'Boy crisis' threatens America's future with economic, health and suicide risks

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I will argue that registering the draft of today, was different than the draft back then, and if people of today who seem on board lived back then, when they were drafting for WW2 or Vietnam, I think they would sing a different tune.

We live in a current Society of Comforts of not really worrying about those things really transpiring. But good on them regardless.
Just because the draft hasn't been needed for 46 years doesn't mean it won't ever be needed again. Yes, technology has changed, but whichever side is losing the technological war will absolutely need to enact it because the only alternative will be extinction.
 

DeepEnigma

Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,638
14,381
585
Just because the draft hasn't been needed for 46 years doesn't mean it won't ever be needed again. Yes, technology has changed, but whichever side is losing the technological war will absolutely need to enact it because the only alternative will be extinction.
All I'm saying, is there's a difference between saying you'll register for a draft during draft season, versus the luxury of having it be totally alien to the society you currently live in. Now with that said, as he mentioned, people in the Midwest tend to have more Constitutional patriotism as well.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
All I'm saying, is there's a difference between saying you'll register for a draft during draft season, versus the luxury of having it be totally alien to the society you currently live in. Now with that said, as he mentioned, people in the Midwest tend to have more Constitutional patriotism as well.
Absolutely, which is why the people looking back on the first wave of feminism through the comfort of the modern lens give it far too much credit. They miss the fact that the first wave of feminism campaigned for the right to vote without the reciprocal responsibility of the draft at a time when it was in frequent use. It is and always has been an utterly selfish ideology based on a lie (patriarchy theory).

My key point here is that all adult citizens, whatever the legal age is in the particular region, should have the right to decide the direction of their country via the vote. BUT, if we are guaranteeing this under the guise of "equality", they must also be willing to defend their country when required. I don't think anyone who is unwilling to defend their country should have the right to decide its direction. It's ultimately about accountability for consequences that you took part in causing.
 
Last edited:

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
261
24
970
Yes, definitely. I can’t think of a valid reason why women should vote. The exercise of power in the public sphere is male by its very nature. Not to mention that no society that cannot reproduce itself should be doing anything but raising fertility. We don’t even need any crazy “Handmaids Tale” scenario to make that happen, just to return the sexes to the channels they have occupied for 99.9% of human history.



And they value security over all else. Which is proper for mothering but not for running a society. I have heard it said that if society were run by women, and they came to a river, they simply would have given up and stayed on the one side. Every bridge on this planet has been built by men. It is the male that strives for greatness and growth.
What about all the women in government positions? Can they still be in the board room or in other positions of power? How do you suppose a smooth transition that wouldn’t have a negative affect on our institutions and economy?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
What about all the women in government positions? Can they still be in the board room or in other positions of power? How do you suppose a smooth transition that wouldn’t have a negative affect on our institutions and economy?
It’s not possible to halve your workforce and expect to survive in the competitive global marketplace. Even if we decided as a culture that we wanted women to stay at home, it would ruin our economy because any other country that decided not to would be at an enormous productivity advantage.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
What about all the women in government positions? Can they still be in the board room or in other positions of power? How do you suppose a smooth transition that wouldn’t have a negative affect on our institutions and economy?
Why would they need to be? They should be in traditional roles, leaving those positions open for men. I don't know about the transition, I am sure it would be pretty difficult. It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. We could start by eliminating abortion, no-fault divorce, wage equality laws, women in the military, all family leave provisions, etc. Maybe a heavy tax on female work outside the home, along with HUGE tax credits for children, as long as the mother does not work.

It’s not possible to halve your workforce and expect to survive in the competitive global marketplace. Even if we decided as a culture that we wanted women to stay at home, it would ruin our economy because any other country that decided not to would be at an enormous productivity advantage.
Doubling the workforce had a correspondingly terrible long-term impact on wages. It destroyed a man's ability to support a family, aided of course by the decline of heavy manufacturing.
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
Who cares.
Why would they need to be? They should be in traditional roles, leaving those positions open for men. I don't know about the transition, I am sure it would be pretty difficult. It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. We could start by eliminating abortion, no-fault divorce, wage equality laws, women in the military, all family leave provisions, etc. Maybe a heavy tax on female work outside the home, along with HUGE tax credits for children, as long as the mother does not work.



Doubling the workforce had a correspondingly terrible long-term impact on wages. It destroyed a man's ability to support a family, aided of course by the decline of heavy manufacturing.
Says who?

Doubling the workforce ushered in more wealth and diversified skill sets leading to more productivity on top of that.

Technology has damaged a man's ability to support a family.

Money going to the top disproportionately has damaged a man's ability to support a family.

Women have to work due to our capitalistic system.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
583
893
240
We could start by eliminating abortion, no-fault divorce, wage equality laws, women in the military, all family leave provisions, etc.
Agreed. Revoking each of these is a solid policy position, but will be called reactionary because no one can see the way each of these things functions today:

- abortion - distorts the dating market dramatically, by divorcing sexual activity from its consequences; more damningly, it teaches men that the child is strictly a part of the woman's body, so they will have zero reason to respect her potential for life, nor to care at all about supporting her in the case of pregnancy, since making the decision to terminate solely her private matter also makes the decision to have the child solely an expression of her will

- no-fault divorce - this disastrous bit of social engineering cheapens the value of all marriages, by teaching it as a contract with no substance whatsoever. No longer is it a violation of the public nature of that pact when someone breaches a marriage... now it's simply a meaningless drift of whim and feelings. No one can respect the matter of marriage under those circumstances; and men, for instance, have every incentive never to invest in their wives when the law teaches she is merely connected by a choice that can evaporate at any moment

- wage equality laws - these are just a mess, and it's already well documented elsewhere that they aren't generally addressing a real gap so much as covering over differences in preferences & abilities, and trying to trying to create a leveled world in which certain types of positions--often those requiring heavy investment of free hours taken by ambitious men--are not paid any higher than others

- women in the military - this just again teaches that men's longstanding recognition of their duty to protect women & children as a higher good in times of danger is no longer meaningful, and that has consequences across the board in how we all view crisis

- family leave provisions - this might seem like a good, pro-family kind of thing--and there are ways to do it that are better than others, and that help with falling birth rates--but the core problem is that this kind of thing has become so standard that mutual dependence is no longer an organically binding force in families, which is terrible for the social fabric. It's important that the costs of having a child are shared, not outsourced so that one doesn't see the moral necessity of both parents involvement for all families
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
Who cares.


Says who?

Doubling the workforce ushered in more wealth and diversified skill sets leading to more productivity on top of that.

Technology has damaged a man's ability to support a family.

Money going to the top disproportionately has damaged a man's ability to support a family.

Women have to work due to our capitalistic system.
Employers in certain industries actively sought women for the purpose of driving down wages. You cannot double the workforce and not depress wages, that is a simple Econ 101 level calculation.

Technology has added to it, of course. Which I did mention.

Women don't have to work due to "capitalism." This is a policy choice we make. Supporters of bad status quo situations always try to pretend that change is impossible. It is not, humanity thrived for millennia without trying to make women into men.
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
Employers in certain industries actively sought women for the purpose of driving down wages. You cannot double the workforce and not depress wages, that is a simple Econ 101 level calculation.
Not really. Supply / Demand. If you double the workforce and demand still isn't met, wages will rise. At some point like during slow growth or a recession there would be more supply, but at that point the old workforce population wouldn't be satisfying enough.

Women don't have to work due to "capitalism." This is a policy choice we make. Supporters of bad status quo situations always try to pretend that change is impossible. It is not, humanity thrived for millennia without trying to make women into men.
We are in a different system now. What used to be is gone and can't come back. Nor do I desire it. Us men just need to rise, if some of us are falling.
 
Last edited:

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
Not really. Supply / Demand. If you double the workforce and demand still isn't met, wages will rise. At some point like during slow growth or a recession there would be more supply, but at that point the old workforce population wouldn't be satisfying enough.



We are in a different system now. What used to be is gone and can't come back. Nor do I desire it. Us men just need to rise, if some of us are falling.
You have a very naive and unrealistic understanding of the world. When employers bring in employees to fulfill a quota, that employee is not going to be paid at a competitive rate and will accept any offer. That is the result of hiring people without merit. It lowers the pay for jobs because the best candidates aren't competing.

In a real world scenario, that is what is happening with many businesses. Rather than pay for a full time employee, businesses are resorting to temp/contract workers, workers who will not dare negotiate their pay or work conditions. It depresses wages for certain industries, mainly service and low skilled jobs.

Think of it this way, if an employer was mandated by law to bring in certain percentage of x category of employees, they will not be looking for the most qualified or best fit, they will simply look to fill a quota. When talent/skillset are not considered, but merely the characteristics such as race/gender/age, wages are not going to be a top priority to be considered either.
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
20,642
1,025
1,030
NYC
The point at which life expectancies begin to decline because of overdoses and suicides is the point at which something should probably be done.

I don't know what your third paragraph is getting at, because I can't imagine anyone here would propose women may no longer turn down dates or refuse breeding. I'm tired of seeing paper tigers like this being raised because it completely derails the discussion on important issues.

The problem is clearly cultural, not political, and the solution is for more middle of the road people to start calling out how insane and destructive this behavior is, which corporations like Gillette are now obsessed with soap boxing. It would also be nice if the advocacy journalists would stop vilifying people like Sam Harris or Bill Maher whenever they try to self police on the left.
I have a solution. Let's point our fingers at women and say "HEY, GO AND LIKE THAT BOY. IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU HE IS SO SAD. HE'S A GOOD BOY GO KISS HIM NOW!!"

We do this to about a million women, I think we can turn this ship around in probably 6 months.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I have a solution. Let's point our fingers at women and say "HEY, GO AND LIKE THAT BOY. IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU HE IS SO SAD. HE'S A GOOD BOY GO KISS HIM NOW!!"

We do this to about a million women, I think we can turn this ship around in probably 6 months.
God damn this is a shit take
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
20,642
1,025
1,030
NYC
You recognize you're the only person saying this, yes?
Yes. What I was trying to say with my last post on the first page ("LOL u can't just keep chasing a girl after she's rejected u") was that I don't think it's any use trying to influence people into behaving how you see fit. Whether it's getting someone to like you, or getting married people to stay together so that the dad can have influence on his child.

I personally agree that a child should have both parents present. I think father involvement is powerful. But actually getting a million people to feel the same is just not happening. That's why I'm finding this interesting along with all the other things going on. There's only one way forward and I'm hoping for the best.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
982
645
240
deaftourette.com
Yes, definitely. I can’t think of a valid reason why women should vote. The exercise of power in the public sphere is male by its very nature. Not to mention that no society that cannot reproduce itself should be doing anything but raising fertility. We don’t even need any crazy “Handmaids Tale” scenario to make that happen, just to return the sexes to the channels they have occupied for 99.9% of human history.



And they value security over all else. Which is proper for mothering but not for running a society. I have heard it said that if society were run by women, and they came to a river, they simply would have given up and stayed on the one side. Every bridge on this planet has been built by men. It is the male that strives for greatness and growth.
*Jaw drops*

This ... I have no words.
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
20,642
1,025
1,030
NYC
Yes, definitely. I can’t think of a valid reason why women should vote. The exercise of power in the public sphere is male by its very nature. Not to mention that no society that cannot reproduce itself should be doing anything but raising fertility. We don’t even need any crazy “Handmaids Tale” scenario to make that happen, just to return the sexes to the channels they have occupied for 99.9% of human history.



And they value security over all else. Which is proper for mothering but not for running a society. I have heard it said that if society were run by women, and they came to a river, they simply would have given up and stayed on the one side. Every bridge on this planet has been built by men. It is the male that strives for greatness and growth.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
982
645
240
deaftourette.com
Look, I disagree with him, but I at least did him the courtesy of explaining why. Can you spare the outrage theatrics and do the same?
You gotta admit it was funny ... LOL!

But seriously...

I will have something to say in the morning... I am up WAY past my bedtime having responded to someone about police shootings and breaking down how their argument was full of holes. That was exhausting because I've already had a long day at work. I'll break his argument down as well.

BTW ... Do Americans ever ask you some stereotypical thing about Australia like "Do you lot cook shrimp on the barbie?" or something?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
You gotta admit it was funny ... LOL!

But seriously...

I will have something to say in the morning... I am up WAY past my bedtime having responded to someone about police shootings and breaking down how their argument was full of holes. That was exhausting because I've already had a long day at work. I'll break his argument down as well.

BTW ... Do Americans ever ask you some stereotypical thing about Australia like "Do you lot cook shrimp on the barbie?" or something?
When you do reply, can you please do so in the context of the draft? Also consider that at the time of the women’s suffrage movement, the draft was in frequent use and the right to vote came without the responsibility of defending the country should the vote steer it in the wrong direction. If you can reconcile that and still conclude that it was about equality, you win the prize.

Yep, you seppos say it all the time. We don’t even call them shrimp, we call them prawns. Hoges trolled the fuck outta you lot 😂
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
You have a very naive and unrealistic understanding of the world. When employers bring in employees to fulfill a quota, that employee is not going to be paid at a competitive rate and will accept any offer. That is the result of hiring people without merit. It lowers the pay for jobs because the best candidates aren't competing.

In a real world scenario, that is what is happening with many businesses. Rather than pay for a full time employee, businesses are resorting to temp/contract workers, workers who will not dare negotiate their pay or work conditions. It depresses wages for certain industries, mainly service and low skilled jobs.

Think of it this way, if an employer was mandated by law to bring in certain percentage of x category of employees, they will not be looking for the most qualified or best fit, they will simply look to fill a quota. When talent/skillset are not considered, but merely the characteristics such as race/gender/age, wages are not going to be a top priority to be considered either.
This doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps you quoted the wrong person.
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
When you do reply, can you please do so in the context of the draft? Also consider that at the time of the women’s suffrage movement, the draft was in frequent use and the right to vote came without the responsibility of defending the country should the vote steer it in the wrong direction. If you can reconcile that and still conclude that it was about equality, you win the prize.

Yep, you seppos say it all the time. We don’t even call them shrimp, we call them prawns. Hoges trolled the fuck outta you lot 😂
I always ask Aussies about Crocodile Dundee when I run into them. I learned from them a few years ago that IRL he was a tax cheat and got into trouble. Did some jail time I think.

My cousin married a New Zealander. Nice guy. But he never shuts up about the "All Blacks." If you get him started he can go on and on for hours and will even sit you down and start showing you stuff about the "All Blacks" on Youtube. I did in once when he was new in the family (they live here), I asked him about the sweet jersey he was wearing because I didn't recognize it, and he was off to the races.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
31,210
2,089
1,000
one of my first bans here was for being critical of the shit hole policy that is affirmative action

good times
 

DeepEnigma

Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,638
14,381
585
When you do reply, can you please do so in the context of the draft? Also consider that at the time of the women’s suffrage movement, the draft was in frequent use and the right to vote came without the responsibility of defending the country should the vote steer it in the wrong direction. If you can reconcile that and still conclude that it was about equality, you win the prize.

Yep, you seppos say it all the time. We don’t even call them shrimp, we call them prawns. Hoges trolled the fuck outta you lot 😂
Don't forget their (wealthy) sisters that would harass young men and boys, and shame them for not signing up to fight in a war, sending them off to potentially die. Lovely lasses they were.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
Women got right to vote all across the globe.
Men got right to vote several decades earlier (in some countries, only later, together with women)
Neither had anything to do with feminism (for starters, majority of US women was against)

In my humble opinion (and somewhat ironically) biology is largely at play here.
Women are more valuable than men (reproduction).
We naturally protect women more.
We might even naturally hate and despise "incels" (men at the bottom of the pyramid) as they are mostly useless to us and compassion should be reserved to where it could benefit the society.

So there is "let's protect our women" need, strong in both women and men.
Pardon my cynism, but while unfair, it's the more effective concept for our species.
We won't send females to risk their lives as easiy as we send men, ever.

It got arguably problematic when you mixed in the likes of Andrea Dworkin (male-female sex is rape, if man had an erection; sex is bad; Feminist Sex Wars) then you have Sally Miller Gearhart, founder of Gender Studies, propose reducing population of men to 10%.
And then you have University Prof in all seriousness asking why she can't hate men, and another insisting "due process" is an invention of patriarchy and should be dismantled.

Obesity is good, smoking when pregnant is no problem, abortion 9 month into pregnancy is no big deal, and let's call unborn "fetus" to feel better about it. Yay.
 
Last edited:

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
5,324
1,302
410
Old fashioned values need to become fashionable again. Mother, father, marriage, depth of feeling over being impulse driven etc – all that stuff that used to result in the strong family units which helped people to escape long-term poverty needs to come back.
Unfortunately, you're less likely to find today's career-driven, power-hungry young women agreeing that this is the best way forward.
It's no surprise that these sort of women are often at the forefront of the “toxic masculinity” narrative.
 
Last edited:

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
2,472
439
340
This is very interesting and entertaining to me. I like to look at things from a clouds eye point of view, just like someone looking at an ant hill observing an ant society.

Is this phenomenon something that calls for a solution? Or should it be left alone?

I'm a believer that if you ask a girl out and she says no, then it means no and she is no longer worth pursuing. Because the answer is clear. For females to lead such successful lives without the need for men and bear children is their choice. I think people should be free to choose how they wanna lead their lives. But if a woman reaches a point where she is no longer favorable in a man's eyes then I just see that as someone weeding themselves out. People who are in their right mind deserve what they work for and people in their right mind deserve the kind of lives they want to live.

There are plenty men out there that are doing fine for themselves relationship wise despite many who need God Jordan Peterson in their lives. Likewise for women. It is a funny time to be alive with a lot of bizarre things happening but I see it as a messy hiccup that is slowly self-adjusting itself. It will level out eventually and there absolutely will be changes.

There is a beautiful quote from Jordan Peterson on one of his latest instagram posts:

"We require routine and tradition. That’s order. Order can become excessive, and that’s not good, but chaos can swamp us, so we drown— and that is also not good. We need to stay on the straight and narrow path. "

This post is all over the place. On one part you seem to just want to watch the boys crisis continue. On the next part you turn it to completely about women and just sound like you've been hurt. Then you ridicule folks for following Peterson and then use your favorite quote of his.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
Women got right to vote all across the globe.
Men got right to vote several decades earlier (in some countries, only later, together with women)
Neither had anything to do with feminism (for starters, majority of US women was against)

In my humble opinion (and somewhat ironically) biology is largely at play here.
Women are more valuable than men (reproduction).
We naturally protect women more.
We might even naturally hate and despise "incels" (men at the bottom of the pyramid) as they are mostly useless to us and compassion should be reserved to where it could benefit the society.

So there is "let's protect our women" need, strong in both women and men.
Pardon my cynism, but while unfair, it's the more effective concept for our species.
We won't send females to risk their lives as easiy as we send men, ever.

It got arguably problematic when you mixed in the likes of Andrea Dworkin (male-female sex is rape, if man had an erection; sex is bad; Feminist Sex Wars) then you have Sally Miller Gearhart, founder of Gender Studies, propose reducing population of men to 10%.
And then you have University Prof in all seriousness asking why she can't hate men, and another insisting "due process" is an invention of patriarchy and should be dismantled.

Obesity is good, smoking when pregnant is no problem, abortion 9 month into pregnancy is no big deal, and let's call unborn "fetus" to feel better about it. Yay.
Yes, exactly. Our entire existence revolves around protecting women. Men are literally expected to sacrifice their lives to protect women. It’s why the concept of male privilege is so ludicrous. That perception can only develop when times are so peaceful that perspective is lost and women no longer appreciate or even need protection. When that perspective isn’t there, they don’t realise how difficult the world really has been for the majority of men for the majority of history. Then it starts to look really nice to be a man, so they start demanding all the benefits that men have with none of the responsibilities. The next major war will be the shit test for the feminist ideology. Then we’ll see how serious they are about doing anything men can.
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
20,642
1,025
1,030
NYC
This post is all over the place. On one part you seem to just want to watch the boys crisis continue. On the next part you turn it to completely about women and just sound like you've been hurt. Then you ridicule folks for following Peterson and then use your favorite quote of his.
No no get it straight, friendo.

I don't want to watch any crisis continue. I feel for the boys who are in trouble and I think Peterson is doing a great job as acting like a "pocket" dad. "despite many who need God Jordan Peterson in their lives." It's a bit of humor. My post is hectic to reflect the current situation.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,978
15,210
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Yes, exactly. Our entire existence revolves around protecting women. Men are literally expected to sacrifice their lives to protect women. It’s why the concept of male privilege is so ludicrous. That perception can only develop when times are so peaceful that perspective is lost and women no longer appreciate or even need protection. When that perspective isn’t there, they don’t realise how difficult the world really has been for the majority of men for the majority of history. Then it starts to look really nice to be a man, so they start demanding all the benefits that men have with none of the responsibilities. The next major war will be the shit test for the feminist ideology. Then we’ll see how serious they are about doing anything men can.
As a male, I demand war reparations from all females, who must serve a minimum of 4 years in an active military branch before being granted the right to vote or run for office. This is to compensate for the 1000s of years where men have fought and died in defense of their country's ideologies and freedoms.

(see how stupefying and evil it all sounds when applied in favor of a male issue? That's why this Identity Politics stuff needs to be mocked out of existence)
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
As a male, I demand war reparations from all females, who must serve a minimum of 4 years in an active military branch before being granted the right to vote or run for office. This is to compensate for the 1000s of years where men have fought and died in defense of their country's ideologies and freedoms.

(see how stupefying and evil it all sounds when applied in favor of a male issue? That's why this Identity Politics stuff needs to be mocked out of existence)
😂

I just want the vote to be tied to the draft, even if it’s just symbolic in this era of peace. You want the right to decide the direction of the country? No worries, but you must accept the responsibility of defending it if your vote steers it in the wrong direction.
 

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
2,472
439
340
No no get it straight, friendo.

I don't want to watch any crisis continue. I feel for the boys who are in trouble and I think Peterson is doing a great job as acting like a "pocket" dad. "despite many who need God Jordan Peterson in their lives." It's a bit of humor. My post is hectic to reflect the current situation.
I see. Well I don't think much will come about from any research on the male crisis since men are suppose to be able to handle everything that life throws at them. Even if someone did try to focus on helping men they would just be accused of being sexist or mysognistic and then folks would try to shut down the organization for not helping women most likely.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I see. Well I don't think much will come about from any research on the male crisis since men are suppose to be able to handle everything that life throws at them. Even if someone did try to focus on helping men they would just be accused of being sexist or mysognistic and then folks would try to shut down the organization for not helping women most likely.
Literally happened to Erin Pizzey
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,767
385
😂

I just want the vote to be tied to the draft, even if it’s just symbolic in this era of peace. You want the right to decide the direction of the country? No worries, but you must accept the responsibility of defending it if your vote steers it in the wrong direction.
For your consideration:
Anyone can earn the privilege to vote, but it must be earned. The earning will be tailored to the individual to some degree - a handicapped person wouldn't be asked to do military service, for example, but something similarly challenging. The challenge would likely be life threatening, as in military. Probably also civics education.

All other people have full rights and privileges other than voting and can choose to earn their vote at any time. Only one chance though... quit and you're permanently back to citizen.

No law could target this group alone - that is, those who earn the vote can not vote into law anything that impacts only them or only nonvoters. Complete equality except for the ability to vote.

All due credit and respects to Robert Heinlein on this one.

As we move forward and I see everything moving in the opposite direction, with Democrats talking about extending voting rights to 16 year olds, illegal immigrants, and felons in prison, something like this in the opposite direction makes more and more sense to me.

People misunderstand the history of voting. It was only tied to gender in the loosest sense. That is, voting rights were generally given to males because males fought in wars. The responsibilities of property ownership also came into play. it wasn't that the woman didn't get a vote so much as the household was getting a vote, and men, as protector, were considered head of household. Viewing that through the modern lense of patriachry ignores that back then, and even today, women often controlled the purse strings [heck, nowadays women spend more and vote more... we are very, very bad at patriaching].

But back to my point, voting was directly tied to responsibility. It wasnt tied to the idealistic idea that everyone has a voice in govt, it was that those who shed blood and risk death for their country get a vote. And maybe that makes sense. I dont know. It makes more sense to me than illegal immigrants voting.

I have a hard time being completely for it because I'm an anarchist/minarchist at heart [though not in practice, because, well, people] and dont like authoritarian governments [aka governments]. But it seems to me those who earn it makes sense, and might provide a buffer of sanity. Or maybe it would backfire. Not that that ever stopped someone from designing a government before.
 
Last edited:

NahaNago

Member
Aug 29, 2014
2,472
439
340
Literally happened to Erin Pizzey
Reading up a little bit about her views and history is fascinating. Her not getting funding for the refuge for men is I would consider normal since like most men would expect you to help yourself or laugh at you for needing a shelter for abuse. The whole refuge not hiring men to work inside makes some sense if the woman can't emotionally deal with any men but it kinda feels like they are making all men out to be monsters at the same time.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
803
853
250
The propaganda machine tells them they should be ashamed of being white boys, and wants them turned into soy-boys, at best. How is this not illegal?
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
It became sort of a joke at the time, but I actually thought the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was really enlightening. Just in the way it posited that men and women communicate differently and that is a source of stress in a lot of marriages.

But it seems that now the ways that the book described male behavior and communication are just taken as "toxic" and the weight of conforming to the "Venusian" pattern of behavior is on men. Some male individuals have no problem with it, but many simply can't.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,978
15,210
665
USA
dunpachi.com
It became sort of a joke at the time, but I actually thought the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was really enlightening. Just in the way it posited that men and women communicate differently and that is a source of stress in a lot of marriages.

But it seems that now the ways that the book described male behavior and communication are just taken as "toxic" and the weight of conforming to the "Venusian" pattern of behavior is on men. Some male individuals have no problem with it, but many simply can't.
I think exploring those ideas is necessary. The male/female relationship has been a central piece of human art and literature since forever. It's obviously a relationship that our species is faced with on a regular basis.

Even if those books got something wrong or stepped over a line somewhere, it is better than our modern alternative. Back then, there was exploration and conversation and comedy over the differences. Yes, plenty of arguments and browbeating too. Nowadays, it is a religious cult: you need to sit down and listen to specific identity group (with an ideologue as the not-actually-designated mouthpiece) and do what you are told. There is no conversation, no critique, and therefore no true progress. This is why they're called the "regressive Left" by some, because we are regressing.

It is the domineering "no, you will do it the way I say" that I cannot tolerate. I bristle against that sort of false authority.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,767
385
But it seems that now the ways that the book described male behavior and communication are just taken as "toxic" and the weight of conforming to the "Venusian" pattern of behavior is on men. Some male individuals have no problem with it, but many simply can't.
It's become very clear to me that, regarding workplace behavior, many women have no interest in 'meeting halfway' in developing any sort of new dynamics, but rather want everything to be rewritten completely for them.

This is true both for general interactions [hence sexist terms like mansplaining to cow men into silence], and systemically [like this odd push to take negotiation out of salary I've started gearing about].

I had a conversation recently with a friend who was upset she didn't get a promotion, and that some guy she thought was terrible did. I'm very careful in conversations like that.. I try to speak my mind without burning bridges. I asked if she had ever told her boss she even wanted the new job... no. She didnt even ask for it! That pivoted into a talk about being aggressive, but I couldn't get past her general opinion that any insinuation she should change [be more aggressive, etc] was sexist, even when politely pointing out she was literally asking everyone else to bend to her silent will.

Regarding boys, I've got one. I'm ignoring all the nonsense out there and raising him to be strong, independent, etc. Raising my daughter the same way. Hopefully all this intersectionalism blows over before he's old enough to notice, and if not she will rule the world, problem solved.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
Yes, exactly. Our entire existence revolves around protecting women. Men are literally expected to sacrifice their lives to protect women. It’s why the concept of male privilege is so ludicrous. That perception can only develop when times are so peaceful that perspective is lost and women no longer appreciate or even need protection. When that perspective isn’t there, they don’t realise how difficult the world really has been for the majority of men for the majority of history. Then it starts to look really nice to be a man, so they start demanding all the benefits that men have with none of the responsibilities. The next major war will be the shit test for the feminist ideology. Then we’ll see how serious they are about doing anything men can.
i think it isn't black and white and that is why one is actually able to twist it around.
Bottom of our social pyramid is filled with men.
But so is the top.
Put into focus whatever you like and get conclusions you like.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,421
4,066
710
theconclave.net
It is our inherent nature to learn at an early age through aping those around us, so it's important that there are positive role models in your life that you can learn to build off of in terms of attitudes, behaviours, mindsets and values which eventually you can morph into your own to pass on to others. Without positive role models, you are inherently at a disadvantage in life in all manner of ways, and the world, unfortunately, is largely indifferent to those who silently fall by the wayside.
 
May 22, 2018
4,461
3,540
265
Yes, definitely. I can’t think of a valid reason why women should vote. The exercise of power in the public sphere is male by its very nature. Not to mention that no society that cannot reproduce itself should be doing anything but raising fertility. We don’t even need any crazy “Handmaids Tale” scenario to make that happen, just to return the sexes to the channels they have occupied for 99.9% of human history.



And they value security over all else. Which is proper for mothering but not for running a society. I have heard it said that if society were run by women, and they came to a river, they simply would have given up and stayed on the one side. Every bridge on this planet has been built by men. It is the male that strives for greatness and growth.
What in the actual fuck is this bullshit? This is beyond the pale. This is just straight up old fashioned sexism. You are not even trying to hide it.
 

Razvedka

Neo Member
Oct 20, 2018
47
40
90
Women got right to vote all across the globe.
Men got right to vote several decades earlier (in some countries, only later, together with women)
Neither had anything to do with feminism (for starters, majority of US women was against)

In my humble opinion (and somewhat ironically) biology is largely at play here.
Women are more valuable than men (reproduction).
We naturally protect women more.
We might even naturally hate and despise "incels" (men at the bottom of the pyramid) as they are mostly useless to us and compassion should be reserved to where it could benefit the society.

So there is "let's protect our women" need, strong in both women and men.
Pardon my cynism, but while unfair, it's the more effective concept for our species.
We won't send females to risk their lives as easiy as we send men, ever.

It got arguably problematic when you mixed in the likes of Andrea Dworkin (male-female sex is rape, if man had an erection; sex is bad; Feminist Sex Wars) then you have Sally Miller Gearhart, founder of Gender Studies, propose reducing population of men to 10%.
And then you have University Prof in all seriousness asking why she can't hate men, and another insisting "due process" is an invention of patriarchy and should be dismantled.

Obesity is good, smoking when pregnant is no problem, abortion 9 month into pregnancy is no big deal, and let's call unborn "fetus" to feel better about it. Yay.

Also at play is the Women are Wonderful Effect.

There are several drivers behind women looking out for women, and men looking out for women, but nobody really looking out for men. Even if this sub-cognitive bias isn't overwhelming, over the span of decades within a population of millions it will slowly play out in a way which is (arguably) unsustainable. But everyone involved wants to make women happy.

The USA didn't even have serious labor safety laws until *after* women entered the work force. There are all sorts of very interesting stats like that one sprinkled throughout history which helps paint a particular picture. In the 1960s women began to seriously enter the job market and, almost as if by complete magic, in 1970 OSHA was created.

When I hear that women are 'oppressed' and people are basically out to get them I'm beside myself with disbelief.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Neo Member
Oct 20, 2018
47
40
90
Moms do.
Christina H. Sommers also happens to have 2 sons. :)
While true, this is not encouraging when looking at the 'big picture'. It requires direct 'skin in the game' for anyone to begin to care, like for instance having sons or a male friend/boyfriend/husband/father (etc) being abused or committing suicide.