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
 

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

When talking about things at the global level, unless you're talking about all women everywhere there isn't any group which isn't a minority at that scale.

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?

No, I've said it already but I'll say it again: not pretending that an objective symbol of oppression is anything other then what it is is an illiberal position. Why you (and so many others, this is shockingly common despite the fact it has no source for it to stem from) fail to understand is that acknowledging something is a symbol of oppression does not mean it should be banned. You don't see me calling for Communist flags to be banned yet when looking at things objectively that's even more morally reprehensible then flying a Nazi flag.

TakeyB0y2:

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.

This is an obvious fallacy and it indicates a lack of taking this argument seriously, your arguments just seem to be mocking men who want custody then mocking men who acquiesce to a demanding partner due to many possible circumstances.

TakeyB0y2:

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.

Apparently you're not aware of the psychological impact on some men in an abusive or female dominated relationship or you'd get how some people acquiesce rather than fight. You classifying these men as oblivious top their children just because of their ignorance on their records is false and hurtful. If a parent wants access to their child and they aren't a danger to them then sexist views of men should not stop them. The medical history argument does not indicate a father's involvement with their kids- it shows that the mother dealt with that particular issue. This lack of knowledge can be easily remedied by a simple app. You do not know how offensive and sexist your remarks come across as. A simple app can remedy the issue. I'm not arguing with myself at all- I'm showing a scientific base for why men don't remember those things as readily. I am showing that the thing you are mocking dads for is something that makes you a bit sexist to mock someone over. That is no more an endorsement for female custody than data showing men able to physically protect their children from kidnappers or assailants should impact male custody. You are trying to disenfranchise and dismiss an entire gender. A father that didn't know that data may very well learn it. Should a husband who took care of the family car automatically get it in a divorce because his wife couldn't tell the judge the exact date of the last oil change? Does the spouse who can recount the exact dates of home upkeep or who knows the name of the agent who provided their house insurance get the house? That is ridiculous and has very hurtful implications. What if a judge awarded the child to the only parent that could lift them (at a certain age that may differentiate between the two parents.) I could make a very convincing case that medical stuff could easily be transposed to an app but not being able to lift a child when needed is an issue. This argument is just as valid as the medical records one. I don't think either should come up for a custody hearing. Family courts have an anti-male bias and the sexist stereotypes of men vis a vis their kids that you brought up does nothing to disprove my point or justify those actions whatsoever. Every point I made earlier still stands 100%. An embittered wife that tries to portray her soon to be ex-husband as oblivious about their children in order to gain custody should not automatically win just because some judges have sexist perceptions about men. Gender stereotypes (including your "observations") should have no place in family court. A human being can learn that information and not knowing it while dealing with a messy divorce or custody hearing should not negate custody. There are many ways a human can deal with not knowing that stuff and still be a good parents, including utilizing apps or another family member to help. The mocking sexism displayed in the argument you made is an example of the type of stuff that influences a family court judge to hold the sexist views that some hold.

What do your kids want? That's the more important thing.

As for me? In Canada, I stand a 1 in 2 chance of getting divorced and losing whatever assets I had on top of the crippling emotional pain of losing my wife and kid(s). Why on earth would I want to take that risk? Everyone thinks that it won't happen to them, but numbers are a lot more reliable than feelings.

EDIT: That kind of number indicates a cultural issue with selecting partners or even that marriage isn't a great thing at all. Being with someone from 20 to 80 and beyond just isn't an attractive proposition for 50% of North America apparently. Even if it was 1 in 10 I'd say that's a fairly serious systemic issue. Hell, in that remaining 50%, how many are not happy or ignorant of infidelity?

Zontar:
... an objective symbol...

Fucking what?

Dude. There's no such thing as an "objective symbol". Symbols are inherently subjective things.

To use a common example, a swastika is just a bunch of right angles stuck together. Then some people decided it should stand for a bunch of shitty stuff and that idea became widespread enough that now, at least in the west, it's associated almost exclusively with those shitty things. Before that it was a Hindu symbol that, depending on who you ask, represented power, luck, security or the four faces of god. Swastikas, or symbols similar to them, have been found in multiple different cultures meaning any number of things, and in some cases apparently meaning nothing beyond just being a nifty pattern. You probably know this already.

Likewise, a hammer and sickle are just a couple of tools. Then someone made them a symbol of the urban and rural working classes respectively. Now you cross a hammer and a sickle and people instantly think of Communism.

A symbol only takes on the meaning people give it. That's an inherently subjective process. The meaning of a given symbol can change over time. The same symbol can mean different things to different people. That isn't how objectivity works.

I feel like I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. I might disagree with virtually every single thing you say but I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to understand how a symbol works.

Saelune:
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.

Actually, three years ago the NRK (National broadcasting in Norway) made a show to mark the 200th aniversary of the constitution by having one family live in the years 1984, 1950, 1907 and 1814 to see how family life has developed. In the 50s the man found he disliked his role. He wwasn't allowed to help his children with homework, play with them or even talk that much to them. He wasn't allowed to do housework or help make dinner, or even talk that much to his wife. Gender roles force men to supress themselves too. I wonder if it ever occured to the Red-pill people that men began taking a more active part in family life because they wanted to

Stay out of your children's personal choices on relationships and let them experiment with their own sexuality. That's really the only thing that could be said on this in my opinion. What YOU want for their lives is not important as long as they are content and happy with the choices they've made. If your son would rather work out with his bros, or your daughter doesn't care to be a house wife, that is for them to decide, and pushing on them in any fashion is both aggressively trying to steer them away from their own path but is also incredibly selfish. Walk away unless they come to you on this. They'll find what works for them. Let them find out what works for them.

As for the idea of roles in a family unit, there's no real means for the atomic family to function in the modern era. Most families live or die on having both parents work. It's just how it is. Both parties should express the same effort when it comes to the care, education and well being of their children whilst finding as much time as they can for personal goals. The idea the guy can come in after work and lounge in his recliner while he smoked his pipe and the female has to clean and take care of the children created a culture of inequality. He didn't understand how hard raising children can be and damned was he going to learn. No. Fuck that. Come home, change a diaper. Cook. Try to make each others lives easier.

No thanks.

If you want to live in the false utopia of yhe 50s (seriously, it's a lie) ... you go right ahead. But I hope a police officer still arrests you for popping your spouse one, that you don't get conscripted into the armed forces at 20, and where you don't fall into drug abuse which was *worse*. About the only good thing about the 50s was the pre-Baby boomers. Unlike the entitled shitheads they produced over the decade.

50s and 60s youth culture consumerism and ethics birthed the baby boomer entitled scumbags we have now. The 80s style execuspeak, and ultra consumerism that has seen so far three generations of Westerners screwed over by their open greed, moral flexibility, and lack of a spine.

Mighty fine prelapsarian rhetoric this topic is.

Oh... and can people fuck right off with the 'Alpha/Beta' garbage? It's bullshit. It first arose with contemplations of pack animal behaviour in zoos and kennels. If you truly think such behavioural """science""" theory is justification to lump people into boxes of personality or deservedness to bully about, you're a narcissistic moron and a deeply unpleasant cunt.

Grow up. Meet people. Try to connect to another soul.

The role of men is changing a lot in relatively short span of time.

It's understandable there's some issues with that. And, I think people should really try to be more understanding about why people feel that way. The whole "Fuck you, accept it, or you're a misogynist" thing is just completely counter productive.

The Lunatic:

It's understandable there's some issues with that.

So at what level should the rhetoric reach before it ceased to be "understandable"?

First, that is not a Manosphere stuff. There is a really large number of women who want to life in the glorifies 50s utopia they know from old television series.

I personally don't want to go there. But my parents worked both, all their friends worked both, stay-at-home-mums is not really anything that seems particularly normal to me.

The lack of marriages, pregnancies and even relations is a problem though. Most of the traditional ways of meeting prospective partners are not actually done anymore. For the rest all of the traditional rules don't really apply and no one knows what they are expected to do on a date making the whole thing utterly awkward. People (both men and women) start their career and think about relations "later" - a later which often becomes too late. There are so many end-30ies
going on their first dates utterly unexperienced trying to find someone to start a famaly now, it is not even funny.

Yes, marriages have declined, which could be due to nontraditional relationships. Yes, pregnancies have declined, which could be due to safer sex. But studies came to the conclusion that the number of relationships and sex acts itself declined a lot. People tend to stick to themself nowadays.

The Lunatic:
The role of men is changing a lot in relatively short span of time.

It's understandable there's some issues with that.

No. No it isn't.

And "counter productive?" Being upset that men aren't on top is a counter productive attitude. What am I supposed to do, try to reason with them that men being on top is unfair to women? Because I don't see that going well.

image

"Be more understanding," that's like saying "be more understanding of the people who want gay marriage banned" or "be more understanding of the people who think interracial relationships are immoral." When you're upset because someone else is getting rights that put them on par with you...my sympathy is limited.

TakeyB0y2:
*sigh* When are people going to realize that the whole 'beta/alpha' bullshit isn't actually a thing?

Quite. As far as I'm aware, this is a personality theory popular with the chatterati but otherwise pretty much pseudoscience. By and large, my view is that anyone who starts talking seriously about alphas and betas (etc.) is an ignoramus intent on making a highly dubious point with bad reasoning.

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.

I suspect in history a substantial number of people married and started families because that was just "the done thing". They never really had any great interest in relationships or bringing up children, and that's potentially why there are so many stories of unhappy marriages and disinterested, distant parents from the old days.

Undoubtedly for men more inclined to such attitudes, being able to marry and spawn offspring without having to trouble themselves with talking about their feelings, addressing their wife's emotions and their sprogs' irrational and demanding needs was much more pleasant. Modern society, where they are expected to engage with those things, is a lot more bothersome. That they hearken back to some glory age where a man could dive off into the wilderness doing his own thing for three years and it was okay just so long as his pay packet kept the household fed shouldn't surprise us.

I guess the biggest problem is that they want and expect sexual intercourse despite not wanting to put in all the hard preparatory work that's normally required to get someone into the sack. My answer to them there is that that is what prostitutes are for.

I would not however worry so much about male youths not apparently that interested in women. There can be lots of reasons for that. If a young man has a lot of fun things he enjoys doing, perhaps he doesn't want to tie many hours down in a relationship (or even casual sex) he feels is of less value. Relationships, especially early on, can also be quite intimidating, as dealing with all that emotional stuff can be quite tricky, and it may take a while to overcome. But none of this means that somewhere down the line, usually with more maturity, experience, and a better idea of life ambitions, they aren't going to knuckle down and start dealing with women. Often, perhaps, cheesy as it sounds, it's just a case of the "right woman" coming along.

The Lunatic:
The role of men is changing a lot in relatively short span of time.

It's understandable there's some issues with that. And, I think people should really try to be more understanding about why people feel that way. The whole "Fuck you, accept it, or you're a misogynist" thing is just completely counter productive.

A sense of disorientation and insecurity that can exist upon realiisng that the tradional gender roles one has been brought up with no longer really exist is certainly a thing society needs to deal with.

On the other hand, those whose reactions to such changes are hate and rage against women should themselves show a little understanding - specifically, that they're going to seriously stress test the limits of many people's sympathy and politeness.

Whenever I look at Men Going Their Own Way, Redpill, Return of Kings, Pickup-Artistry, whatever Roosh "Rape should be legal" IV is about I can't help but think of a more pretentious version of that group Al Bundy was part of. It's a bunch of whiny manchildren going "Well, it's not like I want to be in a relationship or anything!" and trying to turn that attitude into an ideology.

And it's not like there aren't perfectly valid reasons for not being interested in a relationship, you don't wanna date, power to you, but don't treat it as some sort of statement you're making. Traditional gender roles are dying out, thank god, and they're aren't gonna come back any time soon. If that's what you want, go to Saudi Arabia and participate in their sick male supremacist ideology but don't claim that almost a century of progress in womens rights was somehow a mistake just because it's less convenient for you.

Sure, more people might choose to be single, might choose not to get married, might choose not to have children. And why wouldn't they? I don't think our world necessarily needs more people. It's gonna lead to social change, sure, more money will have to be spent on the elderly, but you solve problems by engaging with them rather than to construct some alternate reality where they don't exist and looking for a way to make our reality more like it.

Agema:

I suspect in history a substantial number of people married and started families because that was just "the done thing". They never really had any great interest in relationships or bringing up children, and that's potentially why there are so many stories of unhappy marriages and disinterested, distant parents from the old days.

Also fair few number of parents that did a runner on their kids as well. We kind of know the relationship between parents and their kids was far more distant even at the turn of the last century. In Australia back in 1860s, we had to mandate education. Because parents really didn't give a shit. The parents wanted their children to either follow in their footsteps or just do menial labour. Having children was almost like having free labour at home ... because by 9 years old a kid can feasibly make more than their weight in consumed bread, veggies, fish and mutton either helping out in the orchard, helping feed cattle, helping collect the chicken eggs, net fishing in the lake, another person that can help knit and hem clothes, another person to help in delivering goods...

There is a reason why poverty and large families go together in rural subsistence economics. A young child can, quite early, become quite the useful menial labourer. They just need to be productive enough to meet their costs and anything over that is a bonus to the rest of the family.

Also why famines tend to strike hard and fast...

Mandatory education began the slow pace of ending child labour. Because parents can't be trusted to teach their children what they need to know.

Hence why mandatory education reduces childbirth rates. If you're truly worried about Africa having a lot of kids, build schools and make attendance mandatory ... far better than even contraceptives.

Australians romanticise the bushranger all too much. The galloping armed robber with a devil-may-care attitude, that retreats into the then still largely unknown bushland. In truth, most of them started off as crooks as kids because children doing paid work to feed their family after the father has run off, gotten sick, or died on a job was common enough. And like with all school dropout child labourers, the pay was bollocks.

Not only that but it was dangerous work being a child labourer in rural Australia ... heatstroke, snakebite, trampled by cattle...

So thievery damn near became a profession for a lot of kids. Something that was necessary. And of course even as a child ... being caught by police and having a record further reduced you to ever more isolating, and violent, means to gain a buck. The bitter truth is the situation looked a hell of a lot like what you have happening periodically in places like Somalia, Mali and Ethiopia.

In other words ... not good.

That's how Ned Kelly came to be. Deadbeat dad, two of them even.

Also fun trivia ... the first true feature film in the world was made in Australia, and it was about the Kelly gang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Kelly_Gang

We birthed the Western genre before there were Westerns, or any other feature length films for that matter.

Seanchaidh:

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

My son has said something to the effect that he is wondering what is next in his life, though I think he is speaking professionally (what should he do to develop his skill sets and advance in the working world) rather than personally. I think they think that girlfriends would have a negative impact on their current lifestyle.

renegade7:

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?

My wanting something for him isn't nearly the same thing as forcing anything on him. I wanted him to finish High School and couldn't even force that on him. He did get through it and is better off for it. I think the same thing of marriage for him.

undeadsuitor:

maybe he's gay

Could be. Doubt it. Do gay men put posters of nearly nude women all over their bedrooms? Other things too. But if he were gay, it would be like, OK, women are not for him. Without being gay, its sort of like, "dude, you're missing out on something important and you and overall society will be poorer for it".

Agema:
Often, perhaps, cheesy as it sounds, it's just a case of the "right woman" coming along.

30 years ago I was reading that the work place had become the new dating place in society but my son works in a virtuall 100% male environment (construction). Maybe his sister can set him up with something in the future. Had to see the right girl coming along organically in the environments in which he hangs out.

Gorfias:

30 years ago I was reading that the work place had become the new dating place in society but my son works in a virtuall 100% male environment (construction). Maybe his sister can set him up with something in the future. Had to see the right girl coming along organically in the environments in which he hangs out.

Mm. If the USA's anything like the UK, turning up to a pub and chatting to random women usually gets people somewhere eventually, assuming they aren't grotesquley malformed and socially incompetent. There's even an efficiency-saving app for it these days in the form of Tinder.

However, I suspect that eventually one of your son's social circle is going to meet someone. Then a whole host of new forces will kick in: peer pressure; boredom (as friends get gfs and are less available); friends' gfs bring their female friends so greater interaction with the other sex, etc.

I am pushing 30, my inner circle is 7 Men and one woman, including one homosexual man. None of us are married, none of us have children. Only 4 of us are sexually active, one heterosexual couple, myself, and my homosexual friend.

Pretty small sample size.... but still not very optomistic. I think the death of the baby boomers would make a big difference. But it will be a very long time before all that land/wealth/pensions comes around again.

Another factor I am loath to mention.... my experience with young white women has been less then pleasant, il not go into more detail for fear of being consumed by the flames. However, my feelings on this are shared by many men. Feelings shared in hushed whispers.

Well, first off, forget MGTOW and all that crap. Its a stupid dogma, really stupid, and on top of that to me it seems illogical. So, you've recognized people can be manipulative, mean, challenging and egotistical - sorry, I mean you've recognized women are all of those things all the time and divide men into "alpha" and "beta" by the same set of criteria permanently - so your solution is to not have sex or relationships? As everyones favorite LARPing black metal SS stormtrooper Varg Vikernes pointed out, you're just being a fucking beta and removing yourself from the gene pool voluntarily. I don't get it. If you truly believe in this alpha beta blabla shit, wouldn't you try to be "alpha" instead of just giving up and resigning to a life of masturbation and body pillows? At least give it a shot, only one life and all that.

Now, that being said... We should try and turn back the clock.

Not to the 50's please. Go further, much further than that. I'm completely and utterly convinced that things like Tinder, single parenthood, mothers and fathers working full time away from their own children, parenthood becoming generally unattractive on a whole and the chaotic nature of relationships today are making us all a good bit unhappier and more importantly doing great damage to our children.

About your son specifically, well, its true traditional relationships are becoming more unattractive and unfulfilling by the minute. The biggest offender here is probably media in general. You can't go on youtube without seeing a couple which is doing something much more spectacular and fun than you are, you can't look at your smartphone without seeing 4 men or women which on the surface seem much greater than your own partner (and whats more, 2 of those are readily available!), you can't dedicate yourself to a relationship without booking yourself in for a disappiontment since "relationship" is a very loose term nowadays and means a wildly different thing to everyone you know (facebook still has that in a "relationship" option though!). There is no longer any real consequence to hopping between partners except your own long term happiness, so the reigns are off.

As for fatherhood? Forget it. I thought about this myself on Friday because I got the news that my ex girlfriend was pregnant. I spent an entire day sweating bullets and the first thing I did when I got home is check 1) how many weeks and 2) when did we last have sex. Luckily I'm out by about a month, which is just as well, because being a father in Germany? No thank you. Technically you are supposed to have your set of rights - a right to see your children for so and so long, have them sleep at your place for so and so many nights a year, co-determination, all that stuff. In practice you have as many rights as the mother decides to give you. If she for example decides that no, she's not going to hand out the children every second weekend, in theory she's breaking the law. In practice you can drag yourself through a series of lawyers appointments and court hearings - all paid out of your own wallet which is already crippled by draconian alimony - until a year later (you still haven't seen your children) the mother gets a tiny slap on the hand and can do it all over again. Sure, you can think about having a kid if your in a stable relationship, but if the woman decides to fuck off at some point? You're fucked. There is absolutely nothing you can do, and you're in for up to 18-25 years of pain. The situation isn't exactly better in the US or UK and even worse in some countries like France.

Not that having children is any more attractive for women - the law is equally slack about fathers who don't pay child support or give a rats ass about their children, and don't even get me started on how stupid it is to force single mothers into full time work - but I'm too lazy to keep writing, so let me just say we can ride this wave to decrease our population (good... but bad if you counterbalance the trend with mass immigration). Sooner or later though, we will have to go back to a family which is more "traditional". It is absolutely inevitable and in my opinion at least anyone who thinks anything else is living in a fantasy world.

Reasonable Atheist:

Another factor I am loath to mention.... my experience with young white women has been less then pleasant, il not go into more detail for fear of being consumed by the flames. However, my feelings on this are shared by many men. Feelings shared in hushed whispers.

Funny. I know a lot of women who have had crappy experiences with men. And they also can't bring it up too often without getting smacked by the #notallmen hammer.

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

Another factor I am loath to mention.... my experience with young white women has been less then pleasant, il not go into more detail for fear of being consumed by the flames. However, my feelings on this are shared by many men. Feelings shared in hushed whispers.

Funny. I know a lot of women who have had crappy experiences with men. And they also can't bring it up too often without getting smacked by the #notallmen hammer.

And is there some kind of movement that I am not aware of among women to retreat from pursuing long-term relationships with men?

Reasonable Atheist:

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

Another factor I am loath to mention.... my experience with young white women has been less then pleasant, il not go into more detail for fear of being consumed by the flames. However, my feelings on this are shared by many men. Feelings shared in hushed whispers.

Funny. I know a lot of women who have had crappy experiences with men. And they also can't bring it up too often without getting smacked by the #notallmen hammer.

And is there some kind of movement that I am not aware of among women to retreat from pursuing long-term relationships with men?

No, I have not seen them doing anything remotely that stupid.

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

erttheking:

Funny. I know a lot of women who have had crappy experiences with men. And they also can't bring it up too often without getting smacked by the #notallmen hammer.

And is there some kind of movement that I am not aware of among women to retreat from pursuing long-term relationships with men?

No, I have not seen them doing anything remotely that stupid.

Not persuing personal relationships that make you unhappy "stupid".
Interesting

Look buddy, I'm not saying that retreating from women is a good idea I'm only describing what I have experienced and witnessed, I myself have successfully Found Love.

That being said I still have no intention of ever marrying or having children

Reasonable Atheist:

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

And is there some kind of movement that I am not aware of among women to retreat from pursuing long-term relationships with men?

No, I have not seen them doing anything remotely that stupid.

Not persuing personal relationships that make you unhappy "stupid".
Interesting

Look buddy, I'm not saying that retreating from women is a good idea I'm only describing what I have experienced and witnessed, I myself have successfully Found Love

We were talking about withdrawing from relationships with in general women, not relationships that make you unhappy. Unless the implication is that every woman would make these people unhappy, which, to be fair, is something that I can expect from them. So yes, they are very stupid.

Sending a lot of mixed signals here. You talk about how I'm apparently being unfair for calling it stupid, but then you instantly backtrack and say "I'm not saying it's a good idea." Also it's pretty ironic that, of the two of us, I'm the one who sees myself living the bachelor's life. And I'm ok with it. Mainly because I just like my personal space and not because I like to go on spiteful rants that are filled with tons of sexist under/overtones. That's what I'm criticizing in these people.

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

erttheking:

No, I have not seen them doing anything remotely that stupid.

Not persuing personal relationships that make you unhappy "stupid".
Interesting

Look buddy, I'm not saying that retreating from women is a good idea I'm only describing what I have experienced and witnessed, I myself have successfully Found Love

We were talking about withdrawing from relationships with in general women, not relationships that make you unhappy. Unless the implication is that every woman would make these people unhappy, which, to be fair, is something that I can expect from them. So yes, they are very stupid.

Sending a lot of mixed signals here. You talk about how I'm apparently being unfair for calling it stupid, but then you instantly backtrack and say "I'm not saying it's a good idea." Also it's pretty ironic that, of the two of us, I'm the one who sees myself living the bachelor's life. And I'm ok with it. Mainly because I just like my personal space and not because I like to go on spiteful rants that are filled with tons of sexist under/overtones. That's what I'm criticizing in these people.

I am only recognising a pattern of behavior. Behavior with conveniences to society as a whole. I am not saying everyone exibits said behavior, or that it is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. It cannot be right or wrong, everyone must make their own choice and forge their own path in persuing happyness.

This view does not prevent me from making observations.

My observations are as follows.

1. Young white women are (in general, not uniformly) unpleasant, spoiled, entitled brats.

2. Young men can't be bothered to put up with it (not even in general, just a significant portion)

3. ??????

4. Less married couples, less children.

I am not even trying to say that it is wrong of them to be spoiled entitled brat, it is of course their right to be so. However that has consequences.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Agema:

I suspect in history a substantial number of people married and started families because that was just "the done thing". They never really had any great interest in relationships or bringing up children, and that's potentially why there are so many stories of unhappy marriages and disinterested, distant parents from the old days.

Also fair few number of parents that did a runner on their kids as well. We kind of know the relationship between parents and their kids was far more distant even at the turn of the last century. In Australia back in 1860s, we had to mandate education. Because parents really didn't give a shit. The parents wanted their children to either follow in their footsteps or just do menial labour. Having children was almost like having free labour at home ... because by 9 years old a kid can feasibly make more than their weight in consumed bread, veggies, fish and mutton either helping out in the orchard, helping feed cattle, helping collect the chicken eggs, net fishing in the lake, another person that can help knit and hem clothes, another person to help in delivering goods...

There is a reason why poverty and large families go together in rural subsistence economics. A young child can, quite early, become quite the useful menial labourer. They just need to be productive enough to meet their costs and anything over that is a bonus to the rest of the family.

Also why famines tend to strike hard and fast...

Mandatory education began the slow pace of ending child labour. Because parents can't be trusted to teach their children what they need to know.

Hence why mandatory education reduces childbirth rates. If you're truly worried about Africa having a lot of kids, build schools and make attendance mandatory ... far better than even contraceptives.

Australians romanticise the bushranger all too much. The galloping armed robber with a devil-may-care attitude, that retreats into the then still largely unknown bushland. In truth, most of them started off as crooks as kids because children doing paid work to feed their family after the father has run off, gotten sick, or died on a job was common enough. And like with all school dropout child labourers, the pay was bollocks.

Not only that but it was dangerous work being a child labourer in rural Australia ... heatstroke, snakebite, trampled by cattle...

So thievery damn near became a profession for a lot of kids. Something that was necessary. And of course even as a child ... being caught by police and having a record further reduced you to ever more isolating, and violent, means to gain a buck. The bitter truth is the situation looked a hell of a lot like what you have happening periodically in places like Somalia, Mali and Ethiopia.

In other words ... not good.

That's how Ned Kelly came to be. Deadbeat dad, two of them even.

Also fun trivia ... the first true feature film in the world was made in Australia, and it was about the Kelly gang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Kelly_Gang

We birthed the Western genre before there were Westerns, or any other feature length films for that matter.

Kelly's biological father wasn't a deadbeat father for most of his life, but he stole pigs to feed his family and got drinking problems in prison, then died of a failed liver within his first year out of jail

Reasonable Atheist:
Snip

Who said anything about right or wrong? I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was stupid. And it is. What makes you happy can be stupid, particularly when it's based on iffy reasoning about how men are losing power because women are equal now.

Oh, if stereotypes are permitted I might as well bring a few to the table.

In my experience, men (not young men, men in general) are pushy, entitled, can't take no for an answer, obsessively flirt with and push themselves on anything with a XX chromosome, have little to no respect for boundaries, and plenty of other matters in that regard. Of course, like you said, it's general, not uniform.

Also, can we stop talking about having less children as if it's something terrible? This isn't They Live.

And question...why the hell do you think the reduction in marriage is something that can be put on women acting like brats? If that isn't a massive freaking oversimplification to a massive phenomenon I don't know what is. Let me just tell you that there's a lot more to it than that, assuming that even has an impact on it in the slightest.

That image sums up my thoughts. The only reason I'm thinking about marriage and children is because I'm supposed to. If I wasn't constantly told about it (I've even seen arguments that not reproducing is horrible and selfish because having kids when you don't want them is desirable) I wouldn't even participate in this or any discussion about it.

EDIT:
Complaining that women have more freedom and people aren't trapped in bad relationships comes across as amoral to me. Marriage isn't some grand, unassailable good. The numbers reveal it's something half of North America can't sustain.

How in the hell would we "turn back the clocks", even if we agreed that that was a desirable thing to do? We're talking about societal attitudes, and people making decisions about their own lives. Those are their calls to make, and we cannot possibly-- and nor should we-- compel those people to make other decisions. Any attempt to do so will result in alienation and conflict.

Approximately half of marriages end in divorce or annulment. Now, certain politicians have observed that situation and concluded that young couples should be encouraged to marry to up the numbers (through tax breaks, or government focusing on the "traditional family"), and that a more stable society will be the result. But think for a second; who, exactly, is going to have concluded that they won't marry, but will be convinced by money or peer pressure? Almost certainly people who should not be getting married. They'll contribute as much to the divorce rate (as well as the unhappiness index) as they will to marriage stats.

Declining marriage rates are not the cause behind societal damage.

Reasonable Atheist:

4. Less married couples, less children.

'Fewer'.

Young white women are (in general, not uniformly) unpleasant, spoiled, entitled brats.

Exactly where do you get off calling my niece an unpleasant, spoiled, entitled brat sir?

image

This is what the title made me think of.

The actual subject matter here appears to be just as ridiculous and riff-worthy.

Need I say more?

Reasonable Atheist:

erttheking:

Reasonable Atheist:

Not persuing personal relationships that make you unhappy "stupid".
Interesting

Look buddy, I'm not saying that retreating from women is a good idea I'm only describing what I have experienced and witnessed, I myself have successfully Found Love

We were talking about withdrawing from relationships with in general women, not relationships that make you unhappy. Unless the implication is that every woman would make these people unhappy, which, to be fair, is something that I can expect from them. So yes, they are very stupid.

Sending a lot of mixed signals here. You talk about how I'm apparently being unfair for calling it stupid, but then you instantly backtrack and say "I'm not saying it's a good idea." Also it's pretty ironic that, of the two of us, I'm the one who sees myself living the bachelor's life. And I'm ok with it. Mainly because I just like my personal space and not because I like to go on spiteful rants that are filled with tons of sexist under/overtones. That's what I'm criticizing in these people.

I am only recognising a pattern of behavior. Behavior with conveniences to society as a whole. I am not saying everyone exibits said behavior, or that it is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do. It cannot be right or wrong, everyone must make their own choice and forge their own path in persuing happyness.

This view does not prevent me from making observations.

My observations are as follows.

1. Young white women are (in general, not uniformly) unpleasant, spoiled, entitled brats.

2. Young men can't be bothered to put up with it (not even in general, just a significant portion)

3. ??????

4. Less married couples, less children.

I am not even trying to say that it is wrong of them to be spoiled entitled brat, it is of course their right to be so. However that has consequences.

I'm sorry that you seem to have had issues with women in the past. I'm honestly trying not to be mean here, but did you ever stop to think that it might be you that's the issue? Not knowing you or any of the women you've interacted with, one person having unrealistic expectations or other problems is a lot more likely than an entire segment of the population being "unpleasant, spoiled, entitled brats."

Maybe you need to rethink your approach and thought process in regards to women?

Just to reiterate, I'm really not trying to insult you here[1]. Your statements just give off a vibe of "People aren't behaving as I want/expect, so something must be wrong with them."

[1] Please don't report me >_>

Reasonable Atheist:

4. Less married couples, less children.

Number of children my mother has had: 2
Number of marriages my mother has had: 0

Having a marriage license doesnt unlock the ability to breed.

Hell seems alot of the time having kids is what causes plenty of marriages.

Plus we arent having a shortage of people.

One point that I don't feel has been touched on quite yet is the economy. The Millennial generation has had the misfortune of coming of age just as the world's greatest recession since the 1930's hit. It's delayed, hindered or put a full stop to the start of millions of young people's careers. If young adults don't feel they've got stable and decently paid jobs they're not going to feel inclined to settle down, get a mortgage on a house and raise a family. On top of that (in the UK at least) you have some outrageously expensive housing and for graduates, student debt, which all adds to the cost of starting a family.

There is social and cultural change going on with regards to gender roles and family values, but the fact that recent economic circumstances don't favour settling down and starting a family in your 20's is probably also a factor.

FriendoftheFallen:

This is an obvious fallacy...

Duh.

FriendoftheFallen:

Apparently you're not aware of the psychological impact on some men in an abusive or female dominated relationship or you'd get how some people acquiesce rather than fight. You classifying these men as oblivious top their children just because of their ignorance on their records is false and hurtful. If a parent wants access to their child and they aren't a danger to them then sexist views of men should not stop them. The medical history argument does not indicate a father's involvement with their kids- it shows that the mother dealt with that particular issue. This lack of knowledge can be easily remedied by a simple app. You do not know how offensive and sexist your remarks come across as. A simple app can remedy the issue. I'm not arguing with myself at all- I'm showing a scientific base for why men don't remember those things as readily. I am showing that the thing you are mocking dads for is something that makes you a bit sexist to mock someone over. That is no more an endorsement for female custody than data showing men able to physically protect their children from kidnappers or assailants should impact male custody. You are trying to disenfranchise and dismiss an entire gender. A father that didn't know that data may very well learn it. Should a husband who took care of the family car automatically get it in a divorce because his wife couldn't tell the judge the exact date of the last oil change? Does the spouse who can recount the exact dates of home upkeep or who knows the name of the agent who provided their house insurance get the house? That is ridiculous and has very hurtful implications. What if a judge awarded the child to the only parent that could lift them (at a certain age that may differentiate between the two parents.) I could make a very convincing case that medical stuff could easily be transposed to an app but not being able to lift a child when needed is an issue. This argument is just as valid as the medical records one. I don't think either should come up for a custody hearing. Family courts have an anti-male bias and the sexist stereotypes of men vis a vis their kids that you brought up does nothing to disprove my point or justify those actions whatsoever. Every point I made earlier still stands 100%. An embittered wife that tries to portray her soon to be ex-husband as oblivious about their children in order to gain custody should not automatically win just because some judges have sexist perceptions about men. Gender stereotypes (including your "observations") should have no place in family court. A human being can learn that information and not knowing it while dealing with a messy divorce or custody hearing should not negate custody. There are many ways a human can deal with not knowing that stuff and still be a good parents, including utilizing apps or another family member to help. The mocking sexism displayed in the argument you made is an example of the type of stuff that influences a family court judge to hold the sexist views that some hold.

Well, I find you implication that the whole reason the men I've encountered through my work have those issues is because all women are evil manipulative abusers. I get that you've known some horrible women in your life but I mean like come on, you can't call "sexist" on me if you're just going to turn around and blame women for male issues.

 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