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

Lieju:

Smithnikov:

Lieju:

IDK how representative this is of 'manosphere' but these guys should stay far away from women.

Oh son, you havent' even begun to see the worst of it. "Resisting the 21st Century Holocaust", Tomato Bubble, Chateau Heartiste, or god help you Vox day...

Yes, I've seen some pretty horrible shit. My hesitation was, however, over making generalizations about a 'manosphere' since I'm not sure how well-defined it is as a term.

Much as they like to bluster about being different, there's a common thread of "Women (and especially feminism!) have ruined everything and are going to cause the downfall of society if we don't enslave them!" running through the entirety of the "manosphere", such as it is, and similar groups, including but not limited to MRAs (Men's Rights Activists), PUAs (Pick-Up Artists), MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way), Red Pill, Incels (Involuntary Celibate), the more general alt-right, and one more group I'm loathe to mention around here because I imagine that I've already triggered enough mangry anti-feminists by saying that their particular brand of woman-hating isn't actually all that different from all of the other ones.

Helpful hint: If you ever see someone seriously using terms like "cuck", "hypergamy", "Alpha/Beta" (in relation to how human socialization works), "mangina", and "misandry", that's your cue to either start laughing or run very far away, very quickly. (Omitting "SJW" because, honestly, if I still need to even point that one out at this point...)

shrekfan246:

Lieju:

Smithnikov:

Oh son, you havent' even begun to see the worst of it. "Resisting the 21st Century Holocaust", Tomato Bubble, Chateau Heartiste, or god help you Vox day...

Yes, I've seen some pretty horrible shit. My hesitation was, however, over making generalizations about a 'manosphere' since I'm not sure how well-defined it is as a term.

Much as they like to bluster about being different, there's a common thread of "Women (and especially feminism!) have ruined everything and are going to cause the downfall of society if we don't enslave them!" running through the entirety of the "manosphere", such as it is, and similar groups, including but not limited to MRAs (Men's Rights Activists), PUAs (Pick-Up Artists), MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way), Red Pill, Incels (Involuntary Celibate), the more general alt-right, and one more group I'm loathe to mention around here because I imagine that I've already triggered enough mangry anti-feminists by saying that their particular brand of woman-hating isn't actually all that different from all of the other ones.

Helpful hint: If you ever see someone seriously using terms like "cuck", "hypergamy", "Alpha/Beta" (in relation to how human socialization works), "mangina", and "misandry", that's your cue to either start laughing or run very far away, very quickly. (Omitting "SJW" because, honestly, if I still need to even point that one out at this point...)

Is misandry not a real thing?

the December King:
Is misandry not a real thing?

Yes, in that you'd get people that hate men, no in that the people that tend to throw the term around attach other things to that idea.

Like the concept of alpha and beta, there might have been some use to the idea, but the only people you tend to see bringing it up are claiming to be alpha as proof of how awesome they are.

the December King:

shrekfan246:

Lieju:

Yes, I've seen some pretty horrible shit. My hesitation was, however, over making generalizations about a 'manosphere' since I'm not sure how well-defined it is as a term.

Much as they like to bluster about being different, there's a common thread of "Women (and especially feminism!) have ruined everything and are going to cause the downfall of society if we don't enslave them!" running through the entirety of the "manosphere", such as it is, and similar groups, including but not limited to MRAs (Men's Rights Activists), PUAs (Pick-Up Artists), MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way), Red Pill, Incels (Involuntary Celibate), the more general alt-right, and one more group I'm loathe to mention around here because I imagine that I've already triggered enough mangry anti-feminists by saying that their particular brand of woman-hating isn't actually all that different from all of the other ones.

Helpful hint: If you ever see someone seriously using terms like "cuck", "hypergamy", "Alpha/Beta" (in relation to how human socialization works), "mangina", and "misandry", that's your cue to either start laughing or run very far away, very quickly. (Omitting "SJW" because, honestly, if I still need to even point that one out at this point...)

Is misandry not a real thing?

Hoo boy, that's a loaded question.

Assuming you're legitimately asking and not trying to set up some sort of "gotcha" situation, then no, it really isn't.

The difference between "misogyny" and "misandry" is the same as the difference between "racism" and "reverse racism", which makes it a very fine distinction that often can be confusing and frustrating for people who legitimately have experienced discrimination and prejudice based upon being straight, white, cisgendered men. So, for clarity's sake, let us acknowledge that yes, there are women who hate men. Some of them even happen to be feminists. But (strictly speaking in the US) "misandry" is not a thing for the same reason that "racism against white people" isn't a thing; it relies upon the basic foundation of power set up in society to become a widespread phenomenon disseminated to people through popular culture, media, politicians, news, etc.

To expand a bit further, "misogyny" is not simply the hatred of women, as its literal meaning would be held for. While that typically is the basis that enforces it, the concept itself also encompasses many other ideas, such as the beliefs that women aren't as good as men at doing physical labor, aren't as qualified as men for technical work or corporate jobs, aren't supposed to enjoy "male" hobbies such as video games or sports, as well as other more abstract things such as beauty standards, being raised to remain quiet whenever men "compliment" them, victim blaming when women are harassed or sexually assaulted, the idea that men are more logical and women are more emotional, and many other things that I can't properly remember at the moment. As for the reason that "misandry" isn't a 'thing', I'm going to bring up another word that typically makes anti-feminists incredibly angry: Privilege. In the US, men are privileged in being able to grow up completely oblivious to most of these things that women are bombarded with daily. There is no reverse; there is no cultural stigmatization of men that is held and perpetuated by women.

Now, that's not to say there isn't cultural stigmatization of men in a general sense. The thing is, it tends to come from the opposite place that anti-feminists go (here comes another buzzword): the patriarchy. All of the ideas of things that men "shouldn't" enjoy because they're not "manly" enough? Perpetuated by patriarchal society (and, as it happens, more instances of bias against women because these things tend to be framed as being unsuitable for men because they appeal to women, as if it's a bad thing for men and women to like the same things). The entire idea that a man should be concerned about his "manhood" is one built by patriarchal society, and it hurts men every day because it socializes us to be unwilling to talk about emotions or to actively empathize with other people. It tells us that it's bad to like things which other men might not approve of, and that we're bad if we don't like things "typically" associated with men.

A similar phenomenon can also be seen in the gaming community, as it happens, with the reaction that gamers often have to the perceived politicization of video games and "SJW" games. Whenever a sociopolitical topic is handled in a typically "progressive" way in video games, swarms of people litter the internet with comments about how, instead of injecting politics into games which already exist (like that's how it happens in the first place, but that's an entirely different topic), they should just make their own games. Then, when someone does make a game which explicitly tackles sociopolitical topics as the main meat of the story, very similar swarms of people do everything they can to bomb the game as being "SJW libtard trash". Some of the more explicit comments will often say what the mass generally wants to, by expanding that to state that the only people who would like "SJW" games are women and "cucks" (which once again portrays men in a negative way by associating them with femininity, in this case the "emasculation" one would experience by being an inferior partner).

In fact, you can also see very clear parallels to the stigmatization of women with the portrayal of gay people. In media, gay men are often portrayed as being stereotypically "feminine", and more often than not that's played for laughs or something that needs to be "fixed". Gay men need to "act straight" to blend in with society, or else face discrimination. Men who don't act sufficiently "masculine" will be ridiculed by their manly manly friends. We also often see comments from (generally) right-wing politicians and mouth-pieces who will speak out about how women need to be controlled (intentionally simplifying here, because honestly some of the things they say are so disgusting that I don't even want to try remembering, let alone rereading things I've put out of mind because I saw them months ago). The recurring theme that underlies all of this is that "feminine" traits are bad, and in the most extreme cases deemed to be actively dangerous if they're not suppressed.

This all is just a general overview of societal upbringing in North America, though. It won't work that way for everyone, but the general ideas are perpetuated generation to generation by adults who harbor negative ideas in the first place, and normalization through repeated exposure in the news, online, and even through simple things like "boys will be boys" to excuse the behavior of children and teenagers who are already displaying problematic ideals. People can grow out of these ideas and behaviors, or if they're very lucky they can be raised in an accepting household and be fairly resistant to them in the first place, but the ideas themselves still have root in every level of society. That's why feminists criticize the portrayal of characters in fiction, that's why they're political activists (and if people don't think that feminists had huge issues with both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they really need to get out of their internet bubbles), that's why they don't let go of things like microaggressions which implicitly reinforce harmful patriarchal ideas.

EDIT: To sum up, the strict literal reading of "misandry" is a thing, sure. There are people who hate men. The strict literal reading of "racism" can apply to white men, as well, before anyone gets really mad about me saying that racism against white men doesn't exist. But those literal meanings ignore decades of power imbalance in favor of sweeping problems under the rug because "well I have problems too!". Those power imbalances are what actually build up the argument as it tends to be used from a feminist perspective, which is mostly what I'm trying to get across here.

shrekfan246:
misandry snip

No 'gotchya' moments here, just genuinely asking. Thanks.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
Is misandry not a real thing?

Yes, in that you'd get people that hate men, no in that the people that tend to throw the term around attach other things to that idea.

Like the concept of alpha and beta, there might have been some use to the idea, but the only people you tend to see bringing it up are claiming to be alpha as proof of how awesome they are.

I wondered about that alpha beta concept. It always seemed too, I dunno, simple? to explain human social relations.

the December King:

shrekfan246:
misandry snip

No 'gotchya' moments here, just genuinely asking. Thanks.

image

On the other hand, interestingly enough, I'd personally also consider arguing that misandry does exist, but in a vastly different sense than most people who use it on the internet tend to mean; almost every instance I've seen of something I'd consider to be legitimate misandry has been men hating other men. The rub of it just comes from the fact that most people use it to mean "women hate men" (which, for the record, ignores the fact that there are women who are misogynists). I'll stop rambling now, though.

shrekfan246:

EDIT: To sum up, the strict literal reading of "misandry" is a thing, sure. There are people who hate men. The strict literal reading of "racism" can apply to white men, as well, before anyone gets really mad about me saying that racism against white men doesn't exist. But those literal meanings ignore decades of power imbalance in favor of sweeping problems under the rug because "well I have problems too!". Those power imbalances are what actually build up the argument as it tends to be used from a feminist perspective, which is mostly what I'm trying to get across here.

I have personally experienced black on white racism and systemic misandry. I find it hurtful and hateful for you to discount my experiences because members of other races had a history of oppression. Your definition of misandry is hurtful and de-legitimatizes men who have suffered so unless you genuinely hate men and wish to discount their suffering why not come up with a more compassionate definition that allows men who have experienced anti-male hatred and bias to have a claim to their experience without dehumanizing men and discounting their suffering. To say that their is no systemic bias against men is laughable and inherently wrong. Conscription and drafts alone are proof of that. "Women and children first" as a cultural value is proof of misandry as much as it is paternalism or misogyny. Woman can hit men in public and get laughed at whereas a man that hits a women get mob violence. It is rather offensive that you ignore the many ways that men suffer in our legal system and callously discount our experiences as lesser than the suffering of others simply due to their gender. As long as there is a police department that follows the Duluth model and puts men in jail for getting physically attacked by a female partner then there is systemic misandry. As long as men are more likely to get shot by police, convicted, and receive longer sentences than women then systemic misandry exists. An annoying eventuality is how some callous jerk, under the guise of "empathy" will then try and discount my views and denigrate me by calling me an mra and thus mocking me and discounting my valid grievances(this has happened multiple times in these forums and its the same callous jerks who claim empathy that do it.)
You accomplish nothing more than drawing valid grievances to your callous categorizations when you try and discount the suffering of an entire gender or member of a race by saying that the oppressive experiences they have are categorically less bad than the oppressive experiences of another. These exclusionary categorizations genuinely harm people who may not be adverse to fighting oppression if it wasn't made clear that mocking members of their gender and race who suffer is considered ok.
I grew up with a mother who was in a Dianic Wiccan coven. I have heard "men are pigs, don't grow up to be another man pig like my ex" told to me in various forms on multiple occasions. Woman are allowed to openly and vitriolically hate on men without the same negative societal backlash that a man openly talking crap about women doesn't seem to receive. Hating men was seen as fashionable whereas hating women means you have serious problems. It doesn't matter if the misandry is perpetuated by men or women it is still misandry and to say it isn't a thing is an attempt to invalidate what I actually experienced. so your definition is offensive and untrue from my perspective. Not only that it is genuinely damaging and hurtful. If you had empathy you'd try not to discount the suffering of men as much as you have.

Perhaps the arguments about power balance shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to tell people that "have problems too" to shut up and ignore those problems because others suffer systemically.

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?

I'm STILL a mod? What did they forget about me or something? I haven't been active in nigh a year. May need to talk to them about this...

HI AGAIN <3

Clearly there's 10 pages of conversation that's happened since you made this post, so I don't know what discussions you've had or any other thoughts you might have had beyond that edit. So as a mid-20s millenial who will be moving in with her boyfriend soon (and getting married sometime next year after he graduates, after about 3 years of being unofficially engaged), here are my two cents.

Young people are definitely marrying later in life, if at all. I think it's a pretty natural development given our economic system is becoming less reliant upon having a sole breadwinner, and women are gaining the same employment opportunities as men (there are still discussions to be had about wage gaps and systemic sexism, but that's something for another day). Let's be honest here--a LOT of (maybe even most?) marriages that have happened in the last several centuries of western civilization happened because society was structured in such a way that required women to rely on men for money, and men to rely on women for a source of "moral" sex and heirs (and given the lack of contraception, for women to have plausible deniability if they get pregnant, regardless of who's the daddy). And if the marriage didn't start for that reason, it certainly lasted "til death do us part" because divorce was either impossible, EXTREMELY looked down upon, or financially devastating for at least one involved.

The 20th century saw a huge dip in the necessity for this relationship, but the nuclear family still remains the idyllic image of a stable and moral family. And there remains a huge pressure on young people (usually from older people, from my experience/observation) to settle down and have kids. Again that pressure is decreasing, but there are still many out there who are inordinately obsessed with the relationships of others, and how many babies they plan on siring or squeezing out.

From what I've observed from the people around my age I know who aren't married or don't have children, here are the various reasons why:

- They haven't found a person they want to marry
- They don't see the value in marriage (not religious or opposed to the idea of "sanctifying" it or making a binding contract)
- They don't want children (either pursuing career/education goals and wish to have them later, or simply don't want them at all)
- They are not in a good place financially to marry or have children
- They aren't interested in a relationship (either can't find someone, aren't trying too hard, or simply aren't interested at all)
- They wouldn't mind having children in the future, but would rather adopt

It's different for every person, and most will fully admit they may change their minds someday. But at the moment, that is their situation and that is how they feel.

Personally, for me? I just got an IUD last month (intrauterine device--a little plastic thingy placed in the uterus to prevent pregnancy, most effective non-permanent birth control on the market), and happily shared all the details of its insertion with my boyfriend and parents (much to my dad's chagrin. my sister in law put it rather nicely, saying he's from the "don't ask, don't tell" generation regarding birth control). I do not want kids right now, and neither does my boyfriend. I may change my mind, however I also may not. Currently my plans and goals for the future do not involve children, and having one would mean significantly altering them in a way very much don't want right now. And as far as he's told me, my boyfriend feels the same.

My parents were admittedly concerned when I told them we'd be moving in together when my lease runs out at the end of June. When I told them, I did not phrase it as a question. Being Christians of a slightly more conservative bend, they would prefer we do it the "traditional" way and not move in until after the honeymoon. But we've been planning on getting married for over 3 years now and it all worked out perfectly, plus it will be a LOT cheaper (we're moving into an older house his family just re-acquired, which his sister, her son, and her boyfriend will also be moving into). Ultimately they said I am an adult and can make my own decisions on it, giving their tentative approval. They immediately followed that up with questions about how many bedrooms and bathrooms the house had (4 beds 3 baths, enough for me to have a separate bedroom...but we probably won't do that). They're still concerned at least in part because they know how introverted I am, but I'll find a way to live with it and so will they.

For my personal opinion on your children...let me be frank. Your children aren't you. They are completely separate people. They don't have the same desires, experiences, or circumstances you grew up with. What you want for them means jack shit. If you raised them to be smart, ambitious, independent, and self-assured people, then they will pursue their own paths in life. The results of that may very well deviate from the paths you took, and even the paths you personally believe are filled with the most happiness. To pressure them to take paths they don't want is both unfair and selfish, and hinders their ability to exercise the independence and intelligence YOU raised them with. You may think they're making a mistake, but I know you're smart enough to know by now sometimes you have to let your kids make their own mistakes. My parents think I'm making a mistake in moving in with my boyfriend now. I disagree, and there's only one way I'm going to find out. And at the very least, I'll be glad to learn it's a mistake before we say "I do."

I know I've said this to you before, but it's been at least a few years so why not say it again: people can have children at any age these days. Even if you're too old to physically bear them, there's always surrogates or adoption. Being childless is always a reversible situation. However, once you have a child, it's an irrevocable commitment for the rest of your life. To me if one of these is a mistake for somebody, I'd rather them make the reversible mistake, rather than the irreversible mistake which involves an innocent child. There are already too many unwanted children in the world for people who have control over their situations to make the choice haphazardly. Not everybody is fulfilled by becoming a parent. There are thousands of message boards and anonymous posts out there from people who have found themselves in parenthood and severely regret it. And not only does that hurt them, but it also hurts their child, who is growing up in an environment where their parent either privately or openly regrets their existence.

So there we go. We are becoming a society which no longer relies upon families to breed incessantly in order to take over businesses, manage farms, or inherit estates and the like. This generation is merely following in the footsteps of the ones prior, and is regarding marriage and procreation as choices which should be considered carefully, rather than things which happen to everyone as a matter of course.

Personally, I think it's for the better. Parenthood isn't for everyone, and it's best to live in a society which encourages people to pursue what they think is best for them, rather than encouraging them to adhere to conventions set by a defunct social structure. Will countries like the US, Canada, or the UK eventually see the population decline that Japan is seeing? Maybe, maybe not. But if it happens we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, and deal with the consequences. Currently we are (rather poorly) dealing with the consequences of 40% of US pregnancies being unintended, and many people being unwilling or unfit to raise children, resulting in hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system. I find it rather disheartening how the people I've seen pressure others in regards to having children tend to think fostering and adoption should be a last resort for starting a family. To me that says their picture of happy parenthood is more about aesthetics than the actual fulfillment of the person's personal desires and needs.

EDIT: Oh, and yes I did completely ignore everything about the "manosphere" and all those redpill things. The MRA on sites like are toxic, disgusting echo chambers who would much rather complain about feminism than address actual issues men face--such as unequal treatment in courts on matters of custody, negative stereotypes surrounding men in nursing or childcare, a lack of paternity leave, a lack of abuse shelters and resources for men, police profiling, toxic images masculinity those very MRA groups perpetuate, etc. Places like redpill are very anti-women and only do men a disservice. There's very little point in discussing them, it'd be best for all if they just faded into obscurity.

FriendoftheFallen:

Did you actually read what shrekfan246 said about the system hurting men, or did you skip straight to implying they hate men?

Thaluikhain:

Did you actually read what shrekfan246 said about the system hurting men, or did you skip straight to implying they hate men?

To dismiss and disregard the struggles of another does not require actual hatred, only that they are deemed "less important" issues than others.
The demonstrated discrimination against men on a societal level does not require hatred to be maintained, it only needs to maintain that a man's comfort and well-being is simply not as high of a priority, especially when weighing it against that of a woman, child or the ambitions of the state.

Besides, if all you got from Friends' comment were hate implications, I would suggest YOU read it again, the accusations were of callousness and dismissal, not actual hatred.

That there are women who hate men is a given, the opposite is just as true, haters gonna hate 'n all that, I suggest we give eachother the benefit of the doubt and not assume that to be the case for one another unless directly admitted.

Combustion Kevin:

To dismiss and disregard the struggles of another does not require actual hatred, only that they are deemed "less important" issues than others.
The demonstrated discrimination against men on a societal level does not require hatred to be maintained, it only needs to maintain that a man's comfort and well-being is simply not as high of a priority, especially when weighing it against that of a woman, child or the ambitions of the state.

Are you seriously claiming men's comfort should be put before the well being of children?

Thaluikhain:

Did you actually read what shrekfan246 said about the system hurting men, or did you skip straight to implying they hate men?

It's really kind of funny what sort of reaction you get from MRA-types whenever you dare not put men above everyone else, even when you do actively acknowledge that men have significant issues too. It's like they can't reconcile the fact that men are the primary cause of men's issues. I particularly liked the "you wouldn't discount the suffering of men as much as you have". I had three full paragraphs focused almost centrally on some of the issues men face in current culture. Oh, but because that suffering is not generally at the hands of women and non-white people, it doesn't count, somehow... curious how that works.

Combustion Kevin:
To dismiss and disregard the struggles of another does not require actual hatred, only that they are deemed "less important" issues than others.
The demonstrated discrimination against men on a societal level does not require hatred to be maintained,

I would agree to an extent with this, but I lean towards thinking that continually dismissing and disregarding very obvious problems people face does not happen unintentionally.

Combustion Kevin:
it only needs to maintain that a man's comfort and well-being is simply not as high of a priority, especially when weighing it against that of a woman, child or the ambitions of the state.

I'd not really agree with that (with the exception of the ambitions of the state, which the state tends to put first). That their well-being is inherently different and that certain issues don't apply to them seems the root of the issue.

Combustion Kevin:
Besides, if all you got from Friends' comment were hate implications, I would suggest YOU read it again, the accusations were of callousness and dismissal, not actual hatred.

"...so unless you genuinely hate men and wish to discount their suffering..."

As far as custody goes, the child's well being should be the most important thing. And in most cases, it is in the child's best interests to be in the custody of the person who was the primary caretaker to begin with. Men should be more involved in taking care of their children in general.
The parent who had the closest relationship to the child and who devoted the most time in childcare during the marriage should be favoured in custody battles in my opinion because that's the best for the child.
And on average that person is the mother.

Lilani:
...

Personally, I think it's for the better. Parenthood isn't for everyone, and it's best to live in a society which encourages people to pursue what they think is best for them, rather than encouraging them to adhere to conventions set by a defunct social structure. Will countries like the US, Canada, or the UK eventually see the population decline that Japan is seeing? Maybe, maybe not. But if it happens we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, and deal with the consequences. Currently we are (rather poorly) dealing with the consequences of 40% of US pregnancies being unintended, and many people being unwilling or unfit to raise children, resulting in hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system. I find it rather disheartening how the people I've seen pressure others in regards to having children tend to think fostering and adoption should be a last resort for starting a family. To me that says their picture of happy parenthood is more about aesthetics than the actual fulfillment of the person's personal desires and needs.

EDIT: Oh, and yes I did completely ignore everything about the "manosphere" and all those redpill things. The MRA on sites like are toxic, disgusting echo chambers who would much rather complain about feminism than address actual issues men face--such as unequal treatment in courts on matters of custody, negative stereotypes surrounding men in nursing or childcare, a lack of paternity leave, a lack of abuse shelters and resources for men, police profiling, toxic images masculinity those very MRA groups perpetuate, etc. Places like redpill are very anti-women and only do men a disservice. There's very little point in discussing them, it'd be best for all if they just faded into obscurity.

I think it important for a society to encourage self actualization, but also have social and cultural preferences. Young people should know that us old timers hope they will partner up and raise kids. I attended a Jeb! rally when he was running and he spoke of the need to import people to make up for our "demographic problems.". To me, having such problems is indicative of a failed society. That doesn't mean that someone that goes their own way, like my best friend, is worthless. It just is that there is a social preference. Just as I'd prefer my boy finish High School, he could still be a stunning success dropping out and starting a thriving business.

Got to agree about the toxic nature of the MGTOW type of links. You watch one on youtube and it can be bad enough but read the comments below. Yikes. Be nice if there were a way to help these guys better channel their aggression.

Gorfias:

Lilani:
...

Personally, I think it's for the better. Parenthood isn't for everyone, and it's best to live in a society which encourages people to pursue what they think is best for them, rather than encouraging them to adhere to conventions set by a defunct social structure. Will countries like the US, Canada, or the UK eventually see the population decline that Japan is seeing? Maybe, maybe not. But if it happens we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, and deal with the consequences. Currently we are (rather poorly) dealing with the consequences of 40% of US pregnancies being unintended, and many people being unwilling or unfit to raise children, resulting in hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system. I find it rather disheartening how the people I've seen pressure others in regards to having children tend to think fostering and adoption should be a last resort for starting a family. To me that says their picture of happy parenthood is more about aesthetics than the actual fulfillment of the person's personal desires and needs.

EDIT: Oh, and yes I did completely ignore everything about the "manosphere" and all those redpill things. The MRA on sites like are toxic, disgusting echo chambers who would much rather complain about feminism than address actual issues men face--such as unequal treatment in courts on matters of custody, negative stereotypes surrounding men in nursing or childcare, a lack of paternity leave, a lack of abuse shelters and resources for men, police profiling, toxic images masculinity those very MRA groups perpetuate, etc. Places like redpill are very anti-women and only do men a disservice. There's very little point in discussing them, it'd be best for all if they just faded into obscurity.

I think it important for a society to encourage self actualization, but also have social and cultural preferences. Young people should know that us old timers hope they will partner up and raise kids. I attended a Jeb! rally when he was running and he spoke of the need to import people to make up for our "demographic problems.". To me, having such problems is indicative of a failed society. That doesn't mean that someone that goes their own way, like my best friend, is worthless. It just is that there is a social preference. Just as I'd prefer my boy finish High School, he could still be a stunning success dropping out and starting a thriving business.

Got to agree about the toxic nature of the MGTOW type of links. You watch one on youtube and it can be bad enough but read the comments below. Yikes. Be nice if there were a way to help these guys better channel their aggression.

Think old timers should learn to live their own lives and what the line is from hopes being wishing well to someone to projecting their own desires.

Also perhaps those types need to learn some self-control. Some people need to learn they can't always get what they want and how to respond reasonably to iy.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Think old timers should learn to live their own lives and what the line is from hopes being wishing well to someone to projecting their own desires.

Also perhaps those types need to learn some self-control. Some people need to learn they can't always get what they want and how to respond reasonably to iy.

If I were that self serving, I would not have a family. Just a 20x20 studio with a 108" OLED 8K TV and a $20K computer on which to game. And a fridge full of ice cold gin and "Funny Bones" and raspberry "Flaky Puffs".

I think parents want their kids to live their own lives. That doesn't mean we don't want to offer guidance and let them know of our hopes.

I am biased. My kids can do no wrong in my eyes. But really? I hope they are, at a minimum, good people. Is that too much pressure on them? Unjust? I don't think so.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Think old timers should learn to live their own lives and what the line is from hopes being wishing well to someone to projecting their own desires.

Also perhaps those types need to learn some self-control. Some people need to learn they can't always get what they want and how to respond reasonably to iy.

If I were that self serving, I would not have a family. Just a 20x20 studio with a 108" OLED 8K TV and a $20K computer on which to game. And a fridge full of ice cold gin and "Funny Bones" and raspberry "Flaky Puffs".

I think parents want their kids to live their own lives. That doesn't mean we don't want to offer guidance and let them know of our hopes.

Well unless a family is something you wanted. Wanting one doesn't mean you can't be self-serving. Also that is an amazing deflection from the point. Whatever your other choices it is certainly self-serving to ask someone to listen to your concerns for whether they want to have a family or not lol

Yah but really people should just shove it when those hopes are too invasive. People should be more concerned with not putting pressure on their kids on matters where their input is irrelevant. And whether people want to have a family is their own personal decision, parents should have the decency not to try to pressure them into something they should personally desire first if they want to get into it

I am biased. My kids can do no wrong in my eyes. But really? I hope they are, at a minimum, good people. Is that too much pressure on them? Unjust? I don't think so.

Honestly it feels kind of slimy that this is your reply when the original talk was about partnering up and raising kids. Like did I ever take issue with expecting people to be good people? Why, if you have good intentions, did you have to swap from the original topic of getting a partner and having kids to this one?

When someone has to switch the subject to something utterly inoffensive when it previously wasn't about that I really have to wonder about their motives.

Pressure to get married and have kids IS too much btw. You know, the original subject?

The Decapitated Centaur:
snip

You wrote, "Think old timers should learn to live their own lives and what the line is from hopes being wishing well to someone to projecting their own desires.". This appears to be writing that having any hopes for one's kids IS being too invasive.

On your other point, "Pressure to get married and have kids IS too much btw.": Can one let their kids know you hope they partner up and have kids without it being labeled as "Pressure"? I think so. And I think to most parents, it is important.

Wishing them well is way too wishy washy to me. Reminds me of "Night Mother" when Sissy Spacek says she is leaving money to someone that is likely to just use the money for drugs. When told this, she responds, "I hope he uses the money to get good drugs then." Sure, he'd be happy with good drugs. He'd be "doing well." He wouldn't be building a family, community and nation. He wouldn't be building the future. And that is a huge part of what most people forming families are trying in large part to do.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:
snip

You wrote, "Think old timers should learn to live their own lives and what the line is from hopes being wishing well to someone to projecting their own desires.". This appears to be writing that having any hopes for one's kids IS being too invasive.

If you're old enough you've got kids, you're old enough to understand context. Like let's see... what did you mention about old timers again? Hmmm. What could I possibly be replying to there?

If you pretend context doesn't exist then maybe you can interpret that way. Funnily enough context is a thing and does exist.

On your other point, "Pressure to get married and have kids IS too much btw.": Can one let their kids know you hope they partner up and have kids without it being labeled as "Pressure"? I think so. And I think to most parents, it is important.

When you say you want people to listen to those hopes then I really doubt it's just passive. If it was just some passive thing like hoping your kid becomes a doctor but don't pressure them to it then I don't think it would bear mentioning or bemoaning.

It's really a creepily invasive thing to tell someone anyways. That's the kind of thing people should decide on their own.

Wishing them well is way too wishy washy to me. Reminds me of "Night Mother" when Sissy Spacek says she is leaving money to someone that is likely to just use the money for drugs. When told this, she responds, "I hope he uses the money to get good drugs then." Sure, he'd be happy with good drugs. He'd be "doing well." He wouldn't be building a family, community and nation. He wouldn't be building the future. And that is a huge part of what most people forming families are trying in large part to do.

Let's use a bit of *reason* here. Unless you're suggesting it is bad not to get married and have kids then your comparison falls flat. You don't need you be a busybody in choices that you think someone is perfectly fine choosing either way

Are you seriously claiming men's comfort should be put before the well being of children?[/quote]

As much as I'm arguing that a woman's or child's comfort should be put before a man's well-being, there was another half to that sentence ya might have missed.
My point was that men are not hated in this regard, they're just not considered as important as women and children, yet they are supposedly equal if not advantaged and oppressive.
Right.

Lieju:
As far as custody goes, the child's well being should be the most important thing. And in most cases, it is in the child's best interests to be in the custody of the person who was the primary caretaker to begin with. Men should be more involved in taking care of their children in general.
The parent who had the closest relationship to the child and who devoted the most time in childcare during the marriage should be favoured in custody battles in my opinion because that's the best for the child.
And on average that person is the mother.

I have to disagree with the notion of "primary caregiver" since it sounds to me like a lawyer's argument to win court cases, not a pedagogically sound recommendation.
Single parenthood can, and usually does, have devastating consequences for the child, assigning children to only one parent does not sound it is the best option for the child, no matter what the time-balance was in practical caretaking.
Rather, I would propose equal custodial status for both parents unless one of both has been proven to be abusive or is otherwise unavailable to make that time commitment.
Men will get more involved with their children if we facilitate that to happen, they already work more hours on average, we could see what we could do to alleviate that in order to give them more time for domestic concerns, both in social and legal changes.

Besides, you can't equate emotional and psychological significance between a child and parent only on hours spent together, that's ridiculous.

Thaluikhain:

I would agree to an extent with this, but I lean towards thinking that continually dismissing and disregarding very obvious problems people face does not happen unintentionally.

Only if one is not aware of the severity of the problem, or that it even exists, no matter how seemingly obvious.
Besides that, one may feel like they can not be of influence on said problem, leaving it "for someone else to fix", so to speak.

Thaluikhain:

I'd not really agree with that (with the exception of the ambitions of the state, which the state tends to put first). That their well-being is inherently different and that certain issues don't apply to them seems the root of the issue.

We can agree on that.

Combustion Kevin:
Besides, if all you got from Friends' comment were hate implications, I would suggest YOU read it again, the accusations were of callousness and dismissal, not actual hatred.

"...so unless you genuinely hate men and wish to discount their suffering..."[/quote]

Heavy handed, I'll admit, but still referring to the callousness, and would only accuse one of hatred if they actually did, genuinely, aim to discount and dismiss the suffering of men.
And tying into my "benefit of the doubt" principle above, I choose not to assume that. ;)

The Decapitated Centaur:

When you say you want people to listen to those hopes then I really doubt it's just passive. If it was just some passive thing like hoping your kid becomes a doctor but don't pressure them to it then I don't think it would bear mentioning or bemoaning.

It's really a creepily invasive thing to tell someone anyways. That's the kind of thing people should decide on their own.

I disagree. I might, for instance, tell my kid if I hope they'd become a doctor something like, "I know people that can help get you into a good school or job if you became a doctor. I might note how much money they can make. I can be very, very active rather than passive.

If they said, nah, I want to start my own chain of coffee shops, I'd be OK with that. But my son argued with me once, saying he knows a homeless drifter (there really is one in our town) who seems perfectly happy: why shouldn't that be his goal in life? I told him because I know him and he likes money too much. He wouldn't be happy like that.

I admit: I fought hard to keep him from becoming that drifter's protege. Today he is grateful for that much.

Unless you're suggesting it is bad not to get married and have kids then your comparison falls flat. You don't need you be a busybody in choices that you think someone is perfectly fine choosing either way

Had my boy dropped out of high school, he could still be OK. There are still reasons to help your kids, even over their objections, from dropping out of high school. Their are reasons to let them know that getting a partner, having kids, reaffirming the value of human existence and building a future are good too.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

When you say you want people to listen to those hopes then I really doubt it's just passive. If it was just some passive thing like hoping your kid becomes a doctor but don't pressure them to it then I don't think it would bear mentioning or bemoaning.

It's really a creepily invasive thing to tell someone anyways. That's the kind of thing people should decide on their own.

I disagree. I might, for instance, tell my kid if I hope they'd become a doctor something like, "I know people that can help get you into a good school or job if you became a doctor. I might note how much money they can make. I can be very, very active rather than passive.

If they said, nah, I want to start my own chain of coffee shops, I'd be OK with that. But my son argued with me once, saying he knows a homeless drifter (there really is one in our town) who seems perfectly happy: why shouldn't that be his goal in life? I told him because I know him and he likes money too much. He wouldn't be happy like that.

I admit: I fought hard to keep him from becoming that drifter's protege. Today he is grateful for that much.

Unless you're suggesting it is bad not to get married and have kids then your comparison falls flat. You don't need you be a busybody in choices that you think someone is perfectly fine choosing either way

Had my boy dropped out of high school, he could still be OK. There are still reasons to help your kids, even over their objections, from dropping out of high school. Their are reasons to let them know that getting a partner, having kids, reaffirming the value of human existence and building a future are good too.

The back flips you do lol

It would be pushy to try to make your kid a doctor. Plenty of other valid options. Yes there are some that are awful and sure dissuade from those. But stick to the topic. We are talking about getting married and having kids. That's not the level of deciding to be a drifter.

Dropping out is a negative though. He is less likely to be perfectly fine after dropping out.

You do an amazing dance around actually calling a decision not to marry etc negative all while implying it 's
Is. So let's stop that silly dance. Are you saying that it is a negative thing to not get married and have kids? Simple question.

Gorfias:
I think it important for a society to encourage self actualization, but also have social and cultural preferences. Young people should know that us old timers hope they will partner up and raise kids. I attended a Jeb! rally when he was running and he spoke of the need to import people to make up for our "demographic problems.". To me, having such problems is indicative of a failed society. That doesn't mean that someone that goes their own way, like my best friend, is worthless. It just is that there is a social preference. Just as I'd prefer my boy finish High School, he could still be a stunning success dropping out and starting a thriving business.

The problem I have with "social and cultural preferences" is that inevitably means there will be things which are unpreferred. And unpreferred is just a step away from unwanted, or even disdained (a category which interracial families belonged in not long ago, and gay families are often put into now). We are getting better representation and resources available for nontraditional families, but the fact of the matter is there will always be people in that "unpreferred" category. I would rather we focus on making sure all families are treated with the same dignity and respect, receiving help where they might need it (even nuclear families can have money trouble, or need counseling).

Decapitated Centuar sort of beat me to the response to the "old timer's hopes" thing, and you then responded "This appears to be writing that having any hopes for one's kids IS being too invasive." My parents completely abstained from expressing any preference one way or another to both myself and my brother. The last time I discussed children with my parents they said it was totally fine I didn't want any right now, and left it at that. Didn't even give me a smug "Well, you'll probably change your mind when you get older." And after my brother and sister in law got married, they never hinted or prodded about when they'd be getting grandchildren. Last year when they announced they were pregnant, only then did my parents celebrate, saying they really were excited to have grandkids (that ended in a miscarriage and now they're looking to adopt, but once again my parents are being careful in how much they pry).

My family has seen a lot of unexpected pregnancies in the last decade, most of which happened in less than ideal circumstances (couple was unmarried, father was abusive, mother was on drugs, etc). And I've told you before my mom works at an elementary school and every year sees kids whose parents are clearly not engaged or fulfilled by them. They definitely do want grandkids, but to them it is more important for my brother and I to know us not having children would never disappoint them as much as us taking a path we don't want in life. They are already extremely familiar with the type of pressure the rest of society puts on young people for that, and they have refused to burden us with any more of it.

Perhaps my parents are unique in that regard, but I have taken that to heart and see it the same way. Having children is an extremely large and personal decision. Pressuring people when it comes to kids is really a lot more impertinent than society at large has grown to believe. Especially if the person in question has had a miscarriage, or has fertility problems, or has suffered some sort of abuse in the past. It's really extremely rude, and does no good for the person being pressured or asked. It only serves the agenda of the person asking the question. More people are writing about it these days (usually millennial-oriented parenting blogs), and I'm hoping it's something we grow out of in the next couple of generations.

To me, there is a huge difference between preferring something like high school graduation for your child, and and preferring they get married and have children. A high school diploma or GED takes just a matter of years to get. Once you've got it you're done, and you can move on to the next thing. It isn't meant to be a lifetime commitment, and once you have it it only opens up more opportunities. But getting married or having children is both a lifetime commitment AND irreversible without dealing with some heavy consequences. Getting a diploma is a small commitment to give you an edge in life. Having a family is a lifestyle choice that shapes how you live from that moment forward. Those choices are WORLDS apart. It's like the difference between vacationing at a condo for a weekend, and buying the condo up to enter into the timeshare business.

Got to agree about the toxic nature of the MGTOW type of links. You watch one on youtube and it can be bad enough but read the comments below. Yikes. Be nice if there were a way to help these guys better channel their aggression.

Yeeeeah...those are the kids of guys who really could benefit from therapy. But unfortunately that group also tends to think therapy is for cucks and sissies soooooooo...yeah.

Combustion Kevin:

My point was that men are not hated in this regard, they're just not considered as important as women and children, yet they are supposedly equal if not advantaged and oppressive.
Right.

Who is arguing that men (or women) and children should be equal? I am not. Kids shouldn't be treated the same as adult human beings and in cases like custody, the needs and rights of the kids should be considered before those of the parents IMO.
We don't treat kids as equal to adults.
And yes??? Adults are advantaged compared to kids. Are you arguing otherwise?

The Decapitated Centaur:

It would be pushy to try to make your kid a doctor. Plenty of other valid options. Yes there are some that are awful and sure dissuade from those. But stick to the topic. We are talking about getting married and having kids. That's not the level of deciding to be a drifter.

Dropping out is a negative though. He is less likely to be perfectly fine after dropping out.

You do an amazing dance around actually calling a decision not to marry etc negative all while implying it 's
Is. So let's stop that silly dance. Are you saying that it is a negative thing to not get married and have kids? Simple question.

In relative terms. That's why I keep mentioning graduating from high school. I making an analogy. Finishing high school is quantifiably a good thing. Someone that does not has failed to do this particular achievement. There is so much else they can do. Same with finding a partner (avoiding term marriage as there are many types of partnerships one can enter into with the intention to enter a lifelong, caring relationship, hopefully resulting in kids and a family but not necessarily). My best friend lives with his parents and helps them in so many ways, including financial support. He is also a doting uncle. The having kids thing is just a thing he missed out upon and the world missed out upon the kids he might have had. That only he could have had. Without being pushy or intrussive, I intend to make suree my kids know m prference.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

It would be pushy to try to make your kid a doctor. Plenty of other valid options. Yes there are some that are awful and sure dissuade from those. But stick to the topic. We are talking about getting married and having kids. That's not the level of deciding to be a drifter.

Dropping out is a negative though. He is less likely to be perfectly fine after dropping out.

You do an amazing dance around actually calling a decision not to marry etc negative all while implying it 's
Is. So let's stop that silly dance. Are you saying that it is a negative thing to not get married and have kids? Simple question.

In relative terms. That's why I keep mentioning graduating from high school. I making an analogy. Finishing high school is quantifiably a good thing. Someone that does not has failed to do this particular achievement. There is so much else they can do. Same with finding a partner (avoiding term marriage as there are many types of partnerships one can enter into with the intention to enter a lifelong, caring relationship, hopefully resulting in kids and a family but not necessarily). My best friend lives with his parents and helps them in so many ways, including financial support. He is also a doting uncle. The having kids thing is just a thing he missed out upon and the world missed out upon the kids he might have had. That only he could have had. Without being pushy or intrussive, I intend to make suree my kids know m prference.

So that's a yes then.

Well then I think the problem is your inability to comprehend people maybe being happier without the things you want most.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

Lilani:

The problem I have with "social and cultural preferences" is that inevitably means there will be things which are unpreferred. And unpreferred is just a step away from unwanted, or even disdained (a category which interracial families belonged in not long ago, and gay families are often put into now). We are getting better representation and resources available for nontraditional families, but the fact of the matter is there will always be people in that "unpreferred" category. I would rather we focus on making sure all families are treated with the same dignity and respect, receiving help where they might need it (even nuclear families can have money trouble, or need counseling).

I did note to DC above about different family forms above. The step from less preferred to unwanted is a step I do not go.

To me, there is a huge difference between preferring something like high school graduation for your child, and and preferring they get married and have children. A high school diploma or GED takes just a matter of years to get. Once you've got it you're done, and you can move on to the next thing. It isn't meant to be a lifetime commitment, and once you have it it only opens up more opportunities. But getting married or having children is both a lifetime commitment AND irreversible without dealing with some heavy consequences. Getting a diploma is a small commitment to give you an edge in life. Having a family is a lifestyle choice that shapes how you live from that moment forward. Those choices are WORLDS apart. It's like the difference between vacationing at a condo for a weekend, and buying the condo up to enter into the timeshare business.

I think the analogy still holds. If renting that condo for a weekend was a mistake, you never get that particular weekend back. Ever. The degree of consequences is quite substantial. But I can prefer you try to enjoy such a weekend rather than spend the weekend doing over time at work (which may be very necessary and the right thing to do: maybe your entire career depends upon it).

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well then I think the problem is your inability to comprehend people maybe being happier without the things you want most.

Not at all. Not even close. I am sure some people will be happier dropping out of High School. That doesn't mean I shouldn't prefer my kids finish High School.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well then I think the problem is your inability to comprehend people maybe being happier without the things you want most.

Not at all. Not even close. I am sure some people will be happier dropping out of High School. That doesn't mean I shouldn't prefer my kids finish High School.

Which goes to show you just fundamentally don't understand why someone would actually find their life worse for getting married and having kids

Lieju:

Combustion Kevin:

My point was that men are not hated in this regard, they're just not considered as important as women and children, yet they are supposedly equal if not advantaged and oppressive.
Right.

Who is arguing that men (or women) and children should be equal? I am not. Kids shouldn't be treated the same as adult human beings and in cases like custody, the needs and rights of the kids should be considered before those of the parents IMO.
We don't treat kids as equal to adults.

And yes??? Adults are advantaged compared to kids. Are you arguing otherwise?

The fundamental rights of the parents should not be disregarded just because there is a child in play. This happens to male victims of rape who are often forced to pay child support for children of rape they did not wish to have because it is in the "child's best interest" That is rubbish in this case the state should suck it up and pay or force the female rapist to pay for the kid they forced someone to have.

The phrase isn't men and children first, its womena nd children first. The issue is that men have been considered expendable by society but when this is pointed out the reply is (society is somehow the fault of men alone so blame men for hurting men)- this reply is hurtful and misses the point of those harmed by systemic misandry. Don't blame the victim because of their gender. I bring up men's issues and get dismissed as a sexist, misogynist mra (despite this not being true) and often have my issues mocked and dismissed on these forums.

If we are going for gender equality then it should be children first then adults of every gender.

shrekfan246:

Thaluikhain:

Did you actually read what shrekfan246 said about the system hurting men, or did you skip straight to implying they hate men?

It's really kind of funny what sort of reaction you get from MRA-types whenever you dare not put men above everyone else, even when you do actively acknowledge that men have significant issues too. It's like they can't reconcile the fact that men are the primary cause of men's issues. I particularly liked the "you wouldn't discount the suffering of men as much as you have". I had three full paragraphs focused almost centrally on some of the issues men face in current culture. Oh, but because that suffering is not generally at the hands of women and non-white people, it doesn't count, somehow... curious how that works.

I did read it that's why I used the words I did. Nice to see someone smugly imply I didn't in an attempt to invalidate my perspective.
Here you go proving me correct by calling me an mra type for daring to point out that men get shafted by the legal system. Unless you blame the entire legal system on men (there are female judges, police, lawyers, and politicains too and the Duluth model was adopted because of direct feminist pressure so that is squarely on feminism causing the adoption of a misandrist and horrible protocol) which is an erroneous conclusion since we all utilize and uphold it still. To tell men that are put down by the system to just blame men is insensitive and hateful. Don't blame men for problems in society that harm men, blame the problems in society. Attempting to put all societal problems at the feet of men and ot blame them all on men is callous heartless cruel and just plain disingenuous. When I bring up men's issues I get dismissed and called an mra, just like you did here. Nice to see the powers of prejudice and callous categorization are at full capacity.

Combustion Kevin:

And tying into my "benefit of the doubt" principle above, I choose not to assume that. ;)

You are correct i this assumption. Good arguments throughout. It feels like trying to argue for something reasonable like respect and equal treatment for everyone would elicit less acrimony, name-calling, and callous dismissal of issues.

Gorfias:
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

No probs! I have a youtube channel now, I never sleep :P

I did note to DC above about different family forms above. The step from less preferred to unwanted is a step I do not go.

Maybe it's a step you don't go, but if we establish a default, expected family structure by how we discuss or arrange events for children, it makes the children feel like they don't quite belong. That it would be better if their family were different. Maybe statistically families with two parents do better than single parents when it comes to finances and grades, but one thing we can do to help close that gap is to not send kids subtext that they are inherently lacking because of something completely out of their control.

Kids are much better at picking up on subtexts than we give them credit for. They can tell when adults are uncomfortable with something, and take note when they are referring to different groups of people in different ways. If a kid more frequently hears that single parents would be better off married, then they're going to interpret that to mean married families are better than single ones. But it's so much more complicated than that, which we as adults understand but kids aren't going to know because they've only been given the bare bones explanation.

I think the analogy still holds. If renting that condo for a weekend was a mistake, you never get that particular weekend back. Ever. The degree of consequences is quite substantial. But I can prefer you try to enjoy such a weekend rather than spend the weekend doing over time at work (which may be very necessary and the right thing to do: maybe your entire career depends upon it).

Yeah you aren't going to get that time back from the vacation, but it's only a weekend and you've got no other ties to it to worry about. If you regret buying the condo, that is MONTHS you're going to lose in order to sort it out, if not years depending on how deep in it you've gotten. Not to mention sorting out your finances. The issue isn't that time was lost, the issue is the difference in commitment between the two. One is substantially easier to back out of with much fewer repercussions, you can't deny that.

And the same goes with "regretting finishing high school at 18" versus "regretting getting married/having children." Sure you aren't going to get those years up to turning 18 back, but once it's over you've got no ties or obligations to worry about. You have as many obligations toward high school as you would have if you'd dropped out. All you have is your regret and past time lost. But if you regret getting married you have your regret, your past time lost, your future time lost for however long it takes to deal with the divorce, AND the repercussions on your finances and living situation.

And if you regret having kids? You can't divorce them. If you decide early enough you can put them up for adoption, but if not at best you can dump them on their other parent and pay child support until they're 18. At worst you can just straight up abandon them and deal with the criminal consequences that come with that. So with that you've got your past regret, past time lost, nearly two decades of future time lost (plus the lifetime the child will be alive and possibly seeking a relationship with you), and devastating effects on your finances no matter what you choose (even if all you do is have the baby and hand it over to someone else, hospital bills and prenatal care are not cheap).

Ignoring whatever inherent good you think having children or being married brings, there are people who regret those decisions. And I don't see how you can argue the commitment is remotely similar to finishing high school. Especially given the other choices for young people below the age of 18 are so slim compared to adults of marrying/proper child rearing age.

Not at all. Not even close. I am sure some people will be happier dropping out of High School. That doesn't mean I shouldn't prefer my kids finish High School.

Except, again, finishing high school is not something that comes with years of commitment after the fact. The entire point of high school is to open up a wider range of choices, not to limit them. Settling down and having a family only limits the range of choices a person can do with their future. Yeah it opens up a lot of neat little family moments that are irreplaceable and yadda yadda yadda. But if we're measuring strictly by feasible options for lifestyle choices, you have to admit settling down limits a person's choices. That's why it's called "settling down." If a young, unmarried person without kids decides to travel the world for 3 or 4 years and live in hostels, they're just a young person experiencing life and finding themselves. They aren't tied to anyone, so that choice isn't hurting anyone (except perhaps themselves if they decide it was a bad choice)

If a married person with kids leaves their family for 3 or 4 years to live in hostels, or takes them along and makes them live on the road for years on end, they are at best called a vagabond. And at worst a horrible neglectful parent who should have decided to either not have kids or give up their dream of living on the road. That bad choice not only affects them, but their entire family.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well then I think the problem is your inability to comprehend people maybe being happier without the things you want most.

Not at all. Not even close. I am sure some people will be happier dropping out of High School. That doesn't mean I shouldn't prefer my kids finish High School.

Which goes to show you just fundamentally don't understand why someone would actually find their life worse for getting married and having kids

Again, no, not at all. I can fundamentally understand why someone would actually find their life worse for finishing high school. Were it more socially acceptable to drop out (not only is it not: it is illegal where I am from until the student is 18 at which point they might as well have finished.) I arguably would have wanted, for my son, to have dropped out at around 14 years of age. As it was, one could argue he wasted 4 years of his life as the law forced him to do so. None of that means I wouldn't prefer him to have finished high school. Heck, I'd prefer he have become a medical doctor but I know and understand it isn't for him. I don't push but I sure will tell him of options I think might be of interest. (I recently asked him if he might be interested in becoming a heavy machine operator as it would be a better gig than his current job (sheet metal worker). He declined, I'm a little disappointed but his answer is his answer.). I've also spoken to him of the positive side of raising a family. As I see it, I have an affirmative duty to do so.

Lilani:
snip

I still think the analogy holds. Yes, there's a difference between one's hopes for their kids and pushing. Yes, the stakes are greater between having a kid, or renting a condo for 1 weekend. The stakes of not doing so are greater as well. If everyone decided to not have kids, I don't think technology could make up for the difference. With Jeb! already saying the US needs to import people to deal with our "demographics" problems, I'd say if this isn't an issue already, it is on its way to becoming one.

The thing that seems to keep coming across in this thread:
1. A parent preferring certain life affirming things for ones kids and letting them know of it = pushing? I don't think so.
2. A parent shouldn't even have hopes and preferences for their kids? Ridiculous.
3. Absolute socially enforced Stalinist indifference regarding family formation should be the social norm? I don't think so. Certainly not with the West already running into "demographics" problems.

I will affirm the position that it isn't for everyone. Just as, say, taking over the family business isn't for everyone. Doesn't make it a bad thing to let the kids know it is there for them.

Gorfias:
Again, no, not at all. I can fundamentally understand why someone would actually find their life worse for finishing high school. Were it more socially acceptable to drop out (not only is it not: it is illegal where I am from until the student is 18 at which point they might as well have finished.) I arguably would have wanted, for my son, to have dropped out at around 14 years of age. As it was, one could argue he wasted 4 years of his life as the law forced him to do so. None of that means I wouldn't prefer him to have finished high school. Heck, I'd prefer he have become a medical doctor but I know and understand it isn't for him. I don't push but I sure will tell him of options I think might be of interest. (I recently asked him if he might be interested in becoming a heavy machine operator as it would be a better gig than his current job (sheet metal worker). He declined, I'm a little disappointed but his answer is his answer.). I've also spoken to him of the positive side of raising a family. As I see it, I have an affirmative duty to do so.

Have you ever considered that expressing a preference to your child is in fact a type of pushing? Perhaps not the most aggressive type, but it can still be construed by the child that they've disappointed you in some way. And for no other reason than deciding what's life-affirming to them isn't the same as what you think should be. When I told my parents I wanted to go to school for computer animation, they did express concerns regarding finding a lucrative job in that field. But they didn't tell me to try going into another safer field like marketing or dentistry or whatever. Instead they helped me find resources and feasible employment options within that realm of my interest and education. They addressed their concerns for me without telling me they'd prefer I chose another path.

I still think the analogy holds. Yes, there's a difference between one's hopes for their kids and pushing. Yes, the stakes are greater between having a kid, or renting a condo for 1 weekend. The stakes of not doing so are greater as well. If everyone decided to not have kids, I don't think technology could make up for the difference. With Jeb! already saying the US needs to import people to deal with our "demographics" problems, I'd say if this isn't an issue already, it is on its way to becoming one.

The thing that seems to keep coming across in this thread:
1. A parent preferring certain life affirming things for ones kids and letting them know of it = pushing? I don't think so.
2. A parent shouldn't even have hopes and preferences for their kids? Ridiculous.
3. Absolute socially enforced Stalinist indifference regarding family formation should be the social norm? I don't think so. Certainly not with the West already running into "demographics" problems.

I will affirm the position that it isn't for everyone. Just as, say, taking over the family business isn't for everyone. Doesn't make it a bad thing to let the kids know it is there for them.

Well then it's a good thing not everybody is choosing to not have kids, lol. We're still very far from that in the US. That's about as reasonable as me saying "If every parent decided to tell their kid what to do and refused to take no for an answer." And if our population does begin to slide like Japan and Iceland (I think? I thought I heard something about their government encouraging people to get it on), then again we'll address that issue when we get to it, taking into account where our economy and technology are.

On a semi-related note, the WalMarts in my area are aggressively remodeling their check-out centers to include mostly self-checkout lanes and very few actual cashiers. It would seem at least corporations are very keen on operating with a minimal number of physical employees. For the numbered thingy:

1. What is life-affirming to people is completely subjective. This would make a bit of sense if what the parent wanted were guaranteed to be beneficial to the child, but plenty of people have had children and completely regretted it for every moment afterward. And again, to children and especially emotional teenagers the words "I'd prefer it if you did this" can easily be construed as "You'll disappoint me if you don't do this," which is an unhealthy and unfair burden to put on them. Especially if, again, the perceived benefits are completely subjective.

2. Parents should certainly have hopes and preferences. They should just be very careful about how they communicate them to the child. The hopes and preferences which should always be held above all others should be that they are safe, happy, and in control of their life. Where a parent can begin to overstep the boundary is telling them what will make them safe, happy, and in control. I can totally see how it'd be scary for a child who just graduated from high school to go up to their parent and say "I want to travel in Europe for a year" when they haven't even been out of their state before. But that sort of thing would put them out of the boundaries of "safe," so that's a good time for the parent to intervene.

On the other hand, like my choice to go to school for the arts, while that path may have been riskier it certainly wasn't unreasonable. And it was well within my parent's power to help me be successful in that field without outright telling me "No, another field will make you happier." There is usually a middle ground to be found.

3. Not sure what you mean by "enforced Stalinist indifference," lol. Just saying people are deviating from the norms whether we like it or not. And we need to make sure people who deviate from those norms aren't being treated as second-class citizens, or are having significant trouble accessing certain resources just because they made the mistake of being gay or getting a divorce.

FriendoftheFallen:

If we are going for gender equality then it should be children first then adults of every gender.

Yes... Which is what I was arguing for. You were the person complaining men and children aren't treated equal. And that it's discrimination against men if a child's comfort and well-being is given higher priority than men's.

(also 'comfort and well-being of the ambitions of the state' and I don't even know what to say about that. Sometimes that happens and it's not discrimination. If you go on a stabbing rampage and the police come and lock you up to protect people that's not discrimination even if it makes you sad you don't get to stab people.)

My main issue here is I don't agree with you on your definition of what discrimination is.
I do agree men face issues (I very much agree the treatment of male rape victims is horrendous) but I don't think your approach is good.

 Pages PREV 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