Source
r/TheRedPill•
DarkSayed

Pets replacing children?

I have noticed a slightly disconcerting trend on Reddit, and I'm not sure if it's Reddit-specific or more general. Essentially, people are treating their pets like children, e.g., referring to a dog as "my boy". The latest example I've seen is a post on r/aww with the title "Daaaaad, get uuuuuup!" and referring to a kitten.

Don't get me wrong, I love animals, always have done. I have owned many, including a kitten. But there is something seriously wrong in society when people start using language that is normally used for children to refer to their pets.

It's creepy cat-lady type stuff, but is not just ladies - plenty of men too. These aren't children treating their pets as children, these are grown adults.

Of course there is the cost of living which is crazy high where I live (UK), and that seriously hinders the prospect of having children (or at least, it should do if you are a conscientious human being). But besides that, we all know the reasons why adults are not having children as much as they used to.

So how does this relate to RedPill? The very essence of this forum is that we wake up and see things for what they are. What I'm seeing is that people in their 30s are sleep-walking into a lifestyle and mentality where animals are serving as cheap substitutes for real human beings. I don't have children, but I imagine the challenge of having them though far greater, is also much, much more fulfilling in the long run.

I'm not saying you should have children, but if you don't, at least don't kid yourself into thinking a kitten is like a real human child. It's not, and never will be.

EDIT: I just want to be clear, I'm not against pets, as I have state above, I love animals and have owned various different types, I'm just saying they are not a substitute for children.

Posted Oct 5, 2014, 12:02 PM UTC · edited

5585
IVIaskerade1•

I like my cat. She reminds me that no matter how much I succeed at life, no matter where I go or what I do, there will always be someone who only likes me as long as I provide something for them.

Edit: Also, cat's underbelly fur is amazingly soft.

54
fyseaking•

Don't forget under the back of their ears!

5
RGB999•

That's like the opposite reason of why most people get pets. I like how you think.

2
HAMMURABl•

i was at a conference of mars (the company).

the brands they expected most growth/profit for in the future were their pet brands, as more and more people stay single and replace children with pets.

companies are well aware of this trend, and they adjust their business toward it.

36
RedPillSafe2•

It's going to be a reality because there are so many betas and MGTOWs that need the physical touch and emotional interaction that pets provide.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
FLFTW162 Endorsed Contributor•

Of course there is the cost of living which is crazy high where I live (UK), and that seriously hinders the prospect of having children (or at least, it should do if you are a conscientious human being).

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist... but I think there is a concerted effort on the part of the media to push this message that there are too many people and that children are too expensive.

Corporations want to make as much money as possible, and one way to take even more of your money is to convince you that lifestyle is more important than life. In other words, rather than spending your money having kids, spend your money buying our stuff. Through marketing and psychological manipulation they are able to create a need for material objects and status. They would love it if everyone became a hoarder.

Children don't have to be expensive. They can share your dwelling, no matter how small it is. There are 5-person families in Hong Kong living in one room apartments. If you want to have a family you can make do. They are happier for it, anyway.

There's a bunch of good subreddits I follow that have to do with eating cheap and healthy. I read one about a woman feeding her 4 person family on $5 a day. They eat real food, no junk food. They aren't starving. They are happy and healthy.

The whole idea of being a "conscientious human being" is now equated with having 0-2 kids. It's a false notion that "I must be smart because I choose not to overburden the planet." It's a mode of social control. People who have large families are stereotyped as less intelligent, drawing more resources from the community than they deserve, unemployed or underemployed, immigrants or of a racial minority (there is a racial element to it), more likely to be religious (and therefore irrational), etc. Maybe some of these apply, maybe none of them apply. Every family is different.

I think we should consider this a form of shit test. Society is manipulating us to not reproduce. If your genes are rock solid: you are intelligent, you are healthy physically and mentally, you are emotionally mature, you earn a steady income, you are handsome, ladies enjoy your company, you aren't a burden on your community--if this is the case--then have as many children as you desire. I advocate that we encourage the genetic winners to multiply as much as they can afford to. If you choose not to reproduce, you are agreeing with society that you aren't hot shit, afterall. Shit test failed.

24
Camille11325•

Great response! Who cares if you sound like a conspiracy theorist, this is exactly what's happening and I'm glad you're bringing attention to it in the comments of this post. People using pets as children is absolutely a response to being conditioned to not want a family; there is still a desire in most people to raise and care for something, although this urge is in the process of being eradicated. Even some of the replies in this thread confirm your point. People are valuing their lifestyle over life itself.

9
[deleted]•

[deleted]

8
christ0ph•

Nothing has changed for nonwhite families. Its no easier for them, however, something has changed for many people and thats basically that poor is the new "black".

1
Dick-Tracy•

People with large families are often less intelligent, but the large family is not the reason for that, rather a symptom. There is an inverse correlation between a woman's intelligence and education and the number of kids she has.

The result of all this is a net dysgenic effect in society: the less intelligent folks are breeding and will drastically change the makeup of the next generation.

Alongside this, you'll note that the birth rates among white people are very, very low now, less than 2 kids per woman, which means the race is breeding itself out, and this is effectively being encouraged by the continual media reinforcement of the self gratifying life of a single person. Yes, it's obviously more pleasurable to skip out on having kids, but there are consequences to accepting pleasure as our goal instead of the advancement of civilization and our culture.

6
christ0ph•

This is absolutely ridiculous.

People with large families are often less intelligent,

The complexity of a person's environment during their life has a huge impact on their intelligence. For that reason i suspect that people with large families have some advantages due to their constant social interactions with siblings. Only children might have an advantage if they spent a lot of time with their parents (either of them) AND their parents were fairly intelligent. It varies quite a bit. But i think your statement that people with large families are less intelligent is a thinly veiled stab at the poor - It ignores the fact that not long ago, many Americans came from huge families, by todays standards and they were none the worse for it. What has changed is access to education, social mobility, and the relative buying power of wages.

In the days of cheap public colleges, many large families of modest means had many successful members. During the relatively socially mobile postwar era. i.e. the "American Exceptionalism" period.

1
tsotha•

People with large families are often less intelligent...

And often not. Seriously, do you have anything at all to back this up beyond your own observations?

0
Dick-Tracy•

You quoted the wrong part. You should have quoted:

There is an inverse correlation between a woman's intelligence and education and the number of kids she has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence#Education

2
tsotha•

Education and intelligence are not the same thing. The dumbest people I know have college degrees.

1
IVIaskerade1•

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist...

Firstly, you don't get to decide whether or not you sound like a conspiracy theorist. That's for the people who read what you write, listen to what you say, and right now, you're not sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but you do sound just as crazy, as the last paragraph of your post demonstrates.

I think there is a concerted effort on the part of the media to push this message that there are too many people and that children are too expensive.

There kind of are too many people in the world right now. Also, there are definitely people who cannot afford kids (they are damn expensive things) but still have them, putting a greater drain on the rest of society.

Corporations want to make as much money as possible

Nothing wrong with that - if they didn't they wouldn't exist?

One way to take even more of your money is to convince you that lifestyle is more important than life. In other words, rather than spending your money having kids, spend your money buying our stuff.

Again, considering the current situation (especially in the UK, where the fact that we have already used up all the space and are now having to compromise on things like green belts in order to support a growing population), I don't actually see this as a bad thing.

Children don't have to be expensive. They can share your dwelling, no matter how small it is. There are 5-person families in Hong Kong living in one room apartments. If you want to have a family you can make do.

Again, what you say is true, but I view the quality of life for children as being of paramount importance. If I decide to have kids in the future, I will want them to grow up well-adjusted, and one living in a cramped room with 5-10 other people emphatically is not going to have as good a quality of life as a 3-bedroom semi-detached house in the suburbs somewhere.

They are happier for it, anyway.

I really don't think they are. The only reason to live in such conditions is that you can't afford better, and when you're having to fit an entire family in a single room, that's poverty-level living. I have yet to see a person living in poverty that is genuinely happier than one with a loving family living in a first world country.

There's a bunch of good subreddits I follow that have to do with eating cheap and healthy. I read one about a woman feeding her 4 person family on $5 a day. They eat real food, no junk food. They aren't starving. They are happy and healthy.

That's great, but remember, you can eat well for $5, but you can eat better for more. I can survive on cheap meals (and currently am) and be perfectly provided for, but being able to splash out on nice food definitely makes me happier.

People who have large families are stereotyped... [snip] Maybe some of these apply, maybe none of them apply. Every family is different.

Not everyone of a group is going to fit the stereotype for that group. However, it nevertheless remains that stereotypes always have some form of truth at their core. That's why they're stereotypes. You can't just dismiss them by saying "sometimes they apply, sometimes they don't" because overall, they apply more often than not. If stereotypes didn't apply, TRP wouldn't work.

I advocate that we encourage the genetic winners to multiply as much as they can afford to.

Right. So, who determines the "genetic winners"? Who determines who gets to reproduce and who doesn't? The state? What happens if these "winners" don't want to reproduce?

If you choose not to reproduce, you are agreeing with society that you aren't hot shit, after all.

What makes you think that I'm not hot shit just because I don't want kids? If I get enough sex to qualify me as the top 20% but don't want kids, does that mean that I'm not hot shit?

Shit test failed.

Shit test irrelevant. I make my own decisions on what I do, and all this talk of "only the genetic winners get to reproduce" sounds scarily close to the eugenics programmes of a certain other state aiming for "genetic perfection". I don't necessarily think that you are trying to be like them, but it's certainly brushing a little too close for comfort.

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

8
luciansolaris•

That's for the people who read what you write, listen to what you say, and right now, you're not sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but you do sound just as crazy, as the last paragraph of your post demonstrates.

He sounds sane to me. It's you who sounds propagandized. Washed, rinsed, and repeated thoroughly by public education and media...

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Camille11325•

There kind of are too many people in the world right now. Also, there are definitely people who cannot afford kids (they are damn expensive things) but still have them, putting a greater drain on the rest of society.

There are not too many people in the world right now. This is a myth that is perpetuated for the exact reasons that the user you replied to outlined. Poverty and hunger arise from an inability to properly distribute food as well as corrupt systems designed to trap the bottom class. The reason that some large families are a drain on society is because they don't adjust their priorities and lifestyle. They still have a consumerist mentality and make poor decisions with their money.

Nothing wrong with that - if they didn't they wouldn't exist?

There is absolutely something wrong with the way corporations manipulate the public by misinforming them and creating false needs. This shapes the development of a society and while we are seeing a lot of the negative consequences now, more are to come.

Again, considering the current situation (especially in the UK, where the fact that we have already used up all the space and are now having to compromise on things like green belts in order to support a growing population), I don't actually see this as a bad thing.

The population is growing from immigration right? Not from people having more children. This makes it even more important for native UK citizens to have more kids. Not only to preserve their identity but so that in the future the country can be supported. Greece and Japan are already showing how a country suffers when there aren't enough in the younger generations to support the older ones.

Again, what you say is true, but I view the quality of life for children as being of paramount importance. If I decide to have kids in the future, I will want them to grow up well-adjusted, and one living in a cramped room with 5-10 other people emphatically is not going to have as good a quality of life as a 3-bedroom semi-detached house in the suburbs somewhere.

And where did your idea of "quality of life" come from? Why do you think certain things will make them "well adjusted" while others won't? You're embodying the mindset that the user you responded to described. I'm not disagreeing that you would prefer the scenario that you say you will, but for most of human history we didn't had any of those luxuries and people handled it well. Society's dependence on these things is a problem, not a sign of progress.

I really don't think they are. The only reason to live in such conditions is that you can't afford better, and when you're having to fit an entire family in a single room, that's poverty-level living. I have yet to see a person living in poverty that is genuinely happier than one with a loving family living in a first world country.

The reason they aren't happy is because of relative inequality, despite their efforts, they aren't able to participate in society the way they are told would make them happy. If you look at cultures across the world with less technology and development, you can see that they are happy. So the source of the unhappiness is not physical surroundings but rather their expectations, priorities, and lifestyle. The user you replied to was not advising everyone to have 5 kids and live in a one room apartment. There are thousands of ways that a large family can thrive in a first world country, it's not such a binary. Presenting the issue in terms of this false dichotomy is another way that people are being manipulated into choosing the consumerist lifestyle.

Right. So, who determines the "genetic winners"? Who determines who gets to reproduce and who doesn't? The state? What happens if these "winners" don't want to reproduce?

Way to miss the entire point of what he said. The people who are the smartest and most fit for reproduction currently are being dissuaded from reproducing. They have been convinced that their careers and material possessions take greater priority. The solution then would be for them to realise the error of their thinking and choose for themselves to have families. The last entity that needs to be involved is the state.

I make my own decisions on what I do, and all this talk of "only the genetic winners get to reproduce" sounds scarily close to the eugenics programmes of a certain other state aiming for "genetic perfection"

You have just demonstrated that you do not in fact make your own decisions about what to do. And, the eugenics programs of the past are actually more similar to the Left's pushing of birth control and other methods of curbing the population. Weakening the institution of the family makes people more loyal to the system, and large families trying to have it all become dependent on the system as well when they ultimately fail.

Edit: fixed some typos

5
IVIaskerade1•

That link you provided... ugh. There are no sources cited, so they could well be (and I have reason to suspect that they are) pulling figures out of their ass.

They completely discount several important variables, such as the technology available to third world vs 1st world countries, the effect of rising sea levels, that all the "we're totally going to run out of food guys" predictions were acccurate given the technology and knowledge of the time. Apparently, a clergyman 100-odd years ago being wrong about overpopulation means that the predictions made by current scientists/economists are completely invalid. Apparently, everyone could live in Texas, because everyone knows that all you need is a house and a yard, and things like the land to grow all the food for these people are irrelevant.

-2
Camille11325•

Lol this is the part of my comment that you respond to? The link I provided was the first of a series of articles that go in depth into the issue in an easy to understand way. You can also just do a google search on the myth of overpopulation to get more info. The main point is that the number of people alive isn't the issue, its the distribution of resources. Which is an entirely different problem than what people talk about and it calls for an entirely different solution than reducing the population.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
RedBigManEndorsed Contributor•

Children don't have to be expensive. They can share your dwelling, no matter how small it is. There are 5-person families in Hong Kong living in one room apartments. If you want to have a family you can make do. They are happier for it, anyway.

Yeah... well we had like 8-9 people living in basically a 3 bedroom house growing up. Plus we'd often have a friend or two stay over as well. The couch, futon and floor of the living room (with like a cushion type mattress that folded away when not in use) were all regularly used as beds.

I also agree with the whole shit test mechanic... Given child support is divied out equally to all the mothers of your children based on the number of children you have... if you really wanted to be a spiteful bastard you would try and knock up as many women as possible because then each of those women would only get like $50/mo from you rather than basically being like a full blown check.

0
tepper2Endorsed Contributor•

My dog is obedient. She's a companion. She is a large intelligent breed, so I am forced to maintain frame to establish dominance in the household. It's great practice for "being alpha" (though I hate that term).

Girls generally love a well-behaved dog, which helps when I bring somebody home.

But a substitute for a child? If I wanted a kid, I'd have a kid. I can't leave an 18 month old child home alone for a few hours while I go out.

She's also a constant reminder to "be the person your dog thinks you are." That alone is a strong motivation for me to get up every day and produce results.

Pets have their advantages. Child substitution is not one of them.

18
SubtleObserver•

What kind of dog do you have?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
2red4u•

One thing I love about having a dog is that he depends on me to be on time, to be responsible and to be mindful.

I can't get wasted and crash on the couch of some friends house because he needs me to be there.

1
Prattler26•

It's a drug that helps escape the painful reality. And why not? You're not harming anyone but yourself. Most importantly, you are not harming children. It's better that some crazy single post-wall slut gets cats than children.

16
RedPillSafe2•

"Drug" is a little extreme.

Physical contact is a basic necessity in life and having to spin a plate just so you get some physical contact is a higher energy investment than a pet. Plus, there are those STD's to worry about.

Other than feeding and pooping a pet gives the basics of what you need with little effort.

6
DrScrubbington•

Yeah, not to mention, even though a dog is generally a more masculine pet and such, a cat is not a bad thing to have - they do a lot better being left at home while you're working than a dog does.

Not to mention, if you maintain frame, ignoring a girl while treating your cat like the princess she is will still set the hamster wheels in motion. It's kind of funny that the hamster-wheel-hindbrain is so primitive that she will literally compete for my cock with my cat... and no I don't fuck my cat.

2
RedPillSafe2•

That's true. So funny how jealous women are with each other and even to cats if they threaten their time with you.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

13
DarkSayedOP•

But, second, i'm happy that she got a dog instead of pushing out a baby, because she would be a terrible mother. She's spoiled as fuck and can't take responsability at 32yo.

Good point, there are positives in the phenomenon.

Having said that, a dog should be treated like a dog and not a child. If it is treated like a child rather than what it is, it could end up being unhappy. It needs to run and clothes just seem like it would make it uncomfortable.

2
RedPillSafe2•

For MGTOW's who are just out of beta I highly recommend pets.

The reason is twofold:

  • First - The pets give physical touch.

  • Second - The pets have the same basic emotions as a woman.

I would strongly be AGAINST talking to a pet because that demonstrates you don't have a clue about their emotions. Pets lack intellect... they are in effect "women" by design and we know that talking with women can be counter productive too.

So if you interact correctly with pets they are a good thing.

Pets are emotions only !!!!

Use powertalk with pets, they will understand your emotions, but not your words.

10
[deleted]•

[deleted]

10
neurosurg•

I know a girl (who used to be one of my plates) who is a professional independent you-go-girl career womyn in a major U.S. city. She recently turned 30 and is rapidly approaching the wall. She has a dog, several cats, and frequently fosters dogs and cats from shelters until they can find a permanent home. She posts pictures of them on facebook almost non-stop and refers to them as her "fur babies." She's not the only one, either. Projection much? I think it's clear evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I love animals (especially dogs), and there's nothing wrong with having pets. But I've seen a lot of these women keeping animals and treating them as surrogate children, when it is clear that having and raising children is in their nature.

9
DarkSayedOP•

I know a girl (who used to be one of my plates) who is a professional independent you-go-girl career womyn in a major U.S. city

That's a beautiful description.

3
roflzaur•

This guy gave cars to his daughter. Look what the daughter did with the cars: http://imgur.com/AT2Ak Raising children is in a woman's DNA.

I also saw a girl who just learned how to walk walking with her mom and would leave her mom to look at at smell flowers on the side of the walkway. This makes me thing most women are pretty much the same, with a small standard deviation.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

8
Neo-ReactionaryHarry•

I have a much different take on pets, I think that the popularity of pets in America(can't say about the rest of the world) is mainly due to the fact that the familial/social structure is so fucked up. In essence, you can't get human physical contact so I might as well get the next best thing, a furry animal. I had pets while growing up and found them most of the time to just be annoying and loud. I mean is it any coincidence the 40 year old single cat lady? No. Because her life lacks men and physical contact she must invest in pets. Pets are just another sign in my opinion of a fucked up society.

8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
RedPillSafe2•

This is true. Our reality is fucked up because of Feminism.

Pets are a reaction to bad circumstances.

1
[deleted]•

We immigrants have always said that white people have been replacing kids with pets. Only now do you see.

8
DarkSayedOP•

I'm afraid I'm a non-white immigrant ; )

2
[deleted]•

The disease spreads. Plagues are not at all racially exclusionary.

4
Dev_on1•

Have you ever had a pet? I agree people need to remember they are dogs, and not people, but most pet owners hate those people because they have no idea how to train their animals, not so much bothered by the language

7
DrScrubbington•

Shitty dog owners piss me off. If you can't discipline your dog right, get a cat. You can't really fuck a cat up unless you overfeed it.

4
DarkSayedOP•

Yes, I mentioned in the OP I have had quite a few , not a dog, mind you.

1
PM_ME_A_SLOTH•

The "dad get up" thing is a reference to The Lion King.

7
AbsoluteAltitude•

Dogs > Kids. More rewarding, less expensive, easier to pick up girls with. The world is over populated enough, so fuck having kids.

7
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
Iupvoteforknowledge•

I don't want to have kids. If you do that's fine. Don't try and guilt me into it as if the world is going to end because of my decision. Another user is saying people who don't want to have kids should just off themselves to help population control. Little fucking extreme if you ask me.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-1
Hughtub•

Why are you contributing to the overpopulation by remaining alive? Why not help the situation. If you feign to care about overpopulation, do what actually would help it: off yourself. That you don't indicates it's a ploy to get karma from fellow deluded redditors.

5
luciansolaris•

Does it help that overpopulation has been the chicken little cry that it is since the days of Malthus?

2
AbsoluteAltitude•

Good lord you have some free time, don't you? That's a really in depth look into a distracted comment..damn dude, I don't even know.

1
Hughtub•

I'm joking, but it helps to show that you don't really believe that overpopulation is a problem, and it's not. It's a problem in 3rd world countries, but not for ANYONE here in this forum. We live within our means and produce more than we consume. I don't like seeing the meme that the very root of civilization - patriarchy - and its supporters, should be having NO kids. That's completely backwards. We should be the only ones having kids... luckily it's almost that way anyway.

0
AbsoluteAltitude•

I don't really even know where you're going with this, or why you're really trying to make it a bigger issue than it is. You're like...trying to apply psychology to an offhanded comment made online. Just....go get laid and stop trying to prove your intelligence, no one here really cares that much.

1
ugghhf•

Pets are replacing children because fewer people can afford children. Pets are comparatively cheap.

4
LewisSkolnick•

OP is right, I have felt this way for a while. All of my friends who are in LTR's are in their mid-twenties, and either have a pet or are being pestered to get one by their mid-twenties girlfriend. These girlfriends are creating fake Instagram accounts for the pets, and coddling them like crazy. All I can think of when I see them is "You are 25/26, that's supposed to be a human you are coddling, not a dog."

Anyone here seen the movie "The Woman in Black"? These girls are starting to remind me of Ciaran Hinds' wife in that movie.

Also, OP isn't alone in this opinion - it's being discussed, here and there.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/10/more-young-women-choosing-dogs-over-motherhood/

4
kanaduhisfruityeh•

This is nothing new and definitely not confined to reddit. I'd say it is a cultural feature of rich western countries. In rich western countries people love animals more than people, in some cases. In other countries people tend to have much less regard for animals. People in North America will kiss their dogs on the lips and sleep with them in their beds. People in some other places won't allow dogs in the house.

2
nigmondo•

Think you are over reacting a little on this OP. I keep Marine Tropical fish and occasionally referto them as the 'Kids', when they need to be fed. Im still however aware that they are pets.

Saying that, one of my mates girlfriend does have a little dog that gets spoiled rotten. It's very obviously a substitute for a child

2
DrScrubbington•

It's funny, if I ever get a dog (I live alone, nobody to take care of the dog while I'm at work, hence the cat and the fish) I know exactly how to discipline a dog.

One more step up with the current company and nobody will dare tell me not to bring my dog to work, at which point I will get a dog.

1
GayLubeOil16 Endorsed Contributor•

Im sure at some level people have an inherent need to be parents. Western woman are too strong and independent to comit to a man and be good wives, so instead of children they have pets. Immigrant women on the otherhand are untouched by western feminist values and have no problem shooting out tons of kids. The U.S is getting more hispanic. U.K more Indian and Paki. France is getting more Muslim.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2