you need to get rid of this liberal-feminist nonsense and be traditional yourself, because otherwise you'll only ever "attract" feminists and not what you allegedly want, a woman ready to commit to a family and be then also dependent on the man. That's pretty much a recipe for eternal mismatch.
    I doubt that traditionally minded men, or even men in general, would mind paying for a dinner. In my experience it's usually the women who offer to pay, some even go as far as to take offense if the man proceeds to take the check. What I have noticed with modern-minded women who identify as feminists is a lot of confusion and inconsistency. As Wolgadeutscher said, they want gender equality and to be able to fulfill the same jobs or roles as men, but at the same time they want men to be chivalrous towards them - when they desire of course, as some women might get offended if you hold the door open for them, they see it as insulting or treating them like cripples. It's not that men don't want to be chivalrous, traditional men want for a return to old fashioned gender roles which includes us being the providers. No problem there. However, if you are a feminist and you rally for gender equality then it is inconsistent, not to mention hypocritical to expect that different standards apply to you than those you want to be equal to. It's similar to those women who rally for their right to be in the army but who would immediately cry oppression if conscription were to become compulsory. So it could be said that feminists want to have "the cake and eat it" in the sense that they want the privileges that come from being "equal" to men, but not the disadvantages and obligations. Have you ever heard of the saying "want him to be more of a man? Try being more of a woman"? It is not only women who have instincts, but also men, and both their instincts go hand in hand with traditional roles. Traditional gender roles have been modeled according to nature (the male is the provider, the female is the mother and upbringer).

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bleyer For This Useful Post:


  15. #178
    Senior Member
    Nordic Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 07:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid + Dalofaelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Germanic Nationalism
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    284
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    185
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    382
    Thanked in
    127 Posts
    I agree with Bärin. I have never understood that stupid western mainstream concept of wasting your twenties with partying and whoring around, until you finally start looking for a husband in your 30's. What the hell? I don't know how a normal, sane woman could even bear waiting that long until she finally gets to hold a cute, little baby in her arms. Becoming a mother was such a strong urge and desire in me when I was 19, 20 years old, that waiting until 30 was just completely unimaginable for me. I don't know why this is so. Maybe it's because I never took the pill in my life, so I stayed normal and kept that natural instinct. The pill totally changes a woman's psyche and character. And it supresses the normal menstrual cycle and the ovulation. During ovulation you can’t think clearly as a woman, you are just plain full of love and want a baby NOW! Women who take the pill never experience that (until they stop taking it) because they never have an ovulation.
    I always had the impression that those women who were never on the pill were also the most sane, normal and rational women with whom you could always have a good, calm and rational conversation about everything, while those on the pill were also the most crazy, feminist and irrational ones, who are a pain to be around. I even noticed this difference in one and the same woman, when she wasn't on the pill and when she was. Oh well, I'm digressing... But keep in mind that the "sexual liberation" and 1968 and all that crap happened AFTER the pill got on the market and not before. And there are few things in life that I would warn my three daughters as much against as the pill. I find it abhorrent and insane that this poison is commonly given to young 13 or 14-year-old teenage girls when their natural normal menstrual cycle hasn't even fully developed yet. Crazy (((modern world))).

    My mom was also on the pill. She had me at 30. My parents were the typical boomer generation. I was an only child and they raised me in a small apartment in a big city. They taught me that "going to university" and getting a "good education" and "working some years afterwards" is the most important thing in order to be independent. Thank Gods, I didn't listen to them. I met my wonderful husband when I was 21 and now we have three beautiful Germanic children together and moved to a rural area. I'm 30 now and being childless at 30 would have driven me nuts. I agree with Huginn ok Muninn, aging is WAY more bearable when you have children. I also hope to have a few more children before I get too old for it.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nordic Angel For This Useful Post:


  17. #179
    Moderator
    Leliana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 12:17 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Aus Süddeutschland und Österreich
    Subrace
    Nordoalpine
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    An der blauen Donau
    Gender
    Age
    28
    Politics
    Volk&Heimat
    Religion
    Sinnstiftendes Heidentum
    Posts
    481
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    643
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    383
    Thanked in
    150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LillyCaterina View Post
    The worst thing you could do is anxiously put the cart before the horse, so-to-speak. If you really desire to have children, you will naturally need to meet and marry the right man first. And if your previous relationships have been as painful as mine were, you're naturally going to be gun shy about trusting men in the future. This is normal, and perfectly ok.
    Uhm yes, I'm truly shy about relationships. I'm unsually a social and easy-going woman but when it comes to issues about starting a relationship or expressing my affection for someone, I'm clumsy as hell. Yeah well, as I said, I'm a bit of a burned child.

    It's not that I hear the biological clock ticking: I'm not 35 or more. My problem is that I don't think that I can offer my partner as much as I want. I've got a half-time job...I don't swim in money, so to speak. And my self esteem is not that worse that I want my partner so sponsor me. It would be a great imbalance.

    I had my phase of partying and trolling around in my early 20's. Was it the best thing to do? No. Do I regret it? No. Why? You only live ince. But now, at the end of 20's, I think it's time to settle down. And to start a family with a man that has upright virtues and shares most of my views. Marriage is a holy heathen oath, not a 08/15 common contract. I'm here in my small one-room appartment. Great condition to start a family...

    Funny thing is that all male members on old TA and here on Skadi who have come to my attention are either in a relationship or seemingly not interested in me. So I wait and see.

    As a woman I could start a relationship any day, I just have to go out at night and drink a bit. But I'm not interested in short-termed party relationships who last just a few weeks. That's bullshit for teenagers.
    Loyal to my hate

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Leliana For This Useful Post:


  19. #180
    Munchkin
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    LillyCaterina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/Irish/French
    Ancestry
    England/Ireland/France
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Deli Shift Leader/Manager
    Politics
    Centrist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    604
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,629
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    904
    Thanked in
    481 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leliana View Post
    Uhm yes, I'm truly shy about relationships. I'm unsually a social and easy-going woman but when it comes to issues about starting a relationship or expressing my affection for someone, I'm clumsy as hell. Yeah well, as I said, I'm a bit of a burned child.
    I can relate to what you've stated here. This condition is not as rare as you might think.

    It's not that I hear the biological clock ticking: I'm not 35 or more. My problem is that I don't think that I can offer my partner as much as I want. I've got a half-time job...I don't swim in money, so to speak. And my self esteem is not that worse that I want my partner so sponsor me. It would be a great imbalance.
    A prospective partner who truly loves you will expect nothing more from you than honesty. The two of you will join as a couple that is stronger in every respect than either of you were as single individuals.

    Whenever one or both interested parties are wealthy, there has to be some kind of doubt going on about this possible ulterior motive that those who aren't rich are spared for the most part.

    I had my phase of partying and trolling around in my early 20's. Was it the best thing to do? No. Do I regret it? No. Why? You only live ince. But now, at the end of 20's, I think it's time to settle down. And to start a family with a man that has upright virtues and shares most of my views. Marriage is a holy heathen oath, not a 08/15 common contract. I'm here in my small one-room appartment. Great condition to start a family...
    I was married to a very handsome former marine at twenty-one. I thought he was my dream come true for the first two years. But then he changed into one of my worst nightmares come true. I was never healthy enough to produce children, so, at least none existed to suffer the consequences of my divorce.

    I made it on my own after my break-up without depending on men until I met another fellow I later learned loved the bottle more than he loved me. But then I met Gareth.

    Funny thing is that all male members on old TA and here on Skadi who have come to my attention are either in a relationship or seemingly not interested in me. So I wait and see.
    If you were to meet a single someone interested in you online, you would still need to be able to get together in the real world, which is where most couples do meet anyway. That could be a problem when an ocean separates the two of you.

    As a woman I could start a relationship any day, I just have to go out at night and drink a bit. But I'm not interested in short-termed party relationships who last just a few weeks. That's bullshit for teenagers.
    That's true. And I think you are much smarter and more experienced than to run wild like this, Leliana. Such behavior rarely leads to good results for anyone.
    Not all in life is at it appears to be.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LillyCaterina For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Ageing Populations
    By Aelfgar in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, March 25th, 2018, 07:02 AM
  2. Ageing Europeans Need to Work Longer and Expect Less, Report Says
    By Hersir in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, 06:03 AM
  3. The Ageing and Decline of the German Population
    By Phlegethon in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Friday, March 2nd, 2012, 08:22 PM
  4. Ageing popstars Nazi gaffe
    By Kith of woden in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 10:30 PM
  5. Ageing populations 'will create crippling debt'
    By Milesian in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •