About Kirstie Allsopp's Advice

Friend, status, link and initial comments

Girls should not attend university in the first place. The only essential education for a woman is a basic academic one, as well that in order to be a successful homemaker. Modern woman is being deceived. A woman can always educate herself, but can't always get married and have children, especially if she wants a large family. Wasted fertility is a great tragedy.

Kirstie Allsopp tells young women: ditch university and have a baby by 27
Mark Tran
theguardian.com, Monday 2 June 2014 11.12 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/02/kirstie-allsop-young-women-ditch-university-baby-by-27

To quote:

Self-avowed "passionate feminist" Kirstie Allsopp has urged young women to get a flat, a boyfriend, and have babies before embarking on a career.

The woman who fronts Location, Location, Location with Phil Spencer has told the Telegraph that if she had a daughter, her advice would be: "Darling, do you know what? Don't go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I'll help you, let's get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."

To quote:

"Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you're 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you're young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward. At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home, and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue."

To quote:

"I don't want the next generation of women to go through the heartache that my generation has. At the moment we are changing the natural order of things, with grandparents being much older and everyone squeezed in the middle. Don't think 'my youth should be longer'. Don't go to university because it's an 'experience'. No, it's where you're supposed to learn something! Do it when you're 50!"

PH

I agree.

Anonymised for here

[friend] I agree with you. I don't agree with the lady though on "Get a boyfriend" No Get a husband. That's forever.

I love love love being a housewife. I have had people correct me on my terminology "housewife" because its sexist and have had people tell me when I Say "I am where a woman belongs" they say "Well not belongs...you're just a kid you don't know what you want..." I'm 27 I'm having baby #4. Have a baby by 21. And have 5 by 27 lol

friend

I think it is better to have 5 children by 21. Girls should marry young, and have as many children as possible.

Anonymised for here

Perhaps. I did tell my husband (in jest) the other day that we should have married by the time I was 16 and had our first by the time I was 17. He laughed of course. I was always told its unhealthy for young girls to have babies, though.

He's almost 40 so if he'd have gotten me pregnant by 16 years old he'd have been on the sex offenders list. So its better we waited til I was 18.

friend

It is absolutely not "unhealthy" for girls to have babies, as long as it occurs after menarche. It is much healther, actually, for girls to have babies as soon as they are able, for that it when their bodies are most resilient, etc. God makes no mistakes, and has planned it perfectly. Yes, medical textbooks will tell you young women are at greater risk for miscarriage, and maternal and neonatal death, however, it is just modernist propaganda, and part of their agenda. They do not want women to have more than 1 or 2 children! They push college on women, and careers, and birth control! And then when she wants to have children, she experiences problems with her fertility. You can't go against the natural order of things, and expect good results.

JA

I don't agree with you [friend] there is nothing wrong with waiting for a bit more maturity, as teenage girls hardly have the depth of character these days to face a lifetime of childbearing- let alone one starting at the age of 16! That would mean a huge number of children by the time she is 30- and not everyone is capable of handling such a load as that in life! No shame in waiting a few years to develop ones character and maturity in all areas, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and so on. This takes a lot of grit to raise a large family in these days, you talk about it so casually you would think it was as easy as rolling off a log!! Don't think this is reality!!

Anonymised for here I had my first at 21. I am definitely not the "Same" as I was when i got pregnant.

JA

that is a great age to have babies, I almost got married at that age but ran away at the last minute! I was scared due to my parents divorce, sadly!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By 27? Why not at 17?

" And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."

Ah, the Western version of forced marriages (or of making the daughter compliant with arranged ones). That is why she wants daughter to wait till 27! At 17 she would still have her own mind somewhat intact!

"I was always told its unhealthy for young girls to have babies, though"

Two observations: the is true from start of fertility up to 17. Between 17 and 23 it is the ideal age for a first childbirth. After 23 it becomes less and less healthy, so that by 30 it is less healthy than by 13.

Note that "unhealthy" is wrong. I forgot that. Should have said MORE RISKY.

"He's almost 40 so if he'd have gotten me pregnant by 16 years old he'd have been on the sex offenders list."

What Puritan laws you have in Ohio! In S Carolina (I know, I was into a SC girl when she was 16) it would have been legal by 16.

"Yes, medical textbooks will tell you young women are at greater risk for miscarriage, and maternal and neonatal death, however, it is just modernist propaganda, and part of their agenda."

As far as I know, the issue is this: up to 17 one is too narrow for it not to be risky, after 23 one becomes too little resilient.

Childbirth is a risk at any age. Saying it is least so if first birth is 17 - 23 is what my ma was told in Vienna. But that does not mean younger than 17 should be forbidden to marry. In that case old maids past thirty would be as liable to a ban, or more. And obviously, once a first childbirth widens the basin, later births are less risky. AND, this effect is greater, the younger one starts.

"as teenage girls hardly have the depth of character these days to face a lifetime of childbearing"

The loss of the depth of character comes from the loss of opportunity by Modern Feminism on several including legislative levels. But shallowness is just the most common compensation for being denied marriage. And there is this thing about shallowness, it is just superficial, you know!

Some have by age 12 a less shallow character. As witnessed by 3 twelve year olds involved in a sleepover ending with two alive and one stabbed 19 times in the morning. [She survived too.]

I am not sure I would by now, after all a harrassed life, relish an extremely superficial girl, but it would beat marrying a murderress.

Fortunately for the culprits, that is not everyone's outlook.

"That would mean a huge number of children by the time she is 30- and not everyone is capable of handling such a load as that in life!"

It is not a load as much as an asset. And starting at 13 does not mean you get all seven or all fifteen at once before you can handle them.

M McB

Wasted fertility is why the West is dying. Europe, North America, and Australia all report declining birthrates among native populations. Immigrants are pouring into those areas to replace them eventually. And the replacement populations start breeding as young as 12.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Breeding is not an appropriate word about human populations.

But mathematically you are seriously right.

Forcing immigrants to reproduce slower is morally wrong and never justified. What needs to be done is two things - us starting to reproduce quicker, and new immigrants, especially non-Christians, stop coming.

MJO

I would've had a baby by 27 had I been able to get married by then... however, God didn't see fit to bring me the right man until I was 30 and our first wasn't born till I was 32... just sayin' I do agree that women shouldn't go to university, but I don't see anything wrong with them getting a college education, like an online school and get at least a certificate in something so they can contribute to the household or support themselves should something happen to both my husband and me that they couldn't live at home and also gives them something to fall back on should they get married and become a widow w/a family to support. Anyway... also, if I had gotten married and started having children when my period first started, I would've been 9! I think THAT is a little TOO young for ANY culture or time period

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is record early, just as 18 is record late (outside what is considered pathological). Muslims stick with record early. Liberals and Communists with record late. Catholics have stuck with medium. 90 - 95% of all girls have menarché ages 11 - 13. The remaining 10% divide into two batches of 5% OR the remaining 5% into two batches of 2.5%, one down to 9, one up to 18. Now, one can consider God allowed those 5 - 10% to be very much off a rightful limit age, but hardly that it is the case for the remaining 90 - 95%. For boys, the extremes are the same, but the medium is ages 13 - 15.

Mind if I copy without attributing to your name?

Anonymised for here

yes since you've read it

i mean yes you can copy

let me know when then i will take it down. some how some people can see my stuff who are friends with me even if they arent friends with my friends.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The admins in the library are slowing down the process of copying. I am trying to blue before clicking Ctrl C, and the page scrolls up or down beyond my control.

Sorry; might take time.

Anonymised for here

OOPS I took it down!! I can say it again

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No problem. My answers will show context.

Btw, librarians or whoever was abusing admin privileges stopped their game. Thread so far copied.

Anonymised for here

Ok

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ignore 'patronising' Kirstie Allsopp's advice, teachers tell girls
TV presenter had claimed girls should overlook university ambitions and instead focus on having children.
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/02/teachers-round-on-kirstie-allsopp-over-babies-and-boyfriends-comments

To quote:

Helen Fraser, chief executive of the Girls' Day School Trust, called Allsopp's comments a "throwback to the 1950s" that went against the modern ethos of female education. "University education is incredibly important for girls. It's the end point of everything we do in our schools, so we would be extremely disappointed if girls left school at 16 and tried to find a flat funded by their mother and waited for the nice boyfriend to turn up.

"People deserve to aspire to having both a fulfilling career and a happy family life. That's what men take for granted and girls who leave university at 22 should not be told by anybody that they have to decide between a career or a relationship and children."

My comment:

• a) a mother can stay at university and raise a child
• b) 50 is not a good time for university if it is about really learning sth, I am much less good than ten let alone twenty years ago at learning languages
• c) nevertheless, Helen Fraser is an idiot, her adoration of "modern ethos of female education" is idiocy, the idea university for everyone is also idiocy.

If everyone has a PhD, having a PhD won't save some from sweeping the streets. Unless heavy immigrationism solves that problem but involves us in a worse one.