The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

There's a manosphere out there and it is loud.

Examples:

backlash.com

MGTOW

https://www.mgtow.com/

The Red Pill

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20red%20pill

Example of such thinking:

http://www.returnofkings.com/28020/11-hard-truths-i-learned-from-taking-the-red-pill

If there is a nascant men's movement out there, I'd think it very disorganized. Some want to return to more traditional roles based upon gender. This means less government support for women to make the financial contributions of men more relevant. Others look to women adopting non-traditional roles in which they can treat men the way a fish might treat a bycicle and say "that can work for men too". You also have huge differences based upon class. No doubt many alpha males would love for beta males to go away making competition for women easier for themselves.

For myself, I am concerned. I have reason to think my young adult son is a heterosexual as are his group of friends. They all look like male models as they spend many hours working out at gyms every week. My son dated for a while, broke it off and not showed any interest in women in about two years since. NONE of his circle of several are dating. Not one. My male best friend will never marry. Ever. One nephew will never marry. Another dated and even moved in with a woman, boomeranged and is not dating.

I have hopes for my children. I want my daughter to find a life partner and have and raise children together (and let me move in when I'm old and need to be cared for! :-) ) But seriously, if men really are going their own way, what will that do to the likelyhood that she will have these things (partner and children)? I also want traditional family for my son. Sure it has its set backs but I honestly believe I am healthier and wealthier due to my wife.

EDIT: Doesn't look like it is my imagination. Lotta stories out there about marriage rates being way down:

Example: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

Your thoughts?

The only way to revert gender roles to 50s standards at this point is either indoctrination, violent supression or both, and neither should be done. Even female Alt-Righters don't want to regress completely. No gender should be opressed based on their physical capabilities. Men and women are human beings, not fertilizers and incubators, they have rights and goals of their own. Whether a person wants to be romantically or sexually active is their choice. I'm an asexual, and i do not intend to marry against my will for the sake of some counterproductive societal shift

Gorfias:
There's a manosphere out there and it is loud.

Examples:

backlash.com

MGTOW

https://www.mgtow.com/

The Red Pill

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20red%20pill

Example of such thinking:

http://www.returnofkings.com/28020/11-hard-truths-i-learned-from-taking-the-red-pill

If there is a nascant men's movement out there, I'd think it very disorganized. Some want to return to more traditional roles based upon gender. This means less government support for women to make the financial contributions of men more relevant. Others look to women adopting non-traditional roles in which they can treat men the way a fish might treat a bycicle and say "that can work for men too". You also have huge differences based upon class. No doubt many alpha males would love for beta males to go away making competition for women easier for themselves.

For myself, I am concerned. I have reason to think my young adult son is a heterosexual as are his group of friends. They all look like male models as they spend many hours working out at gyms every week. My son dated for a while, broke it off and not showed any interest in women in about two years since. NONE of his circle of several are dating. Not one. My male best friend will never marry. Ever. One nephew will never marry. Another dated and even moved in with a woman, boomeranged and is not dating.

I have hopes for my children. I want my daughter to find a life partner and have and raise children together (and let me move in when I'm old and need to be cared for! :-) ) But seriously, if men really are going their own way, what will that do to the likelyhood that she will have these things (partner and children)? I also want traditional family for my son. Sure it has its set backs but I honestly believe I am healthier and wealthier due to my wife.

EDIT: Doesn't look like it is my imagination. Lotta stories out there about marriage rates being way down:

Example: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

Your thoughts?

While yes, misogyny can play a role in lack of interest in marriage, most of what we have going on is due to cost of living, wishing to maintain lifestyle and living standards rather than men and women no longer "getting along". In the past, marriage was priority at a younger age, now finishing college, experiencing life, travel, being able to afford a house and kids come before marriage. Due to those obstacles, some may never marry due to thinking they simply cannot afford to do so.

The same 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center that found a record share of Americans who have never been married also asked those participants about their desire to wed one day. For the subgroup of adults 25 to 34 years old, only 4 percent said they don't want to get married - the rest either want to wed (61 percent) or aren't sure (34 percent).

And in 2013, a Gallup poll reported similar results: only 9 percent of adults ages 18 to 34 in the United States were unmarried and expressed no interest in getting hitched. That makes fewer than 1 in 10 millennials who shun the institution outright, meaning that our desire for wedded bliss is still very much alive despite the overall decline in marriage rates.

http://www.phillyvoice.com/will-millennials-ever-go-meme-wewe/

I would not worry too much about your kids finding love, there are still plenty of people who do want relationships and change what they want and choose to do over time. I mean if your kid is expressing " all women" or " all men" views, I would give them some parental advice on how everyone is an individual just as they are and to try not to group people up like that. Yes some people will die alone by choice, but it is ultimately up to them what they choose to do. Around here it seems the men want to marry sooner than the women do.

CyanCat47:
The only way to revert gender roles to 50s standards at this point is either indoctrination, violent supression or both, and neither should be done. Even female Alt-Righters don't want to regress completely. No gender should be opressed based on their physical capabilities. Men and women are human beings, not fertilizers and incubators, they have rights and goals of their own. Whether a person wants to be romantically or sexually active is their choice. I'm an asexual, and i do not intend to marry against my will for the sake of some counterproductive societal shift

Gender roles are not even the issue according to the data, it is due to increased education, high cost of lving and reducing teenage pregnancy rates. People simply want to do so later when they can afford to do so in order to provide a better life for their children for the most part.

I don't know if it's the same in other countries but here in the UK, while marriage rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, that isn't because people are avoiding relationships. That's because many couples are now just cohabiting or even deciding to have kids together as a unmarried couple. The vast majority of people still have long-term relationships, whether they formalise it by marriage or not.

Lil devils x:

While yes, misogyny can play a role in lack of interest in marriage, most of what we have going on is due to cost of living, wishing to maintain lifestyle and living standards rather than men and women no longer "getting along". In the past, marriage was priority at a younger age, now finishing college, experiencing life, travel, being able to afford a house and kids come before marriage. Due to those obstacles, some may never marry due to thinking they simply cannot afford to do so.

I got to see Jeb! live during the primaries and he was speaking of how the USA needs to import people to solve our "demographics" problem. I'm thinking we have a problem with impediments to family formation. I would like education and work schedules to be more flexible. Rising wages and more available housing, less student debt would help.

Also, I am shocked at how much hate is out there. It's one thing to write that you want things for men and women. Sometimes a benefit for one may be a relative detriment to the other but that isn't the goal. That doesn't make one a woman hater. Yet read some of the toxic comments or watch even toxic videos full of msogyny on youtube. That's when commentators aren't blaming Jews for it all. Really alarming.

JoJo:
I don't know if it's the same in other countries but here in the UK, while marriage rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, that isn't because people are avoiding relationships. That's because many couples are now just cohabiting or even deciding to have kids together as a unmarried couple. The vast majority of people still have long-term relationships, whether they formalise it by marriage or not.

Could just be alamism or one thing has nothing to do with another (birth vs. marriage rates) but there's a lot of concern out there about birth rates: example: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

There isn't a "manosphere" as such, there are plenty of loud people out there complaining about this or that, but there's little cohesion to them.

Marriage rates are going down, but I suspect that's in large part because less people want to get married. If they chose not to, not seeing a problem.

Now, there are serious issues with how we view masculinity in our culture, but that's not really getting at them.

Thaluikhain:

Marriage rates are going down, but I suspect that's in large part because less people want to get married. If they chose not to, not seeing a problem.

Well if the number of people who don't get into such relationships and have children grow too large in number, society won't last particularly long when one looks beyond the extreme short term. The drop in marriage rates correlates pretty closely with the drop in birth rate (as well as rise in youth criminal activity and in mental health issues amongst that same group. Single parenthood is objectively bad for children), and if across society there's only an average of 1 child per couple, then you quickly have a collapsing population where within a few generations you don't have a society anymore unless you import one, which itself still means the previous society is gone and just replaced with a different one.

Now granted this isn't really the case in practice, conservative families are having enough children to eventually reverse the swing of population in first world nations (incidentally this is also why a right shift is assured even when ignoring counter culture that has turned Generation Z into a particularly right leaning generation as it stands) but the negative effects on a society which normalises divorce and single parenthood does have an objectively adverse effect on the children who are victims (and I don't use that term lightly) of this state of affairs who are placed into a position that is the single largest signifies of poverty, criminal activity and mental health disorders above race, sex and socioeconomic status.

Or to put it bluntly, if you are a single parent not because of circumstance or need, but by choice (which is tragically the norm) you're a terrible parent.

As for the "manosphere", those guys are just the equivalent of lesbian separatists. I've no idea what the idea behind the MGTOW movement is, especially since one would think men who want to "go their own way" wouldn't have a problem not shutting up about how much they want to get away. I know when I want to get away from something I don't spend too much time bitching about it if it isn't something that's actively trying to find me. And I'm pretty sure women ain't actively trying to find these guys.

Gorfias:
For myself, I am concerned. I have reason to think my young adult son is a heterosexual as are his group of friends. They all look like male models as they spend many hours working out at gyms every week. My son dated for a while, broke it off and not showed any interest in women in about two years since. NONE of his circle of several are dating. Not one. My male best friend will never marry. Ever. One nephew will never marry. Another dated and even moved in with a woman, boomeranged and is not dating.

Are they happy? Would a relationship make them happier? Do they think so?

Gorfias:

Lil devils x:

While yes, misogyny can play a role in lack of interest in marriage, most of what we have going on is due to cost of living, wishing to maintain lifestyle and living standards rather than men and women no longer "getting along". In the past, marriage was priority at a younger age, now finishing college, experiencing life, travel, being able to afford a house and kids come before marriage. Due to those obstacles, some may never marry due to thinking they simply cannot afford to do so.

I got to see Jeb! live during the primaries and he was speaking of how the USA needs to import people to solve our "demographics" problem. I'm thinking we have a problem with impediments to family formation. I would like education and work schedules to be more flexible. Rising wages and more available housing, less student debt would help.

Also, I am shocked at how much hate is out there. It's one thing to write that you want things for men and women. Sometimes a benefit for one may be a relative detriment to the other but that isn't the goal. That doesn't make one a woman hater. Yet read some of the toxic comments or watch even toxic videos full of msogyny on youtube. That's when commentators aren't blaming Jews for it all. Really alarming.

JoJo:
I don't know if it's the same in other countries but here in the UK, while marriage rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, that isn't because people are avoiding relationships. That's because many couples are now just cohabiting or even deciding to have kids together as a unmarried couple. The vast majority of people still have long-term relationships, whether they formalise it by marriage or not.

Could just be alamism or one thing has nothing to do with another (birth vs. marriage rates) but there's a lot of concern out there about birth rates: example: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

Most western nations are having to " import people" to be able to maintain their infrastructure long term. The issue with education is it also results in smaller families. Smaller families means less people to maintain the infrastructure, so then they try to encourage people to have children at a younger age and import people to make up for the shortage.

They have been making commercials encouraging people to have more sex in Denmark for example:
http://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaign-to-encourage-pregnancy-2015-10

Germany and Japan are well known for having some of the best education systems in the world. and they both have birthrate crisis.
Germany was looking at more than just " helping refugees" with them bringing in so many immigrants. They are in crisis due to people not having children.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/germany-birthrate-low-falling
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32929962
If they do not bring in immigrants they risk a collapse. People complaining about the immigrants fail to understand the immigrants are their best hope for saving their nation.

I would very much like to see a more family focused work environment in the US and to see the past harsh "kid free" business mindset disappear and never come back. Employers should realize that people work to live, not live to work and that without investing in our nations children, there will be no future for ANY business. Cities like San Francisco are now asking " where have all the children gone?" due to the non family friendly environment being promoted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children.html

Lack of quality,safe, affordable housing with good schools means people can no longer raise children in those areas. Often employers will even fire a parent if they have to take off to retrieve a sick child from school or have to stay home to care for them due to most childcare options will not take sick children due to the risks to the other children there. The entire way we view business and family needs to shift to focus on putting family needs ahead of business needs.

That is one of the things I am most disappointed with Clinton not winning. She had already budgeted in for her 2017 budget paid sick leave and paid vacations for working families at the expense of the 1% and not putting the burden on small businesses. There are so many families who have never had a vacation and are at risk of losing their job or home if they stay home with a sick child. This needs to change. Of course none of that is going to change in the next 4 years, we can expect it to get worse not better, but I do really hope maybe it can go back on the table after that. So many families out there really need that more than people realize.

I dunno, I imagine both marriage and families will continue to exist into the future. I think it's pointless to worry about.
And let people have the relationships they want.
If someone wants to have a relationship dynamic straight out of the 1950's well fine if that makes them happy but it'd drive ME up the wall so let's not try and operate off of a one-size-fits-all approach. I don't think worrying about this helps anybody.

I so cannot be bothered with "the manosphere" or "alpha and beta". So those are just my thoughts on the future of marriage.
And to be honest there's not a whole lot of reason to be married any more. It's just not seen as THAT important.

EDIT: Also I feel like I should add, "turning back the clock" isn't even possible in a marriage sense. Most households need both people to work full-time, and if you're not doing your fair share of the housework after you're both working full-time, you're an inconsiderate partner- regardless of gender.

*sigh* When are people going to realize that the whole 'beta/alpha' bullshit isn't actually a thing?

Aaaanyways, shit happens for all manner of reasons. No offence, but your son and his friends can be sculpted Greek gods etched to perfection but if they aren't otherwise interesting as people they're not going to hold relationships very well. I've known people who were soooo focused on "perfecting" their bodies and maintaining their "perfection" for the expressed purpose of attracting dates, except that maintenance took up all of their time leaving none left to actually date and hold a relationship. Buuut I don't know your son or really his situation. If it matters to you, well, you can sit down with him and ask him about it. No sense just speculating on the internet about it, just ask him yourself.

I'm a feminist who is onboard with quite a few things MRAs claim to be fighting for (mental health advocacy for men, better shelters for men, more recognition for male victims of rape and domestic abuse, for example). However, I feel like MRAs would be more successful in their endeavours if they actually fought for these issues themselves, instead of trying to fight feminists to fight for them. A lot of MRA goals and feminist goals do not contradict and in many cases go hand-in-hand. The Red Pill however, ugh... Basically it's a bunch of men who aren't happy that women don't act more like how they're portrayed in pop culture, and instead of blaming pop culture for giving them false ideas about women they'd rather blame women.

As for birth rates and marriage, there's a lot of societal issues that lead to them being the way they are. People have already pointed a lot of them out before, but it has a lot to do with changing attitudes in the job market and the economy. A lot of people can't afford to maintain a household with only one breadwinner, and a lot of people are afraid of losing their job or having hours cut if they need to take maternity leave or any kind of leave to care for a child. Hell, a lot of my friends are terrified of taking vacations even though they're legally entitled to it because they know the place they work for can just hire a new person and train them to fill their position before they return, and those businesses have done that before. You go on your vacation, you come back, someone's already filled you position, your hours are heavily slashed but there's nothing to do because you weren't technically full time anyways, you were just part time but getting full time hours (that's also something that's becoming insanely popular these days, and lets businesses screw employees out of receiving full time benefits and hours).

If people want birth rates to go up, society needs to change to make having children more economically viable.

So this is what that "marriage crisis" detritus is all about, is it? Insecurity has some curious outlets when these males tend to group up. It's not economical, educational or environmental, of course it must be the gender wars!
There could be an oblivious dissonance to the possibility that perhaps people set in that kind of mindset are generally not as easy to get on with in a relationship with the opposite sex?
I thought we were supposed to be overpopulated as a species anyway, or is it only counted if they're foreign at a visible and audible glance? Well, maybe my cataclysmic machine won't need to be powered up after all. *Tinkers with tiny obscured dials*

Xsjadoblayde:
So this is what that "marriage crisis" detritus is all about, is it? Insecurity has some curious outlets when these males tend to group up. It's not economical, educational or environmental, of course it must be the gender wars!
There could be an oblivious dissonance to the possibility that perhaps people set in that kind of mindset are generally not as easy to get on with in a relationship with the opposite sex?
I thought we were supposed to be overpopulated as a species anyway, or is it only counted if they're foreign at a visible and audible glance? Well, maybe my cataclysmic machine won't need to be powered up after all. *Tinkers with tiny obscured dials*

Is it the one that turns humans into bears? You know Magneto can sue you for trademark infringement right?

CyanCat47:

Is it the one that turns humans into bears? You know Magneto can sue you for trademark infringement right?

I cannot yet divulge such information, but suffice to say that me and him have a mutual agreement.

JoJo:
I don't know if it's the same in other countries but here in the UK, while marriage rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, that isn't because people are avoiding relationships. That's because many couples are now just cohabiting or even deciding to have kids together as a unmarried couple. The vast majority of people still have long-term relationships, whether they formalise it by marriage or not.

Although in many parts of the UK it is probably mainly down to house prices meaning you can't afford to be single.

Changing the legalities of marriage so that men aren't hugely financially penalized and usually second class citizens in divorce or family court would go a long way to assuage some very real and major concerns. Why risk having a family and child if there is a very, very real chance she will stop loving you, start loving some other asshole and then your own kids start calling some home-wrecking jerk daddy instead. Then to add injury to insult, they make you pay for the privilege of having your children raised by others since you likely won't get custody solely based on gender. How messed up is that? The only reason one of my friends was awarded custody of his kid was because his ex was a tweeker. If he hadn't contacted a PI to provide evidence of her drug addiction the judge would have given that tweeker the kids just because she was female. His kid would have been at least partially raised by a tweeker and her tweeker boyfriend. Laws to counter this bias against men in family and divorce courts would help fight a lot of the injustice that I believe is one of the contributors to the high rate of male suicide. One of my best friends came very close to making a very sad personal decision because his wife decided she didn't love him anymore and moved away with the kids and they are being raised by the monster that seduced her while she was married. The monster that ruined his life is raising his kids and he has to pay for the privilege. That seems like oppression to me. I wouldn't have handled it nearly as well as he did and he still came very close to harming himself. I can see why some men would rather not risk having their families stolen and have to pay for it.
Don't turn it back to the 50's, those times were sexist and biased as well. The solution to bias is never a different form of bias. Misogyny never justifies misandry (even ironic) and misandry never justifies misogyny (even ironic.) Give men equal access to children and make sure men don't have to pay all the child support. Equal access and responsibilities would remove the need for those men with equal access to pay child support since they are contributing as much as the woman. Fathers should be treated as equal parents to mothers and the courts should dismiss their pro-mother bias with actual laws and guidelines for family courts. Marriage is now an ephemeral institution rather than the semi-permanent one it used to be and attitudes and laws about it should change. No one should be entitled to alimony unless there was a financial arrangement or agreement previously such as a wife or husband working to support their partner through school.

Want less divorces? Then as I stated in the topic about if technology is hurting relationships, DATE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY!

Seriously, if you dont enjoy spending time with your partner for a few hours doing something together, how the fuck are you going to spend decades together!?

And sexism wont help that. If men have to be this way and women that way, then it wont help straight couples be happy. Men, wouldnt you prefer she watch sports with you? Maybe she helps you fix up that old car you have been working on? Helps you while you hunt like the manly man you are?

Women, wouldnt it be nice if you cooked as a couple? If he had emotions and cared about you? If he cared more about loving you than beating up people who want to love you?

The reason divorce rates were probably lower "back in the day" is because women were domestic slaves rather than happy, and men were too "tough" to let their sadness motivate them to actually fix their lives.

People think there werent all these problems "back then" but that is a load of shit. We just now address problems people "back then" were too bigoted and spineless to address.

*takes a deep breath*...Plus if we turn back the clock then we will be eaten by dinosaurs...

FriendoftheFallen:
Changing the legalities of marriage so that men aren't hugely financially penalized and usually second class citizens in divorce or family court would go a long way to assuage some very real and major concerns. Why risk having a family and child if there is a very, very real chance she will stop loving you, start loving some other asshole and then your own kids start calling some home-wrecking jerk daddy instead. Then to add injury to insult, they make you pay for the privilege of having your children raised by others since you likely won't get custody solely based on gender. How messed up is that? The only reason one of my friends was awarded custody of his kid was because his ex was a tweeker. If he hadn't contacted a PI to provide evidence of her drug addiction the judge would have given that tweeker the kids just because she was female. His kid would have been at least partially raised by a tweeker and her tweeker boyfriend. Laws to counter this bias against men in family and divorce courts would help fight a lot of the injustice that I believe is one of the contributors to the high rate of male suicide. One of my best friends came very close to making a very sad personal decision because his wife decided she didn't love him anymore and moved away with the kids and they are being raised by the monster that seduced her while she was married. The monster that ruined his life is raising his kids and he has to pay for the privilege. That seems like oppression to me. I wouldn't have handled it nearly as well as he did and he still came very close to harming himself. I can see why some men would rather not risk having their families stolen and have to pay for it.
Don't turn it back to the 50's, those times were sexist and biased as well. The solution to bias is never a different form of bias. Misogyny never justifies misandry (even ironic) and misandry never justifies misogyny (even ironic.) Give men equal access to children and make sure men don't have to pay all the child support. Equal access and responsibilities would remove the need for those men with equal access to pay child support since they are contributing as much as the woman. Fathers should be treated as equal parents to mothers and the courts should dismiss their pro-mother bias with actual laws and guidelines for family courts. Marriage is now an ephemeral institution rather than the semi-permanent one it used to be and attitudes and laws about it should change. No one should be entitled to alimony unless there was a financial arrangement or agreement previously such as a wife or husband working to support their partner through school.

I'm sorry your friends had to go through those ordeals.

I do agree that men need better representation in divorces and I'm not going to deny that there are judges out there that do hold a firm bias against men just due to them being men.

However, I do believe that there needs to be an attitude shift in general in fathers if men are to get equal access to child care in divorce. During divorce proceedings, parents get asked questions on their children, like what their date of birth is, who their family doctor is, what allergies they have (if any), and you'd be surprised how many fathers can't even answer these questions.

I'm no researcher, but speaking from personal experience from working at a family doctor's office for several years, I've made quite a few observations. I'd say upwards of 90% of the time, it's the mother who will call and book appointments for their children, and 90% of the time it's the mother who will bring the child in for that appointment. When the fathers are the ones who call in, I've experienced the following on multiple occasions each:
- Dad doesn't know which doctor at our clinic their child regularly sees.
- Dad doesn't know the child's date of birth.
- Dad doesn't know why he's making the appointment (or why he's brought the child in if the mom booked it and he brought in the kid).
- Dad can't tell me if the child has any allergies or what they are.
- When attempting to relay information onto the parents for appointments booked with specialists outside the clinic, dads will ask me to call the mom and tell her instead, or they'll take the information but then days later I'll get a call from the mom asking if an appointment has been made yet (parents were together, not divorced or separated in these situations).

Again, not denying that there's judges out there biased against men for no good reason, but dad's do need to step up and get more involved in the important aspects of their children's lives. A court isn't going to give custody to a father that seems to know little or nothing about his kids. I'm not implying that this applies to your friends, but it is something that needs to happen overall.

TakeyB0y2:

FriendoftheFallen:
Changing the legalities of marriage so that men aren't hugely financially penalized and usually second class citizens in divorce or family court would go a long way to assuage some very real and major concerns. Why risk having a family and child if there is a very, very real chance she will stop loving you, start loving some other asshole and then your own kids start calling some home-wrecking jerk daddy instead. Then to add injury to insult, they make you pay for the privilege of having your children raised by others since you likely won't get custody solely based on gender. How messed up is that? The only reason one of my friends was awarded custody of his kid was because his ex was a tweeker. If he hadn't contacted a PI to provide evidence of her drug addiction the judge would have given that tweeker the kids just because she was female. His kid would have been at least partially raised by a tweeker and her tweeker boyfriend. Laws to counter this bias against men in family and divorce courts would help fight a lot of the injustice that I believe is one of the contributors to the high rate of male suicide. One of my best friends came very close to making a very sad personal decision because his wife decided she didn't love him anymore and moved away with the kids and they are being raised by the monster that seduced her while she was married. The monster that ruined his life is raising his kids and he has to pay for the privilege. That seems like oppression to me. I wouldn't have handled it nearly as well as he did and he still came very close to harming himself. I can see why some men would rather not risk having their families stolen and have to pay for it.
Don't turn it back to the 50's, those times were sexist and biased as well. The solution to bias is never a different form of bias. Misogyny never justifies misandry (even ironic) and misandry never justifies misogyny (even ironic.) Give men equal access to children and make sure men don't have to pay all the child support. Equal access and responsibilities would remove the need for those men with equal access to pay child support since they are contributing as much as the woman. Fathers should be treated as equal parents to mothers and the courts should dismiss their pro-mother bias with actual laws and guidelines for family courts. Marriage is now an ephemeral institution rather than the semi-permanent one it used to be and attitudes and laws about it should change. No one should be entitled to alimony unless there was a financial arrangement or agreement previously such as a wife or husband working to support their partner through school.

I'm sorry your friends had to go through those ordeals.

I do agree that men need better representation in divorces and I'm not going to deny that there are judges out there that do hold a firm bias against men just due to them being men.

However, I do believe that there needs to be an attitude shift in general in fathers if men are to get equal access to child care in divorce. During divorce proceedings, parents get asked questions on their children, like what their date of birth is, who their family doctor is, what allergies they have (if any), and you'd be surprised how many fathers can't even answer these questions.

I'm no researcher, but speaking from personal experience from working at a family doctor's office for several years, I've made quite a few observations. I'd say upwards of 90% of the time, it's the mother who will call and book appointments for their children, and 90% of the time it's the mother who will bring the child in for that appointment. When the fathers are the ones who call in, I've experienced the following on multiple occasions each:
- Dad doesn't know which doctor at our clinic their child regularly sees.
- Dad doesn't know the child's date of birth.
- Dad doesn't know why he's making the appointment (or why he's brought the child in if the mom booked it and he brought in the kid).
- Dad can't tell me if the child has any allergies or what they are.
- When attempting to relay information onto the parents for appointments booked with specialists outside the clinic, dads will ask me to call the mom and tell her instead, or they'll take the information but then days later I'll get a call from the mom asking if an appointment has been made yet (parents were together, not divorced or separated in these situations).

Again, not denying that there's judges out there biased against men for no good reason, but dad's do need to step up and get more involved in the important aspects of their children's lives. A court isn't going to give custody to a father that seems to know little or nothing about his kids. I'm not implying that this applies to your friends, but it is something that needs to happen overall.

Some of that can be on the mother as well since I have personally seen some mothers treat their partners as secondary parents who don't need that information. Some (sexist) mothers treat the father as needing help and guidance to do the most basic parenting tasks. I wholly disagree with what you say. That perception of fathers not being as attached or aware of all their children's needs shouldn't keep them from having custody. It unfairly biases against those that do a good job as fathers. A father shouldn't lose custody because the mother was controlling and took over those duties. A father should be given an equal chance if they want custody. I bet a lot of those fathers who didn't remember had controlling partners who insisted on those duties most of the time. I have observed relationships like this myself (since you are saying personal observation counts in this case.) If you treat a father as incompetent for long enough they just give up and acquiesce. There is scientific research showing why the average man doesn't remember their children's (or anyone else's) birthdays as well as the average woman. http://www.medicaldaily.com/hubby-forgot-your-birthday-research-finds-men-are-more-forgetful-regardless-age-267875

You are saying men should lose custody because of this? I honestly bristle at this and find it offensive. There are many electronic remedies to basic memory issues and many apps can be used to remedy this issue. Arguing that men deserve custody LESS because of those memory issues is as grossly sexist, offensive, and misleading as saying mothers shouldn't have custody because they won't be as able to protect their children from physical threats. People in a demographic that is statistically prone to crime shouldn't all be treated as criminals by default.

A divorced or single dad who can handle those responsibilities should be given equal treatment just as a divorced or single mom should. There should NOT be an assumption that one gender should get custody even if some members are initially painfully unaware.
Marriage has evolved into an ephemeral institution for many and thus the fundamental nature of the expectations and ramifications of a marriage contract needs to change.

Seanchaidh:

Gorfias:
For myself, I am concerned. I have reason to think my young adult son is a heterosexual as are his group of friends. They all look like male models as they spend many hours working out at gyms every week. My son dated for a while, broke it off and not showed any interest in women in about two years since. NONE of his circle of several are dating. Not one. My male best friend will never marry. Ever. One nephew will never marry. Another dated and even moved in with a woman, boomeranged and is not dating.

Are they happy? Would a relationship make them happier? Do they think so?

I think that's the most pertinent question to ask in this situation.

I'm like your son and his friends, I don't date very often. I'm in great shape, I make ok money, there's nothing preventing me from actively seeking out women (other than some mild anxiety issues which never really got in the way), but after dating and being in a few relationships I've found that relationships don't make me happy.

See I'm a fairly selfish person, and I really like my personal space. I can't deal with seeing my significant other all the time, and I sure as hell don't want to move in together and completely lose all privacy and me-time. At the same time I also don't like kids (goes back to me being a selfish person), and in my mind if I never have kids I'll have tons more money to do all the things I enjoy doing.

To me families represent stress. The stress of having to buy a house, the stress of having to save money for my kids' college fund, the stress of possible divorce after living together for years. None of this appeals to me.

What appeals to me is having money and spending it on what I want, driving a nice car, going on vacations around the world, having a nice apartment, hanging out with friends. I'd have to cut down on a lot of these things if I was dating (dating is expensive), and pretty much all of these things would go out the window if I had to pay for a wedding, and then have to save money for a house and kids after.

Some people can't see the point of a life without raising a family, I understand that, but that's not me. I'd rather spend my time and money on making myself happy rather than spending time, money, and energy trying to find someone else to make happy. I think my kind of thinking is starting to become more normalized, and I'm totally happy with that.

TakeyB0y2:

FriendoftheFallen:
Changing the legalities of marriage so that men aren't hugely financially penalized and usually second class citizens in divorce or family court would go a long way to assuage some very real and major concerns. Why risk having a family and child if there is a very, very real chance she will stop loving you, start loving some other asshole and then your own kids start calling some home-wrecking jerk daddy instead. Then to add injury to insult, they make you pay for the privilege of having your children raised by others since you likely won't get custody solely based on gender. How messed up is that? The only reason one of my friends was awarded custody of his kid was because his ex was a tweeker. If he hadn't contacted a PI to provide evidence of her drug addiction the judge would have given that tweeker the kids just because she was female. His kid would have been at least partially raised by a tweeker and her tweeker boyfriend. Laws to counter this bias against men in family and divorce courts would help fight a lot of the injustice that I believe is one of the contributors to the high rate of male suicide. One of my best friends came very close to making a very sad personal decision because his wife decided she didn't love him anymore and moved away with the kids and they are being raised by the monster that seduced her while she was married. The monster that ruined his life is raising his kids and he has to pay for the privilege. That seems like oppression to me. I wouldn't have handled it nearly as well as he did and he still came very close to harming himself. I can see why some men would rather not risk having their families stolen and have to pay for it.
Don't turn it back to the 50's, those times were sexist and biased as well. The solution to bias is never a different form of bias. Misogyny never justifies misandry (even ironic) and misandry never justifies misogyny (even ironic.) Give men equal access to children and make sure men don't have to pay all the child support. Equal access and responsibilities would remove the need for those men with equal access to pay child support since they are contributing as much as the woman. Fathers should be treated as equal parents to mothers and the courts should dismiss their pro-mother bias with actual laws and guidelines for family courts. Marriage is now an ephemeral institution rather than the semi-permanent one it used to be and attitudes and laws about it should change. No one should be entitled to alimony unless there was a financial arrangement or agreement previously such as a wife or husband working to support their partner through school.

I'm sorry your friends had to go through those ordeals.

I do agree that men need better representation in divorces and I'm not going to deny that there are judges out there that do hold a firm bias against men just due to them being men.

However, I do believe that there needs to be an attitude shift in general in fathers if men are to get equal access to child care in divorce. During divorce proceedings, parents get asked questions on their children, like what their date of birth is, who their family doctor is, what allergies they have (if any), and you'd be surprised how many fathers can't even answer these questions.

I'm no researcher, but speaking from personal experience from working at a family doctor's office for several years, I've made quite a few observations. I'd say upwards of 90% of the time, it's the mother who will call and book appointments for their children, and 90% of the time it's the mother who will bring the child in for that appointment. When the fathers are the ones who call in, I've experienced the following on multiple occasions each:
- Dad doesn't know which doctor at our clinic their child regularly sees.
- Dad doesn't know the child's date of birth.
- Dad doesn't know why he's making the appointment (or why he's brought the child in if the mom booked it and he brought in the kid).
- Dad can't tell me if the child has any allergies or what they are.
- When attempting to relay information onto the parents for appointments booked with specialists outside the clinic, dads will ask me to call the mom and tell her instead, or they'll take the information but then days later I'll get a call from the mom asking if an appointment has been made yet (parents were together, not divorced or separated in these situations).

Again, not denying that there's judges out there biased against men for no good reason, but dad's do need to step up and get more involved in the important aspects of their children's lives. A court isn't going to give custody to a father that seems to know little or nothing about his kids. I'm not implying that this applies to your friends, but it is something that needs to happen overall.

To be fair, there are tons of reasons they may not have had that information at hand.

~They were simply caught off guard and simply couldn't recall at that moment. I think we've all had those moments where you couldn't remember a word or something that you know seemingly because you're trying to think of it at that moment. I literally forgot how to spell my last name for a few seconds once.
~They aren't usually the one that takes care of those things, so it's not something they know off hand. It might be stereotypical, but often men value providing for their families while women value being there for their families.
~The wife is quite controlling and doesn't really let the husband have as much say as he should. I have a coworker who I can't help but feel falls into this category, though I'd be reluctant to say that to him. Dude is just too nice.

And simply not knowing that stuff doesn't mean that the father doesn't care for their child. I'm not sure my own father could tell you some of that, but have no doubt he loves me. He's proven it in plenty of other ways.

No offense, but it sounds like you have drawn a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to back it up. Perhaps it's not men that need to change...

Gorfias:
I have hopes for my children.
...
Your thoughts?

Best way to teach your kids what healthy relationships look like is by example. If you treat the people in your life with respect, compassion and love, they're more likely to do the same.

I wouldn't worry too much about your kids finding partners and settling down. That may make you happy, but is that what's best for them right now? Part of being a parent is imparting your values and life lessons on your kids, another part is stepping back and trusting that the things you've done for them have turned them into responsible adults.

Gorfias:
I have reason to think my young adult son is a heterosexual as are his group of friends. They all look like male models as they spend many hours working out at gyms every week. My son dated for a while, broke it off and not showed any interest in women in about two years since.

maybe he's gay

Gorfias:

EDIT: Doesn't look like it is my imagination. Lotta stories out there about marriage rates being way down:

Example: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that it doesn't matter if people are married or not. So people are deciding not to marry. Not only is there no real reason to think that this is going to cause any real problems for anyone, but what would you do about it in any case? Force people to marry?

Also, I doubt that MGTOWs are actually a significant contributor to that trend. Marriage rates are down compared to a few decades ago because back then people people didn't really have a choice, and now they do, and that means that some people are going to choose not to marry.

I also want traditional family for my son. Sure it has its set backs but I honestly believe I am healthier and wealthier due to my wife.

But that's his decision. Not yours. Which would you rather have: your son being happy in the life that he chose, or being miserable in a life that was forced on him?

I have hopes for my children. I want my daughter to find a life partner and have and raise children together

Again, that's going to have to be her decision.

Zontar:

Thaluikhain:

Marriage rates are going down, but I suspect that's in large part because less people want to get married. If they chose not to, not seeing a problem.

Well if the number of people who don't get into such relationships and have children grow too large in number, society won't last particularly long when one looks beyond the extreme short term. The drop in marriage rates correlates pretty closely with the drop in birth rate

I think that there's a two-fold response to this.

First, at the current time and for the foreseeable future, overpopulation is a much greater concern than underpopulation. Overpopulation exacerbates every problem we face as a society: it makes climate change orders of magnitude worse, it makes war more likely, and it increases the risk of global pandemic. And those are just the main existential problems. Overpopulation also worsens crime, urban sprawl, puts strain on government support systems, and living in crowded conditions has been well-documented to make people unhealthy and miserable.

And the second part is philosophical. Does a society that takes away the rights and freedoms of its people in order to perpetuate its existence for its own sake deserve to exist? Because there are societies right now that do take that attitude towards reproductive rights, and my understanding is that you're not especially a big fan of them.

(as well as rise in youth criminal activity and in mental health issues amongst that same group. Single parenthood is objectively bad for children),

Youth criminality has been trending downwards for years. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201

As for the rise in mental health issues, it's far more likely that the rise in diagnoses is a result of better access to mental health treatment.

and if across society there's only an average of 1 child per couple, then you quickly have a collapsing population where within a few generations you don't have a society anymore unless you import one, which itself still means the previous society is gone and just replaced with a different one.

I would take a more memetic view of society. A society isn't just the people in it, it's also a collection of ideas and norms. I would argue that if a society is good, then it will never truly die out because its ideas will spread on their own as people willingly adopt those ideas. So a good society doesn't need to force people to perpetuate it. And if a society isn't good enough for people to willingly adopt its ideas, then why force people to perpetuate it?

Now granted this isn't really the case in practice, conservative families are having enough children to eventually reverse the swing of population in first world nations (incidentally this is also why a right shift is assured even when ignoring counter culture that has turned Generation Z into a particularly right leaning generation as it stands)

Not really. Political beliefs aren't very strongly heritable. http://www.medicaldaily.com/political-party-and-parents-how-much-influence-do-mom-and-dad-really-have-over-childs-362314

renegade7:
First, at the current time and for the foreseeable future, overpopulation is a much greater concern than underpopulation.

In the long run two children per family is actually a better balance, as for whatever reason that's actually where the lowest level of consumption of resources per household is to be found. Maybe it's due to the balance between the needs for basic necessities coupled with what's left over or something else, but that's what I learned in civics when we looked over the subject.

And the second part is philosophical. Does a society that takes away the rights and freedoms of its people in order to perpetuate its existence for its own sake deserve to exist? Because there are societies right now that do take that attitude towards reproductive rights, and my understanding is that you're not especially a big fan of them.

Oh I don't think we should force anyone to have children against their will. But if we are being objective and removing our notions of morality about it those societies are more likely to survive in the long run. Islam for example is far better suited to surviving in the long term then modern Western society since while the morality of the religion leaves everything to be desired when it comes to survival and self perpetuation, well they don't outnumber us despite being the better part of a millennium younger for no reason.

Youth criminality has been trending downwards for years.

Single parenthood is still the number 1 predictor of youth criminal activity.

As for the rise in mental health issues, it's far more likely that the rise in diagnoses is a result of better access to mental health treatment.

The number of people with certain specific mental health issues has risen far too much for simple improvements in diagnosis to be culprit. Not unless doctors of 30 years ago and before where outright incompetent at their jobs.

I would take a more memetic view of society. A society isn't just the people in it, it's also a collection of ideas and norms. I would argue that if a society is good, then it will never truly die out because its ideas will spread on their own as people willingly adopt those ideas. So a good society doesn't need to force people to perpetuate it. And if a society isn't good enough for people to willingly adopt its ideas, then why force people to perpetuate it?

One could ask in return if that is the case why are the strictly hierarchical societies of East Asia, the Caste based ones of South Asia, and the patriarchal ones of Islam have all been better at spreading and perpetuating their own societies when compared to our own?

In the end the world does not care if society is good, it cares if it can survive. Germany and Sweden are good, yet if they continue on the path they are going down without changing course they are doomed due to the fact those they are welcoming into their societies are not integrating. These other societies are growing within their borders and no amount of goodness on the part of the Germans or the Swedes will change this

The survival of a society is like war, it cares not who is right, only who is left. My own society was built upon the diseased corpses of another which was not strong enough to survive three centuries of conflict. Many tribes no longer exists, some with their very names lost to history, while of those that remain the only ones that are well off are the ones which have abandoned their old ways for our own. There is nothing right about this fact about the foundation upon which my nation is built, and nothing wrong of those who's blood we shed to do so, yet look at us now, our nation is that which is left in an unmovable position of dominance and what remains of the other exists only because we once upon a time decided it was worth keeping instead of exterminating completely, the course of actions the vast majority of such clashes of civilisations end in throughout history.

And forcing people to perpetuate a society is not difficult. For most one need only be raised in a society to believe that without question. A perfect example is the Hijab, a symbol of oppression which serves literally no other purpose. Through brainwashing from birth most of the Islamic world has tricked itself into believing it is anything but, and that objectively wrong and immoral idea is so strong that it has poisoned the mind of many Westerners. It is wrong, it is immoral, yet it perpetuates itself so strongly people who claim to be liberals support such an unarguably illiberal idea.

Not really. Political beliefs aren't very strongly heritable

Some sources disagree

Zontar:

Oh I don't think we should force anyone to have children against their will. But if we are being objective and removing our notions of morality about it those societies are more likely to survive in the long run. Islam for example is far better suited to surviving in the long term then modern Western society since while the morality of the religion leaves everything to be desired when it comes to survival and self perpetuation, well they don't outnumber us despite being the better part of a millennium younger for no reason.

Outnumber whom? By what possible metric is that true?

Edit:

Zontar:
Through brainwashing from birth most of the Islamic world has tricked itself into believing it is anything but, and that objectively wrong and immoral idea is so strong that it has poisoned the mind of many Westerners. It is wrong, it is immoral, yet it perpetuates itself so strongly people who claim to be liberals support such an unarguably illiberal idea.

Ah, yes, the illiberal idea that people should be allowed to wear, or not, the clothes they want to.

Those barbarians.

FriendoftheFallen:

Some of that can be on the mother as well since I have personally seen some mothers treat their partners as secondary parents who don't need that information. Some (sexist) mothers treat the father as needing help and guidance to do the most basic parenting tasks. I wholly disagree with what you say. That perception of fathers not being as attached or aware of all their children's needs shouldn't keep them from having custody. It unfairly biases against those that do a good job as fathers. A father shouldn't lose custody because the mother was controlling and took over those duties. A father should be given an equal chance if they want custody. I bet a lot of those fathers who didn't remember had controlling partners who insisted on those duties most of the time. I have observed relationships like this myself (since you are saying personal observation counts in this case.) If you treat a father as incompetent for long enough they just give up and acquiesce. There is scientific research showing why the average man doesn't remember their children's (or anyone else's) birthdays as well as the average woman. http://www.medicaldaily.com/hubby-forgot-your-birthday-research-finds-men-are-more-forgetful-regardless-age-267875

You are saying men should lose custody because of this? I honestly bristle at this and find it offensive. There are many electronic remedies to basic memory issues and many apps can be used to remedy this issue. Arguing that men deserve custody LESS because of those memory issues is as grossly sexist, offensive, and misleading as saying mothers shouldn't have custody because they won't be as able to protect their children from physical threats. People in a demographic that is statistically prone to crime shouldn't all be treated as criminals by default.

A divorced or single dad who can handle those responsibilities should be given equal treatment just as a divorced or single mom should. There should NOT be an assumption that one gender should get custody even if some members are initially painfully unaware.
Marriage has evolved into an ephemeral institution for many and thus the fundamental nature of the expectations and ramifications of a marriage contract needs to change.

A father can't "just give up and acquiesce" as you put it. If a father gave up during the marriage, what do you think he's going to do afterward, and how do you think that looks to judges? My point is this: when a judge is determining who will be getting custody of a child after a divorce, they're going to view the parent that can actually detail the child's medical history more favorably.

Also I don't remember stating men have memory issues and therefore shouldn't get custody. If anything, that's what you're stating by throwing down a study on it, sooooo... I dunno what to say to that. Sounds more like you're having an argument with yourself there.

If a father can handle all those responsibilities themselves, then great, awesome, they should be getting either full custody or equal custody depending on the situation. But as always, courts run on proof and evidence, and a father that comes across as oblivious about their child isn't going to win them over.

Saltyk:

No offense, but it sounds like you have drawn a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to back it up. Perhaps it's not men that need to change...

Well I was going to do a rebuttal to your post, but then you said that it's not men who need to change, and... Well, I'm a man, sooo... In other words you're telling me what I said was right and I don't need to change. Phew, good to know I was perfect all along, saves me time.

altnameJag:
Outnumber whom? By what possible metric is that true?

Population of the Western World: 800 million

Islamic Civilisation: 1.6 billion

They outnumber us 2 to 1 on the global level, though there is some small overlap between the two numbers.

Ah, yes, the illiberal idea that people should be allowed to wear, or not, the clothes they want to.

There's little more illiberal then attempting to pretend an objective symbol of oppression is just a piece of cloth. If it was just fighting for the right to wear it, sure, there'd be no inconsistency with liberalism and the actions of modern liberals. But that isn't what neo-progressives have been fighting for, and implying otherwise is a belief disconnected from reality.

Zontar:

altnameJag:
Outnumber whom? By what possible metric is that true?

Population of the Western World: 800 million

Islamic Civilisation: 1.6 billion

They outnumber us 2 to 1 on the global level, though there is some small overlap between the two numbers.

Okay, so who counts as "the Western World", because North and South America have almost a billion people by themselves, and that's before you add in Western Europe. Does Austrialia count in that? Japan?

Ah, yes, the illiberal idea that people should be allowed to wear, or not, the clothes they want to.

There's little more illiberal then attempting to pretend an objective symbol of oppression is just a piece of cloth. If it was just fighting for the right to wear it, sure, there'd be no inconsistency with liberalism and the actions of modern liberals. But that isn't what neo-progressives have been fighting for, and implying otherwise is a belief disconnected from reality.

Oh? Have "neo-progressives" started trying to force people to wear the hijab, or what, exactly?

altnameJag:
[Okay, so who counts as "the Western World", because North and South America have almost a billion people by themselves, and that's before you add in Western Europe. Does Austrialia count in that? Japan?

I consider the Western World to be Western Europe (Eastern Europe has a very clearly different mentality to us), the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Southern Cone. The rest of Latin America, as well as Japan, may have a lot of Westernisation to their societies, but they are very different in their outlook on things and how they do things. You wouldn't get a Venezuala situation in the West without an outside force making it happen against the will of the people, nor would you see an ethno-state like Japan so openly tell those who want it to adopt mulitculturalism and adopt mass immigration policies to shove it.

We have much to learn from other cultures just as they have much to learn from us, but don't mistake that bilateral adoption of certain values and systems as meaning the way our people are and think are not different. I know many people make the mistake of thinking that inside every foreigner is a liberal trying to get out.

Oh? Have "neo-progressives" started trying to force people to wear the hijab, or what, exactly?

You know I'd have thought explicitly stating that they're trying to pretend that an objective symbol of oppression is anything but, an illiberal stance that's the equivalent of pretending a yellow star over one's left breast does not have a racist origin in nature or reason for perpetuation, would be enough of a spit in the face to the core values upon which liberalism is founded upon and claims to be its driving force would be enough.

I guess nothing is sacred, not even the core values that are claimed to be what binds an ideologies that's otherwise too loose in its beliefs to define.

Did this thread seriously get Steve Kinged? smh

Zontar:

altnameJag:
[Okay, so who counts as "the Western World", because North and South America have almost a billion people by themselves, and that's before you add in Western Europe. Does Austrialia count in that? Japan?

I consider the Western World to be Western Europe (Eastern Europe has a very clearly different mentality to us), the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Southern Cone. The rest of Latin America, as well as Japan, may have a lot of Westernisation to their societies, but they are very different in their outlook on things and how they do things. You wouldn't get a Venezuala situation in the West without an outside force making it happen against the will of the people, nor would you see an ethno-state like Japan so openly tell those who want it to adopt mulitculturalism and adopt mass immigration policies to shove it.

We have much to learn from other cultures just as they have much to learn from us, but don't mistake that bilateral adoption of certain values and systems as meaning the way our people are and think are not different. I know many people make the mistake of thinking that inside every foreigner is a liberal trying to get out.

Gotcha. Cut enough people out and anybody can be a minority.

Oh? Have "neo-progressives" started trying to force people to wear the hijab, or what, exactly?

You know I'd have thought explicitly stating that they're trying to pretend that an objective symbol of oppression is anything but, an illiberal stance that's the equivalent of pretending a yellow star over one's left breast does not have a racist origin in nature or reason for perpetuation, would be enough of a spit in the face to the core values upon which liberalism is founded upon and claims to be its driving force would be enough.

I guess nothing is sacred, not even the core values that are claimed to be what binds an ideologies that's otherwise too loose in its beliefs to define.

So, in other words, it would be a liberal idea to discriminate against those who choose to wear a headscarf or even make wearing headscarves illegal. Maybe the same symbol can mean different things in different circumstances? Just a thought?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here