rekabis

Where in the Democrat platform says all this?

It doesn’t. Hence,

it’s society in general.

That’s the source. Not politics, society. In fact, politics - aside from the laws implemented, which can be exceedingly bigoted and sexist while attempting to be about equality - doesn’t say much about this at all.

Shoveling cow shit, grain, silage, and tossing 50kg/120lbs hay bales nearly every day growing up as kid on a farm got me started on ruining my body early in life. 12 years as a toolmaker standing on concrete 10 to 12 hours a day and lifting heavy pieces of steel, Then 15 years spent dragging 115+kg/250+lbs patients up from basements and down from upstairs bedrooms as a medic has done little to nothing for my back either.

While stretching and certain exercises could have helped greatly with that, it’s also not something that would have been available to us in our youth. It’s only been in the last two decades that kinesiology, stretching, targeted training, and other body-movement sciences have started becoming widely available. And that doesn’t help anywhere near as much after the fact.

My condolences on the current state of your meat vehicle.

Your source you linked states that women can give birth after 45

Some women can. Most can’t without modern medical help. Again: I already specified that. And by the age of 50, almost no women can get pregnant without modern medical help.

and your claim was wrong they are "essentially infertile."

The article even says that most women are essentially infertile by the age of 45. So it’s clear that you didn’t read it at all.

You said the upper limit for a woman's fertile window was 35.

Aaaand there is the outright lying

Nope, never said that. Point out exactly where, then. But you can’t.

What I said is that a pregnancy after 35 is called a geriatric pregnancy by the medical system. And that the optimal wjndow for pregnancies - for them to happen easily, and without major complications - is between 15 and 35.

Because - had you been truly unbiased - you would have pointed out that pregnancies before the age of 15 are possible as well. Because they are, they just aren’t safe or healthy to have.

Ergo, the optimum fertility window for most women is between 15 and 35. Outside of which it becomes materially more risky and unlikely to happen. And after the age of 40 to 45, vanishingly unlikely.

Just shy of 2m tall myself, and I don’t seem to have any of your issues, even nosing into my sixth decade on this rock.

About the only thing I could complain about is the family orchard tractor, which is Chinese-made, and seems to have been designed by someone a full 45cm shorter than I am. But that’s about the only thing I have cause to complain about. Some appropriate warm-up exercises and my knees are fine even after a few hours of vigorous pedal-pumping at inappropriately pretzeled leg angles.

You can give birth even in your 50s safely.

I never denied that. However, pregnancies that had no modern medical involvement in its creation become very rare after the age of 40, and vanishingly rare after the age of 50.

To wit,

“The rate of decline accelerates around the age of 35 and the vast majority of women are essentially infertile by the time they reach 45,”

35 like you originally claimed.

I claimed that pregnancies after 35 are called “geriatric pregnancies”, and that is due to the risks that they bring. This is a medical term, used throughout the industry for pregnancies after the age of 35

And fertility begins to drop noticeably after 32, and really begins to plummet after 35.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#%3A%7E%3Atext=9+External+links-%2CHistory%2C%22MGTOW+Manifesto%22+in+2001.

If you’re going to be referencing a hate screed by misandrists - and yes, almost every sentence of the Wikipedia article is either a gross exaggeration, a deliberate mischaracterization, or an outrightght lie - then you are operating wholly in bad faith.

Feminism is equal rights for the sexes.

It’s a female supremacist movement.

Have you ever seen Alien? That movie was about forced birth. Do you think a movement that expressly wants to force birth on women by fighting against their rights is the same morally as a movement that wants to stop forced birth on women?

And there is that outright mischaracterization, which is pretty much bordering on a lie, that I was expecting. Most MGTOW have no strong opinion against abortion, because a female exercising her right to abort can also release the man from a quarter century’s worth of unwilling financial enslavement. And many are fully in favour of abortion rights for both genders… which include paper abortions for men, which bring near-complete parity and equality of that right to both sexes.

It’s more than just Democrats, it’s society in general.

You can’t enlist the support of an entire gender by telling them that they are the source of all of society’s evils, and that they themselves are fundamentally evil no matter what, that they are all rapists-in-training, that the world would be better off if they were all killed, and that they are no better than vermin. And more importantly: that when they do something objectionable it is misogyny and bigoted and disgusting and (with some things) even illegal, but when women do it, it is a big nothingburger with zero consequences for the woman.

That’s how you alienate them and push them away.

And the alt-right has stepped in with comforting lies.

Is it any wonder that men have turned away from the left? There is absolutely no visible benefit for them there. So they have gone to where they are openly wanted and desired, where they are intentionally made to feel useful and valued… even though they are just pawns in a class war (Parasite Class vs working class), and will only ever be hurt by those they support.

None of that merits a response.

Ah, the “sour grapes because I have nothing to counter with” argument.

Still, you did take the high(er) road, in that you did not descend to an ad hominem as so many ideologically blinkered people do when their core brainwashing is directly challenged with real-world evidence. For avoiding that, I must actually commend you. So pick up a textbook and bone up on facts, and you won’t be caught with your intellectual pants down again.

Knee and backpain

Some people lose the genetic lottery in this regard, true, but unless you are elderly, most people can avoid back and leg pain by exercising, stretching, and taking care of your body.

standing out in a crowd

Counterpoint: finding the person you are looking for in a crowd.

needing to slightly bend down vor everything in most standard kitchens.

If you are under the age of 35, I fully acknowledge how the deck of house ownership is stacked against you. But once you own your own home, you can… remodel. Kitchens also come in Big & Tall designs, and not all short(er) spouses mind taller countertops. The kitchen that came with my house is sized perfectly for my wife, and yet she finds the height that woukd be ideal for my height to also be more attractive for her as well.

Unless you have a passion for cramped supercars or exceed the height of most door frames… why? The ability to reach the top shelf and things placed at height is just so invaluable. And provided you take care of them, knees and hips still allow you to rummage through things on the down low.

Now, if you’re so tall that you routinely crack your forehead on door frames… yeah. I could see why. But then the question becomes, what is affecting your coordination such that it prevents you from earning millions by throwing an orange ball through a netted hoop?

“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

- David Frum