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
 

Jux:
Why do you think of marriage in the same way? [as something as beneficial as finishing high school]

Having children is a life affirming action and marriage is the main way a person assumes rights and obligations to his children.

There are plenty of important things in life. Why is marriage more important than the myriad of other things he may want to pursue instead, and why do you feel he and society as a whole would be poorer for it?

Having children is a unique contribution to oneself and society in general. There are exceptions. Marriage and children isn't for everyone but by and large, we need people doing it for a society to be successful. (Like that pilot to Star Trek, I don't think a society that needs to import people a successful one.)

We have dating sites and apps now that make pursing dating much more accessible post college outside of the workplace.

I've read that apps like "Tinder" are the dating apocolypse, but I have heard that you can meet people for more serious relationships using tech these days. Kinda gets back to my concern that he and so many young men of his generation aren't using them but thanks for reminding me of them. It provides some hope that he at least has some avenues to meeting a potential spouse.

Gorfias:
Having children is a life affirming action and marriage is the main way a person assumes rights and obligations to his children.

For some people, sure. For others, not so much. Has your son made comments about how he feels about the idea of parenthood? It might not be for him. And there are plenty of ways to lead a full life that don't include kids.

Having children is a unique contribution to oneself and society in general. There are exceptions. Marriage and children isn't for everyone but by and large, we need people doing it for a society to be successful. (Like that pilot to Star Trek, I don't think a society that needs to import people a successful one.)

How is it unique? Most people are doing it, I wouldn't really call it a unique way of contributing to society.

I've read that apps like "Tinder" are the dating apocolypse, but I have heard that you can meet people for more serious relationships using tech these days. Kinda gets back to my concern that he and so many young men of his generation aren't using them but thanks for reminding me of them. It provides some hope that he at least has some avenues to meeting a potential spouse.

There are plenty of avenues for people to pursue social lives. I wouldn't really worry about that. Best advice I can give is just step back and let your kid do his thing. I assume by this point he knows your stance on this issue. Continually pushing someone towards something often has the reverse effect.

Jux:

For some people, sure. For others, not so much. Has your son made comments about how he feels about the idea of parenthood? It might not be for him. And there are plenty of ways to lead a full life that don't include kids.

He's kinda listless in general. He's having the best time of his life but knows there's more to life but doesn't have direction yet. I'm writing in general: this includes everything from relationships to furthering his career in the trades to should he get his own aparmtent.

How is it [having kids] unique? Most people are doing it, I wouldn't really call it a unique way of contributing to society.

Only you can sire/bare the particular kids you would have. At least until genetic engineering is an easy thing. (In theory, maybe someone can take someone else's dna and make it identical to yours)

Maybe should start another thread: can a society consider itself successful if it must import people to survive?

There are plenty of avenues for people to pursue social lives. I wouldn't really worry about that. Best advice I can give is just step back and let your kid do his thing. I assume by this point he knows your stance on this issue. Continually pushing someone towards something often has the reverse effect.

My wife would kill me if I pushed in any way. She wants him under our roof forever, she is even still doing his laundry. He once asked if she was pushing him out and she responded, "you can move out when I let you" tongue in cheek.

At most, he's asked how I handled raising him as he was a handful. He calls his teen years his "A.H. years" and I told him at its worst, its been a rewarding pleasure. He clearly has stated his concern with handling adult responsibilities but I think he is getting there.

evilthecat:

Namehere:
You have an anecdote.

Not really. I'm not doing this to amuse anyone save myself. As I've said, this is a case study, a single instance which illustrates several points of a broader thesis. As I've said, accounts of medieval peasants and their attitudes to marriage and sex are thin enough on the ground that any given example is going to be of a single instance.

But you've missed the actual important point, of course, which is that attitudes are in some sense dictated by material circumstances. When the priest showed up at Grazide Lizier's house and demanded she have sex with him, her ability to say no was rather limited by her circumstances. In a modern sense she was a victim of a terrible abuse of power, and the full support of her family and the society around her lay with her abuser because she lived in a society where the abuse of power was normal. Even had she been taught the Catholic doctrine on marriage (which she was during her confinement at the hands of the inquisition, and which she repeated during her confession) she could not afford to view marriage as sacred because, as as a peasant, she was always vulnerable to the abuse of power.

So, and not to crap on the romanticism of the Napoleonic wars here, but let's think very hard about the material circumstances.. Where did your friend's wife come from? How did they meet? Under what circumstance did he decide to marry her? Did she want to marry him? How did she express this with her few words of English?

You see where I'm going with this..

"This storm seemed to be a signal of hell for the perpetration of villainy which would have shamed the most ferocious barbarians of antiquity. At Ciudad Rodrigo intoxication and plunder had been the principal object; at Badajoz lust and murder were joined in rapine and drunkenness; but at San Sebastian, the direct, the most revolting cruelty was added to the catalogue of crimes. One atrocity of which a girl of seventeen was the victim, staggers the mind by its enormous, incredible, indescribable barbarity."
- Sir William Napier, describing the fall of San Sebastian

The Napoleonic wars is a poor choice of setting for historical fantasies of romantic heroism.

It is heroic now to have a friend and want to ensure the safety of said friend's wife and child? Jesus...

I can't see where your going. I honestly can't. All I can see is a rather broad brush condemning even the concept of Marriage. After all the point is that the clergy was privileged in ways that even day most people aren't, but rather that marriage was somehow wrong or bad, right?

You said that Marriage isn't a matter of division of labour and shared resources. Your in error. That is why the same woman you mention was still called a widow even though her husband had only been married to her for four years.

Marriage is more nuanced then the one dimensional image of it that you present and then condemn. I'm an atheist that isn't dating, let alone married, and I'm willing to accept that given the people I see around me.

"I care about my friends wife and child now that he's dead." "Fuckin' would-be heroes!" God damn... Gettin' a little Russia House in here.

Gorfias:

Jux:

For some people, sure. For others, not so much. Has your son made comments about how he feels about the idea of parenthood? It might not be for him. And there are plenty of ways to lead a full life that don't include kids.

He's kinda listless in general. He's having the best time of his life but knows there's more to life but doesn't have direction yet. I'm writing in general: this includes everything from relationships to furthering his career in the trades to should he get his own aparmtent.

How is it [having kids] unique? Most people are doing it, I wouldn't really call it a unique way of contributing to society.

Only you can sire/bare the particular kids you would have. At least until genetic engineering is an easy thing. (In theory, maybe someone can take someone else's dna and make it identical to yours)

Maybe should start another thread: can a society consider itself successful if it must import people to survive?

There are plenty of avenues for people to pursue social lives. I wouldn't really worry about that. Best advice I can give is just step back and let your kid do his thing. I assume by this point he knows your stance on this issue. Continually pushing someone towards something often has the reverse effect.

My wife would kill me if I pushed in any way. She wants him under our roof forever, she is even still doing his laundry. He once asked if she was pushing him out and she responded, "you can move out when I let you" tongue in cheek.

At most, he's asked how I handled raising him as he was a handful. He calls his teen years his "A.H. years" and I told him at its worst, its been a rewarding pleasure. He clearly has stated his concern with handling adult responsibilities but I think he is getting there.

Honestly,everything you just said sounds completely normal.

undeadsuitor:

Honestly,everything you just said sounds completely normal.

Thank you. I don't think he's unusual. That may be the problem which is why all the concern about MGTOW etc.

He and his 1/2 dozen pals who look like male models as they work out at the gym for hours every week appear to be straight, yet not dating.

Takes me back to my thought about a new thread: "Can a society consider itself successful if it must import people to survive?"

At a minimum, I may dare ask him why that is without offering my opinion to him. He is going to have to make (and will insist upon making) his own choices in life.

Namehere:
I can't see where your going. I honestly can't.

Being a Spanish woman anywhere near the British army in the peninsular war was, to spare elaborate descriptions, an incredibly bad place to be.

That wasn't an accident, it wasn't like these nice chivalrous gentleman officers really, really cared so deeply about the status of women and children in war but just didn't know what was going on or what the bad apples were actually doing to the Spanish population. They knew and they didn't care, because they saw it as a natural part of war. As the first Duke of Wellington put it with his typical aristocratic disdain, the British army was made up of the "scum of the Earth" and that meant that they could only be expected to behave like the scum of the earth.

The mistreatment of civilian women was a normal and accepted part of army life at the time. Gushing about the virtues of military marriage or the possibility that some hypothetical person might have sought to spare a camp follower by blessing her with the redeeming power of matrimony just comes off as slightly laughable in that context. When a Spanish town was "liberated" by the British army, do you think the women living there could expect respect for the sanctity of their marriages?

In short, I think if you're looking for a time when the concept of marriage was some kind of romanticized idyll of contented and harmonious relations marked by a functional division of labour, you might not want to pick an period in which military rape was considered a normal part of war, and where English law explicitly stated that a man owned his wife. Just saying.

Namehere:
You said that Marriage isn't a matter of division of labour and shared resources.

Well, no. It isn't.

Labour has been divided up in a vast number of different ways across a vast number of different social contexts. Marriage, however, has existed in almost all of them. The most fundamental, original basis of all marriage is not a division of labour or the sharing of resources, but the creation of what anthropologists call "kinship ties", those bonds of familial loyalty which have formed the most important social bonds of almost all societies in history.

evilthecat:

Namehere:
I can't see where your going. I honestly can't.

Being a Spanish woman anywhere near the British army in the peninsular war was, to spare elaborate descriptions, an incredibly bad place to be.

That wasn't an accident, it wasn't like these nice chivalrous gentleman officers really, really cared so deeply about the status of women and children in war but just didn't know what was going on or what the bad apples were actually doing to the Spanish population. They knew and they didn't care, because they saw it as a natural part of war. As the first Duke of Wellington put it with his typical aristocratic disdain, the British army was made up of the "scum of the Earth" and that meant that they could only be expected to behave like the scum of the earth.

The mistreatment of civilian women was a normal and accepted part of army life at the time. Gushing about the virtues of military marriage or the possibility that some hypothetical person might have sought to spare a camp follower by blessing her with the redeeming power of matrimony just comes off as slightly laughable in that context. When a Spanish town was "liberated" by the British army, do you think the women living there could expect respect for the sanctity of their marriages?

In short, I think if you're looking for a time when the concept of marriage was some kind of romanticized idyll of contented and harmonious relations marked by a functional division of labour, you might not want to pick an period in which military rape was considered a normal part of war, and where English law explicitly stated that a man owned his wife. Just saying.

Namehere:
You said that Marriage isn't a matter of division of labour and shared resources.

Well, no. It isn't.

Labour has been divided up in a vast number of different ways across a vast number of different social contexts. Marriage, however, has existed in almost all of them. The most fundamental, original basis of all marriage is not a division of labour or the sharing of resources, but the creation of what anthropologists call "kinship ties", those bonds of familial loyalty which have formed the most important social bonds of almost all societies in history.

Gushing? You really have no answer to my statements, do you? Truly sad. There was no gushing, there was merely attempt to humanise a situation in which humanity was rather vital to context. Marriage is obviously not universally the same, there is nuance between individual marriages not to mention marriages in different societies.

The ultimate retort to those Christians who would say that gay marriage isn't possible because it isn't in the bible, is that marriage is older then the bible. Christians don't hold a command by virtue of anything of what a marriage is or isn't... Except in the minds of those Christians. This alone demonstrates that marriage by virtue of it's nature can not be as narrowly defined as you've attempted to do. It has meant many different things to many different people.

"Kinship ties" have existed even before marriage. The resentment of commoners in Europe of their foreign leaders says it all. They married... no public support. Marriage is not as simple as your framing it. And that a society may view a thing one way, doesn't mean all the members of that society do the same.

So in summation: Marriage has been about the division of labour, marriage has been about political and economic ties, marriage has been about business and marriage has been about love. Sometimes a mix of all or to the exclusion of one. It all depends whose marrying who.

Namehere:
This alone demonstrates that marriage by virtue of it's nature can not be as narrowly defined as you've attempted to do. It has meant many different things to many different people.

So what? How does this contradict anything I've said?

Pointing out that marriage predates Christianity here is particularly infuriating when your entire argument is based in a modern Christian doctrinal conceptualisation of marriage. I'm aware that things change, that's not the problem here. I'm specifically pointing out that history does not really evidence this idyllic, role segregated, harmonious conception of marriage which is here being presented as the basis of marriage, because the roots of marriage are not that innocent or that Christian.

Agema:
Indeed you can - and easily because that societal meaning you suggest is not absolute.

After all, marriage in 2017 AD can be - and indeed is - something other than marriage was in 1400 AD.

..since I never addressed this post, let's tag it in here. So why should we care about the historical circumstances under which marriage worked. Why does it matter today?

Because it doesn't matter. That's the point.

If we're just going to ignore the fact that marriage has a history at all and declare that it can be whatever you want it to be, then what is the point in it existing at all. Maybe I could accept this if marriage was harmless, but it isn't. Marriage literally kills people, the idea that you are committed to remaining with a person no matter what literally kills people who take it seriously, so I'm not even buying the argument that noone takes it seriously or we're in some cool, swinging future now where marriage is all groovy and hip and not like that old lame concept of marriage they had before, because if marriage today really was nothing like the way it used to be in the past then it wouldn't exist. There would be no reason for it to exist. We'd be in the liquid intimacy phase already and, to be honest, I can't think of a single reason why that would not be a good thing.

Namehere:
"Kinship ties" have existed even before marriage. The resentment of commoners in Europe of their foreign leaders says it all.

Kinship ties are ties of blood relation between individuals. It's nothing to do with some prototypical concept of nationalism which, to be honest, didn't really exist.

The reason why marriage is important in all early societies is specifically because:

a) Power is based largely on networks of strategic alliances between powerful people and families.
b) The most important social bonds on which these alliances can be built are literal blood ties.

That's why marriage is important, and why heredity is important, because it creates ties between families which would otherwise be competitors. In a weak state where there is no centralised state bureaucracy or procedure for ensuring the smooth operation of power, the family is the only social order you can really trust (and even then, not particularly). Having the most alliances becomes an integral part of being a powerful person in those societies, and the best way to secure alliances is to unite families through marriage.

Nikolai77 then made a point that this doesn't explain why those who were not powerful in society and no real chance of becoming powerful would still marry, and it was a good point - technically they were correct. That is the point where marriage becomes a function of religious doctrine or social convention, but I still maintain that you cannot uncritically accept those conventions as the "real" or "authentic" basis of marriage. The reasons are ideological and doctrinal and were, it's fairly clear in some cases, imposed onto people's lives rather than arising naturally from their circumstances.

This does not mean however, as you're now attempting to claim, that there is no real or authentic basis to marriage. There is, after all, a reason why some concept of marriage has independently arisen in almost all societies on earth, and that reason is that for some people there actually is a material and political importance to marriage. That importance, however, is not based in a role segregated division of labour or the need for companionship.

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

Honestly,everything you just said sounds completely normal.

Thank you. I don't think he's unusual. That may be the problem which is why all the concern about MGTOW etc.

He and his 1/2 dozen pals who look like male models as they work out at the gym for hours every week appear to be straight, yet not dating.

Takes me back to my thought about a new thread: "Can a society consider itself successful if it must import people to survive?"

At a minimum, I may dare ask him why that is without offering my opinion to him. He is going to have to make (and will insist upon making) his own choices in life.

Just remember that things are quite as clear cut and simple as they were back when

You can't graduate highschool, marry your highschool sweetheart, walk into a business to get a job with no experience required with upward mobility, and buy a 3 bedroom house on one persons salary like you used to

Us youths are told to enjoy our twenties because it's supposed to be the best time in our lives, and then criticized for wasting our twenties and waiting to have kids and a career in our thirties

Like we can't do it all. Either we socially kill ourselves with kids or we don't. Pick one.

Yeah I just think its going to be the end of marriage and husbands. Its just no longer worth it. If a marriage is built on mutual respect, then in a few years not a single husband will be able to say they feel respected by their spouse.

Its the inevitable end. If an entire branch of the control left preaches that men are the root of all evil, then it won't come as a surprise men just decide not to deal with that shit.

undeadsuitor:

Just remember that things are quite as clear cut and simple as they were back when

You can't graduate highschool, marry your highschool sweetheart, walk into a business to get a job with no experience required with upward mobility, and buy a 3 bedroom house on one persons salary like you used to

Us youths are told to enjoy our twenties because it's supposed to be the best time in our lives, and then criticized for wasting our twenties and waiting to have kids and a career in our thirties

Like we can't do it all. Either we socially kill ourselves with kids or we don't. Pick one.

This is why I am pro radical changes (unlikely to happen) that could remove many of the obstacles to family formation, including plentiful affordable housing and a training path that doesn't take you into your 30's to complete. That still leaves the challenge of telling 20 somethings that this is the time to prep for the rest of their lives. Good story a while back about a professional woman that broke up with a good man at 28 as it was getting too serious and she still wanted to have fun. But that is the time to get serious. The article came out when she was in her 40s. She wrote of what her life goals should be now that the idea of husband, children and family were now realistic. She thought group homes would be a good idea.

Silentpony:
Yeah I just think its going to be the end of marriage and husbands. Its just no longer worth it. If a marriage is built on mutual respect, then in a few years not a single husband will be able to say they feel respected by their spouse.

Its the inevitable end. If an entire branch of the control left preaches that men are the root of all evil, then it won't come as a surprise men just decide not to deal with that shit.

These are huge challenges. Men's rights activists like Warren Farrel are trying to popularize the idea that this sort of constant unjust ridicule has to stop for reasons that matter to both sexes. Will it work? (Started this thread in part to avoid Trump talk Buuuuuuuuuuut... I don't doubt that HRC's loss was due, in part, to a long over-due backlash.) Did I just write that? Please ignore :-)

Gorfias:
SNIP

To be fair I don't think it qualifies as a men's right issue for husbands to want to be respected as a person by their wives. That just seems like a general kindness issue.

And to play devil's advocate, if feminist issues are challenges to both sexes, why shouldn't men's issues?

Silentpony:

To be fair I don't think it qualifies as a men's right issue for husbands to want to be respected as a person by their wives. That just seems like a general kindness issue.

And to play devil's advocate, if feminist issues are challenges to both sexes, why shouldn't men's issues?

The feminist culture already sees men's rights as a challenge to both sexes and arguably an unjust one. I watched a youtube video of some college admin types stating how they believed men's rights speech on campus should be prohibited as it made them uncomfortable and was unjust as men are already a privileged over-gender. I think that's nonsense. As a result though, I don't doubt there is an entire, un named, or by another name, WGTOW out there too.

Gorfias:
The feminist culture already sees men's rights as a challenge to both sexes and arguably an unjust one. I watched a youtube video of some college admin types stating how they believed men's rights speech on campus should be prohibited as it made them uncomfortable and was unjust as men are already a privileged over-gender. I think that's nonsense. As a result though, I don't doubt there is an entire, un named, or by another name, WGTOW out there too.

That's because most men's rights activists don't actually care or talk about rights or issues relevant to men. Instead of bringing up actual issues like the lack of battered-husband shelters or how rape culture affects men, they do the opposite by stating that rape culture isn't real and that domestic abuse statistics are either fabricated at worst or gathered incorrectly at best, on top on complaining about other things that aren't even issues like why they can't get dates a la the "pick up artists" clique. This is why men's rights and men's right speeches get a bad rep which leads to fewer opportunities for it to be taken seriously.

NemotheElvenPanda:

That's because most men's rights activists don't actually care or talk about rights or issues relevant to men. Instead of bringing up actual issues like the lack of battered-husband shelters or how rape culture affects men, they do the opposite by stating that rape culture isn't real and that domestic abuse statistics are either fabricated at worst or gathered incorrectly at best, on top on complaining about other things that aren't even issues like why they can't get dates a la the "pick up artists" clique. This is why men's rights and men's right speeches get a bad rep which leads to fewer opportunities for it to be taken seriously.

Where can one find a reliable stat to support that statement?
Some of the toxic strength misogyny I'm seeing in men's rights forums is very real and the issue you reference is a material one but I'm also seeing a lot about divorce as it effects men, war on boys, longevity gaps etc. Example: http://backlash.com/

Gorfias:

Where can one find a reliable stat to support that statement?

Depends. What stat can you provide on "feminist culture" and how it sees men's rights as a threat? I used to be an MRA, and I know very avowed MRAs and a number them are actually genuine about issues affecting men. They just get drowned about by the masses that think being in the friendzone is worse than being sexually assaulted.

Some of the toxic strength misogyny I'm seeing in men's rights forums is very real and the issue you reference is a material one but I'm also seeing a lot about divorce as it effects men, war on boys, longevity gaps etc. Example: http://backlash.com/

All fair issues and problems, but they're not the ones the most prolific "MRAs" talk about or bring up.

Gorfias:
The feminist culture already sees men's rights as a challenge to both sexes and arguably an unjust one. I watched a youtube video of some college admin types stating how they believed men's rights speech on campus should be prohibited as it made them uncomfortable and was unjust as men are already a privileged over-gender. I think that's nonsense. As a result though, I don't doubt there is an entire, un named, or by another name, WGTOW out there too.

Firstly, "the feminist culture" doesn't exist, anymore than there's a single male culture, or a single American culture. There's any number of branches of feminism, seemingly devoted to fighting each other more than anyone else. This is something that anyone wanting to discuss feminism in any way really needs to know.

Secondly, as mentioned, there is a big difference between "men's rights" and "Men's Rights", in much the same way as there is a big difference between people for the ethical treatment of animals and PETA. Opposing one does not mean opposing the other.

NemotheElvenPanda:

Gorfias:

Where can one find a reliable stat to support that statement?

Depends. What stat can you provide on "feminist culture" and how it sees men's rights as a threat?

A good point. A quick web search finds plenty of, "men don't have real problems and the MRA's suck and are all about phony issues and whining" that that isn't a stat. I'll have to review some more.

Thaluikhain:

Firstly, "the feminist culture" doesn't exist, anymore than there's a single male culture, or a single American culture.

A fair point. Thank you for correcting me.

Secondly, as mentioned, there is a big difference between "men's rights" and "Men's Rights", in much the same way as there is a big difference between people for the ethical treatment of animals and PETA. Opposing one does not mean opposing the other.

I worry that perceptions (and perhaps the reality that a substantial number of MRAs) that MRAs are full of it emboldens opponents to disregard and even block MRA from their right to free expression where it matters, such as on college campuses.

Further, that the whiners really will undermine men that really do have something important to say.

Gorfias:
I worry that perceptions (and perhaps the reality that a substantial number of MRAs) that MRAs are full of it emboldens opponents to disregard and even block MRA from their right to free expression where it matters, such as on college campuses.

Further, that the whiners really will undermine men that really do have something important to say.

Or drown them out, yeah. That sort of thing is an issue with any group or cause.

Gorfias:

This is why I am pro radical changes (unlikely to happen) that could remove many of the obstacles to family formation, including plentiful affordable housing and a training path that doesn't take you into your 30's to complete. That still leaves the challenge of telling 20 somethings that this is the time to prep for the rest of their lives. Good story a while back about a professional woman that broke up with a good man at 28 as it was getting too serious and she still wanted to have fun. But that is the time to get serious. The article came out when she was in her 40s. She wrote of what her life goals should be now that the idea of husband, children and family were now realistic. She thought group homes would be a good idea.

Is this an actual problem though?
If someone doesn't want to settle down til they're in their 40s, it's no skin off my nose.
As a 20-something who has been in a relationship for ages and is now engaged, I'm not doing it to make any older generation happy, I'm doing it because it's what I as an individual want to do. I don't see the problem in people getting married later, or even not at all.

We shouldn't turn back the clock, but I believe the clock will be turned back regardless of what we want.

Marriage as an institution is a proven and highly effective way to increase human reproduction. It isn't necessarily nice, but nice doesn't always work.
It appears that the crueler you implement the old ways, including forced marriages, severe inequalities and prohibitions on contraception, the more babies will pop out.

It's a winning strategy from a tribal perspective. Doesn't help when everyone is adopting it, but will ensure the eventual elimination of those parallel cultures that won't (unless they adopt other extreme measures). Oh well...apres moi le deluge.

veloper:
We shouldn't turn back the clock, but I believe the clock will be turned back regardless of what we want.

Marriage as an institution is a proven and highly effective way to increase human reproduction. It isn't necessarily nice, but nice doesn't always work.
It appears that the crueler you implement the old ways, including forced marriages, severe inequalities and prohibitions on contraception, the more babies will pop out.

It's a winning strategy from a tribal perspective. Doesn't help when everyone is adopting it, but will ensure the eventual elimination of those parallel cultures that won't (unless they adopt other extreme measures). Oh well...apres moi le deluge.

Currently, nations that have a lower birth rate tend to be dominating the ones with a higher rate, as a rule, and people moving to those nations adopt a lower birth rate within a few generations.

TakeyB0y2:

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.

You inferred something that wasn't my implication. I never said all women are evil manipulative abusers and that seems like an unnecessarily harsh and deliberately biased view of my point. I was showing an equivocation to show exactly why denying men access to their OWN CHILDREN over issues like that is sexist and wrong. Your perception of my blaming does not negate my inference that the message you said previously was hurtfully biased or sexist. I've known horrible people from all walks of life (as well as ones I'd consider good)which contributes to my idea that trying to cast one gender as being less able to parent is hurtful and fallacious. I don't think a biased assessment of men's behavior while discounting biological support showing why it happens should be seen as a valid defense of penalizing an entire gender in an extremely primordial and crucial manner. People shouldn't be denied equal access to their kids because they're bad at doing something a simple app can now compensate for.

Phasmal:

Is this an actual problem though? [people putting off serious relationships well into their 30s]
If someone doesn't want to settle down til they're in their 40s, it's no skin off my nose.

Isn't it? As I wrote earlier, maybe a new thread, is a society successful if it has to import people? It is through these serious relationships that you have families and typically children that are on average best off: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research
Is the west getting to the point where it needs to import people? Is that a fail?

I don't see the problem in people getting married later, or even not at all.

The woman in that story I reference, thinking about group homes, does see a problem. She's unhappy. She fudged up. She had fun into her mid 30s but found pursuit of a longer lasting satisfaction of family and children no longer a realistic option. I feel like someone should have warned someone like her earlier.

Gorfias:

Phasmal:

Is this an actual problem though? [people putting off serious relationships well into their 30s]
If someone doesn't want to settle down til they're in their 40s, it's no skin off my nose.

Isn't it? As I wrote earlier, maybe a new thread, is a society successful if it has to import people? It is through these serious relationships that you have families and typically children that are on average best off: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research
Is the west getting to the point where it needs to import people? Is that a fail?

I don't see the problem in people getting married later, or even not at all.

The woman in that story I reference, thinking about group homes, does see a problem. She's unhappy. She fudged up. She had fun into her mid 30s but found pursuit of a longer lasting satisfaction of family and children no longer a realistic option. I feel like someone should have warned someone like her earlier.

Import people? Us? That the government is trying so hard to keep people out alone suggests we arent low on people.

And marriage =/= kids. And married couples dont automatically make the best parents, especially if they arent happy together.

Gorfias:

Phasmal:

Is this an actual problem though? [people putting off serious relationships well into their 30s]
If someone doesn't want to settle down til they're in their 40s, it's no skin off my nose.

Isn't it? As I wrote earlier, maybe a new thread, is a society successful if it has to import people? It is through these serious relationships that you have families and typically children that are on average best off: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research
Is the west getting to the point where it needs to import people? Is that a fail?

Marriage and kids are entirely separate, I have no idea why you keep conflating them. People do not have chastity belts you need to insert a wedding ring to open.
It's more and more acceptable now to have children outside of marriage. You need to make sure you're not just thinking "this is different to how I grew up and therefore WRONG".
I've been in a serious relationship for years and years. Marriage is not the only thing that makes something serious.

Gorfias:

I don't see the problem in people getting married later, or even not at all.

The woman in that story I reference, thinking about group homes, does see a problem. She's unhappy. She fudged up. She had fun into her mid 30s but found pursuit of a longer lasting satisfaction of family and children no longer a realistic option. I feel like someone should have warned someone like her earlier.

As a woman, allow me to lol. I guarantee you that woman was told a million times to settle down and have kids. She didn't want to at the time. Maybe she regrets it now, and that's sad, but I seriously doubt nobody "warned" her. I had just turned 20 when the questions about when I was going to have kids started, and I still get asked and hints about it on a regular basis from various people.

Thaluikhain:

veloper:
We shouldn't turn back the clock, but I believe the clock will be turned back regardless of what we want.

Marriage as an institution is a proven and highly effective way to increase human reproduction. It isn't necessarily nice, but nice doesn't always work.
It appears that the crueler you implement the old ways, including forced marriages, severe inequalities and prohibitions on contraception, the more babies will pop out.

It's a winning strategy from a tribal perspective. Doesn't help when everyone is adopting it, but will ensure the eventual elimination of those parallel cultures that won't (unless they adopt other extreme measures). Oh well...apres moi le deluge.

Currently, nations that have a lower birth rate tend to be dominating the ones with a higher rate, as a rule, and people moving to those nations adopt a lower birth rate within a few generations.

The US is certainly messing with some poorer nations, but what's less wealth in the grand scheme of things? Survival and reproduction is what it all boils down to in the end. If the US didn't play the silly regime change game, the local leaders would just have to pick up the slack and create more misery and suffering by themselves.

I guess it's not unreasonable to suppose immigrants may integrate eventually and adopt lower birth rates, but then they too would just be replaced by new immigrants eventually.

Saelune:
Import people? Us? That the government is trying so hard to keep people out alone suggests we aren't low on people.

Jeb! would disagree as he stated as much when I saw him on the campaign trail. He said we need immigration due to our "demographics" problems.

I'm writing I do not think a successful modern society should have to import people to survive but remove the blocks to family formation and have a populace that has their own kids.

And marriage =/= kids. And married couples don't automatically make the best parents, especially if they aren't happy together.

Pre-1970, I intuit, it was extremely likely that marriage resulted in children. Just not always. Not sure what the stats are now.

Phasmal:

Marriage and kids are entirely separate, I have no idea why you keep conflating them. People do not have chastity belts you need to insert a wedding ring to open.
It's more and more acceptable now to have children outside of marriage. You need to make sure you're not just thinking "this is different to how I grew up and therefore WRONG".
I've been in a serious relationship for years and years. Marriage is not the only thing that makes something serious.

As written above, pre 1970 one would think the vast majority of marriages resulted in kids. Dunno about today but I'd think it still most mixed sex marriages result in kids. Not sure the likelihood of same sex making arrangements to acquire and raise kids if married vs. not.

Also there are numerous studies showing the positive effect marriage has on kids.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9139483/Marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-Government-says.html

As a woman, allow me to lol. I guarantee you that woman was told a million times to settle down and have kids. She didn't want to at the time. Maybe she regrets it now, and that's sad, but I seriously doubt nobody "warned" her. I had just turned 20 when the questions about when I was going to have kids started, and I still get asked and hints about it on a regular basis from various people.

Maybe we need to take heed of such people then... publicize more what happens. I'd like to know WHY she ignored people telling her to settle down, get married and have kids. My most important concern: Did she think there would always be time to do so later? If not, then, we all make choices we regret. But if so, there needs to be more publicity that this is likely incorrect.

EDIT: ODD. I typed into Norton Safe-Search search engine, "how often do married couples have children" and the entire 1st page of results is about how often they have sex after kids! Not what I'd asked.

Gorfias:

As written above, pre 1970 one would think the vast majority of marriages resulted in kids. Dunno about today but I'd think it still most mixed sex marriages result in kids. Not sure the likelihood of same sex making arrangements to acquire and raise kids if married vs. not.

Well, it's not pre 1970 now. I don't know what the numbers are either but there are still plenty of children about. The act of putting a ring on a finger is pretty separate from the whole sperm meeting egg thing.

Gorfias:

Maybe we need to take heed of such people then... publicize more what happens. I'd like to know WHY she ignored people telling her to settle down, get married and have kids. My most important concern: Did she think there would always be time to do so later? If not, then, we all make choices we regret. But if so, there needs to be more publicity that this is likely incorrect.

I'm not about to drop my entire life to have a baby right now because hey my mum would really love another grandbaby. So, no, we shouldn't heed such people. She probably ignored them because she didn't want to do it at that time. It's sad that she regrets it now, but that kind of thing happens.
People are aware that you aren't fertile forever, but I do believe they should be in control of when they have kids and women don't really need more societal pressure to have babies- there's enough around, trust me.

Gorfias:
I'm writing I do not think a successful modern society should have to import people to survive but remove the blocks to family formation and have a populace that has their own kids.

About 1/4 of Australian citizens were born overseas, not seeing an issue myself.

Silentpony:
Yeah I just think its going to be the end of marriage and husbands. Its just no longer worth it. If a marriage is built on mutual respect, then in a few years not a single husband will be able to say they feel respected by their spouse.

Its the inevitable end. If an entire branch of the control left preaches that men are the root of all evil, then it won't come as a surprise men just decide not to deal with that shit.

Well that's a massive oversimplification if I've ever seen one. And it's gonna kill marriage? Let's tone down on the hyperbole please. "Not a single husband," because all women apparently hate men. And apparently gay couples don't exist anymore.

Gorfias:

Maybe we need to take heed of such people then... publicize more what happens. I'd like to know WHY she ignored people telling her to settle down, get married and have kids. My most important concern: Did she think there would always be time to do so later? If not, then, we all make choices we regret. But if so, there needs to be more publicity that this is likely incorrect.

Oh my god do you know any women?

Personally, I'm planning to get married (tho not to a dude, and certain people in this thread are making me super happy I'm not into men... Straight relationships sound horrible the way you talk about them) I know I'll never have kids. Not because I'd never want them but because of health issues and simply not being able to afford it.

Lieju:
Oh my god do you know any women?

I can see what he means and I assure you I know plenty of women. Many are thoroughly convinced they can have everything - wild and unstable romantic relationships, a top notch career, plenty of free time and fun, the ability to act spontaneously, security in the family and workplace... In fact, they're not only convinced they can have it all, they're convinced they must have it all because that is the standard the world is apparently setting for them (see my other post in this thread). This is by no means limited to women but in their case it often means they end up missing out on a stable family life because they were too busy being wild and free, or they miss out on being wild and free because they built a family. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned by her own decisions.

Phasmal:
I'm not about to drop my entire life to have a baby right now because hey my mum would really love another grandbaby. So, no, we shouldn't heed such people. She probably ignored them because she didn't want to do it at that time. It's sad that she regrets it now, but that kind of thing happens.
People are aware that you aren't fertile forever, but I do believe they should be in control of when they have kids and women don't really need more societal pressure to have babies- there's enough around, trust me.

And how many of those that are around were planned and wanted? The overwhelming majority of women I know who have children didn't plan to have them (at least not "so early!") and its not like I exclusively hang around people from the ghetto. A decline in population numbers would be a lovely thing indeed if we could stop artificially ramping them up instead by means of mass immigration, but you're missing something here, namely that unfortunately people who become parents despite not planning to have children tend to make shittier parents.

I'd argue we don't necessarily need societal pressure on women to have babies, but we should have societal pressure on women to learn to be proper mothers.

You know, I know lot of very nice straight people and many very happy straight couples but every time I run into threads like this I suddenly become super happy I'm a lesbian.

 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