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

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
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.
No I’m not gonna hide anything . I don’t give a whit about anyone accusing me of “-isms.” That should terrify you shitlibs, straight white men you can’t silence with your usual tactics.

Women and men are not the same. They act differently and society should be structured to account for that. The public sphere is for men. The domestic is for women. Do you want to argue against that? Any argument you make has to account for 99% of human beings, male and female, who have ever walked the planet, disagreeing with you. Good luck.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
No I’m not gonna hide anything . I don’t give a whit about anyone accusing me of “-isms.” That should terrify you shitlibs, straight white men you can’t silence with your usual tactics.

Women and men are not the same. They act differently and society should be structured to account for that. The public sphere is for men. The domestic is for women. Do you want to argue against that? Any argument you make has to account for 99% of human beings, male and female, who have ever walked the planet, disagreeing with you. Good luck.
While true for the vast majority of human history — so vast, in fact, that it has only changed in the last few decades — this kind of thinking is anathema to the doctrines of the modern left, hence the visceral reactions from mental midgets like NI. The public sphere is not a nice place to be during wartime or economic depression, but during peacetime it looks like bloody Candyland. I disagree with you on keeping women out of the public sphere during peacetime, but I think that their emancipation from domestic duties needs to come with an appreciation for the sacrifices, both mortal and economic, that have been made by our ancestors to make it even remotely possible to do away with the historical division of labour.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
No I’m not gonna hide anything . I don’t give a whit about anyone accusing me of “-isms.” That should terrify you shitlibs, straight white men you can’t silence with your usual tactics.

Women and men are not the same. They act differently and society should be structured to account for that. The public sphere is for men. The domestic is for women. Do you want to argue against that? Any argument you make has to account for 99% of human beings, male and female, who have ever walked the planet, disagreeing with you. Good luck.
Nah, I have to agree with N_I here. You are 100% a sexist and an outright daft git. Suggesting that women should "stay at home" and avoid the "public sphere"? You are literally worth of mockery like the average far-left person is as you are just as out of touch with reality as they are.

Yes, women and men are not created equally - but so are men from other men. There are morons and there are geniuses as well as everything in between for both. Are you really going to try and suggest that *you* are smarter than Marie Curie? Stronger than Ronda Rousey? Faster than Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce? Nah, you aren't. So why should anyone listen to you when there are women who are smarter, faster, and stronger than you?
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,057
1,475
230
In an astonishing disclosure about the two greatest dangers to the future of America’s economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell revealed on CBS' "60 Minutes" last month the peril posed by “young males”: young males not looking for work; being addicted to drugs (think opioid crisis); and being unprepared for the transition to technology. Powell posits that this economic problem is also a national security problem. He implies that we ignore this crisis at our own peril. Yet his warning is ignored.
I find this point the most confounding. Males are traditionally the bigger geeks, so in this day of people growing up with tech I find it hard to believe kids are unprepared for tech.

Even people in poverty can muster enough money to get a cellphone and internet service. And somehow young boys aren't in tune with tech??????
 

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
Nah, I have to agree with N_I here. You are 100% a sexist and an outright daft git. Suggesting that women should "stay at home" and avoid the "public sphere"? You are literally worth of mockery like the average far-left person is as you are just as out of touch with reality as they are.

Yes, women and men are not created equally - but so are men from other men. There are morons and there are geniuses as well as everything in between for both. Are you really going to try and suggest that *you* are smarter than Marie Curie? Stronger than Ronda Rousey? Faster than Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce? Nah, you aren't. So why should anyone listen to you when there are women who are smarter, faster, and stronger than you?
The current radical left and all its toxicity(metoo, third gender, x lives matter, open borders, socialism) was embolden and grew because rational people were apathetic and did not take a stance against the ridiculous demands of the lunatics. I think the pushback you are seeing is the natural result of rational people coming to their senses and realizing that the false/deceptive/hypocritical narratives that the radical left have been peddling("empathy", "morality", "fairness") is disingenuous, dangerous and malign.

You can't agree with him on the basis that there is a difference between men and women but still demand equality of outcome. That is simply an oxymoron that accepts the differences between genders but at the same time justifying preferential treatment toward women. Make up your mind by either judging the genders on their merits and abilities or simply say women need preferential treatment. You can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
811
243
375
I find this point the most confounding. Males are traditionally the bigger geeks, so in this day of people growing up with tech I find it hard to believe kids are unprepared for tech.

Even people in poverty can muster enough money to get a cellphone and internet service. And somehow young boys aren't in tune with tech??????
I think the point is that many men have gone into careers that are likely to be killed by tech; hence the "teach coal miners to code" brouhaha. The following generation should be better prepared for tech.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I find this point the most confounding. Males are traditionally the bigger geeks, so in this day of people growing up with tech I find it hard to believe kids are unprepared for tech.

Even people in poverty can muster enough money to get a cellphone and internet service. And somehow young boys aren't in tune with tech??????
He means traditional physical labour jobs being automated out of existence.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
The current radical left and all its toxicity(metoo, third gender, x lives matter, open borders, socialism) was embolden and grew because rational people were apathetic and did not take a stance against the ridiculous demands of the lunatics. I think the pushback you are seeing is the natural result of rational people coming to their senses and realizing that the false/deceptive/hypocritical narratives that the radical left have been peddling("empathy", "morality", "fairness") is disingenuous, dangerous and malign.

You can't agree with him on the basis that there is a difference between men and women but still demand equality of outcome. That is simply an oxymoron that accepts the differences between genders but at the same time justifying preferential treatment toward women. Make up your mind by either judging the genders on their merits and abilities or simply say women need preferential treatment. You can't have it both ways.
If you are referring to N_I, the only thing I agree with him on is that Appaws is a sexist git who believes in archaic nonsense. There is nothing rational with the idea that women should not be in public spheres of influence. That is the opposite of rational.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
2,057
1,475
230
I think the point is that many men have gone into careers that are likely to be killed by tech; hence the "teach coal miners to code" brouhaha. The following generation should be better prepared for tech.
He means traditional physical labour jobs being automated out of existence.
Ahhhhh..... I misinterpreted it as young male students. Not young guys in early stages of a blue collar career.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
Nah, I have to agree with N_I here. You are 100% a sexist and an outright daft git. Suggesting that women should "stay at home" and avoid the "public sphere"? You are literally worth of mockery like the average far-left person is as you are just as out of touch with reality as they are.

Yes, women and men are not created equally - but so are men from other men. There are morons and there are geniuses as well as everything in between for both. Are you really going to try and suggest that *you* are smarter than Marie Curie? Stronger than Ronda Rousey? Faster than Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce? Nah, you aren't. So why should anyone listen to you when there are women who are smarter, faster, and stronger than you?
Launching right in to the "You are an "-ist." Yawn. Call me that all day, it means nothing. I don't know what a "git" is, but you are a jabroni.

You say "stay at home" and avoid the "public sphere" in scare quotes as if those are absolute impossibilities....but why? Through 99% of human history those were the way things were, and all women and men had no problem recognizing that truth.

I am probably stronger than Rhonda Rousey. I am a pretty large and powerful man. She could probably beat me up with speed, but I doubt she could outlift me. But who cares, of course individual talents are strung out along a bell curve. That says absolutely nothing about organizing a good society and recognizing that in order for society to flourish, group characteristics have to be taken into account.

I have met a few women who are smarter than me. In grad school and in law school. I also met many who might not have been smarter IQ wise, but they outworked me and are VASTLY more talented and better lawyers than me. My wife is a doctor. In that sphere, math and science and things like that...she is smarter than me. But nothing about any of that has anything to say about the merits of how the great halves of humanity fit together in order to have quality lives and propagate ourselves into the future.

It is incumbent upon YOU to justify why modernist thinking and egalitarianism is worth it in spite of all its pathologies. I won't be holding my breath for a reasonable answer.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
Launching right in to the "You are an "-ist." Yawn. Call me that all day, it means nothing. I don't know what a "git" is, but you are a jabroni.

You say "stay at home" and avoid the "public sphere" in scare quotes as if those are absolute impossibilities....but why? Through 99% of human history those were the way things were, and all women and men had no problem recognizing that truth.

I am probably stronger than Rhonda Rousey. I am a pretty large and powerful man. She could probably beat me up with speed, but I doubt she could outlift me. But who cares, of course individual talents are strung out along a bell curve. That says absolutely nothing about organizing a good society and recognizing that in order for society to flourish, group characteristics have to be taken into account.

I have met a few women who are smarter than me. In grad school and in law school. I also met many who might not have been smarter IQ wise, but they outworked me and are VASTLY more talented and better lawyers than me. My wife is a doctor. In that sphere, math and science and things like that...she is smarter than me. But nothing about any of that has anything to say about the merits of how the great halves of humanity fit together in order to have quality lives and propagate ourselves into the future.

It is incumbent upon YOU to justify why modernist thinking and egalitarianism is worth it in spite of all its pathologies. I won't be holding my breath for a reasonable answer.
You are unfairly discriminatory against one sex (females) in favour of the other (males). That is the literal definition and something you have stated on multiple occasions now.

What is there to answer? You openly agree that there are women far more intelligent than you, stronger than you, and faster than you - that there are many who are, or that they were far harder than you. Yet, you are so entrenched in this regressive mindset that they should not have any right to say how a country is governed or general influence in the public sphere - despite many of the greatest accomplishments being joint works between men and women, especially in the past century and a half. The discovery of the human genome, the DNA double helix, the understanding of radio activity - that is just within the sciences alone. Not to mention all the other fields such as art, history, or even warfare.

Humanity is more prosperous now than it has ever been with scientific and technological breakthroughs that have re-shaped our species as a whole. Something that required the joint effort between both sexes, not returning to regressive ideologies of centuries past.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
You are unfairly discriminatory against one sex (females) in favour of the other (males). That is the literal definition and something you have stated on multiple occasions now.

What is there to answer? You openly agree that there are women far more intelligent than you, stronger than you, and faster than you - that there are many who are, or that they were far harder than you. Yet, you are so entrenched in this regressive mindset that they should not have any right to say how a country is governed or general influence in the public sphere - despite many of the greatest accomplishments being joint works between men and women, especially in the past century and a half. The discovery of the human genome, the DNA double helix, the understanding of radio activity - that is just within the sciences alone. Not to mention all the other fields such as art, history, or even warfare.

Humanity is more prosperous now than it has ever been with scientific and technological breakthroughs that have re-shaped our species as a whole. Something that required the joint effort between both sexes, not returning to regressive ideologies of centuries past.
Can I try reshaping his argument? It won't be his anymore, and it won't be exactly my position either, but I think I can reformulate it into something perhaps people can discuss without instantly shutting down.

First, I absolutely agree that those women who excel [men, women, whatever] should be given every opportunity. Talent, drive, skill, etc are extremely rare and should be respected and allowed to flourish.

Having said that, there is such a thing as evolutionary biology, and there is a reason men throughout history took leadership positions. To simplify it to a core, simple to understand thesis:

Women bear children, and men evolved to protect. We evolved big heads for our big brains, and take years to walk and communicate, let alone hunt, meaning pregnancy is dangerous and motherhood is commitment [and womens hips are for evolved for birthing, not running]. Men are also far more disposable if a tribe needs to repopulate after conflict.

As such, for millennia men hunted and fought. In addition to explaining our strength and speed advantage, this leads to a direct need to work together. Leaders naturally arise, men that commanded the respect necessary that other men would literally be willing to die for them. There was no room for bad leadership - just look up the original meaning of 'fragging'... men literally kill their own bad leaders because bad leaders get men killed.

This need for natural leadership extends past war. Coal miners. Ship captains. Prison guards. Construction. Hard men leading hard men.

This combines with other natural male traits like aggression. We see these gender differences everywhere - boys generally bully by hitting, girls with gossip. They barter differently. Manipulate differently. This isn't all positive - men take more risks, are more likely to make rash decisions, etc.

None of which means women can't do x, y, or z. Like I said at the beginning, talent and skill and genius should always be recognized and allowed to flourish. But at the same time, we must acknowledge evolutionary biology led us here, and advances that freed women from traditional roles [tampons, birth control, etc] are still a relatively recent invention compared to tens of tens of thousands of years.

We happen to be in relative peacetime [paradoxically marked by endless war]. But at some point we may be called upon to die for our country again. And evolution has a lot to say about that.

It should not be taboo to suggest men may be more likely leaders. Heck, even within men leadership is a rare skill. It should also not be taboo to mention that female leaders may likely have different priorities [not necessarily, but quite possibly]. It also should not be taboo to discuss what it means when women are both the majority of the population and the majority of the voting population, and that this may lead to very different results than a male vote. Maybe better results. Maybe worse results. But certainly not the same results. And when we are talking about the future of the world, we should take all factors into consideration and not pretend there isn't a conversation to be had here.

Because if one can't be honest about this conversation, then one's argument is built on lies.
 
Last edited:

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,106
510
430
Reading, Berkshire
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.
Should probably ask yourself why men are incapable of voting in a way that helps themselves as a group. Maybe that whole every man for himself ideology shouldn't be pushed because it results in…every man looking out for himself and no one looking out for men as a collective group because that would be like socialism or something…or you can continue to blame everyone else.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
Should probably ask yourself why men are incapable of voting in a way that helps themselves as a group. Maybe that whole every man for himself ideology shouldn't be pushed because it results in…every man looking out for himself and no one looking out for men as a collective group because that would be like socialism or something…or you can continue to blame everyone else.
Because helping yourself as an individual intrinsically helps the group. Strong person, strong family, strong community, strong nation. It embraces liberty, freedom to trade what you make from raw materials for what its worth.

Helping the group first unintentionally rewards those who cower from duty and incentivises those beset with sloth to live off of govt largesse. It embraces the state, in which the state tells you either what to make, or what it is worth [see any socialist or communist model in which wages or prices are controlled by government policy] , or both, regardless of the natural worth of ones labor in an open market. If you are forced to sell your labor for under natural value due to state force, you are a slave of the state.

We also have control over our being so promoting looking out for ourselves is achievable. Looking out for the group creates conflict as everyone has a different definition of that.

If one views people as flawed [sloth, gluttony, greed, etc] then individualism is the only answer because any system that tries to enforce equity will be abused by the slothful, run by the greedy, and policed by the wrathful. See Mao, Pol pot, Lenin, stalin, etc. If you don't view people as naturally flawed, then look outside.

On the other hand, individualism gave us America, which while imperfect has given the world far more than it has taken where even the majority of the poor have a fridge, two TVs, and a cell phone, plus the opportunity for class mobility. Personally, that wins out over mass starvation imho.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Neo Member
Oct 20, 2018
47
40
90
Should probably ask yourself why men are incapable of voting in a way that helps themselves as a group. Maybe that whole every man for himself ideology shouldn't be pushed because it results in…every man looking out for himself and no one looking out for men as a collective group because that would be like socialism or something…or you can continue to blame everyone else.
You're asking a question which already has an answer, I'd suggest you go look at some of the literature on the subject. Men have a much weaker ingroup bias relative to women. I don't think that's all nurture either.

I'd need to find the pertinent research, but I also remember reading that men also have a much shallower sense of group identity vs women as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_are_wonderful_effect#In-group_bias

I'm not really sure who the second half of your post is directed at. Just sounds like you decided to stand up on your podium and pontificate at me despite being seemingly apropos of nothing. I mean, imagine if women were the ones killing themselves at a close to 4:1 ratio to men, and I just said "Find a way to develop better coping mechanisms and organizational strategies. Stop blaming everybody else for your problems."

People would find this unseemly, because, for one, the narrative thus far has been 'women are historically oppressed' despite that being a load of complete bullshit. And for two, we just care more about women than we do men. They're historically more valuable for reproductive reasons.

It has been the traditional role of men to be disposal for the sake of the wider tribe's, or society's, or family unit's, survival. Men physically create, destroy, and die. It's what we're good at.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
Can I try reshaping his argument? It won't be his anymore, and it won't be exactly my position either, but I think I can reformulate it into something perhaps people can discuss without instantly shutting down.

First, I absolutely agree that those women who excel [men, women, whatever] should be given every opportunity. Talent, drive, skill, etc are extremely rare and should be respected and allowed to flourish.

Having said that, there is such a thing as evolutionary biology, and there is a reason men throughout history took leadership positions. To simplify it to a core, simple to understand thesis:

Women bear children, and men evolved to protect. We evolved big heads for our big brains, and take years to walk and communicate, let alone hunt, meaning pregnancy is dangerous and motherhood is commitment [and womens hips are for evolved for birthing, not running]. Men are also far more disposable if a tribe needs to repopulate after conflict.

As such, for millennia men hunted and fought. In addition to explaining our strength and speed advantage, this leads to a direct need to work together. Leaders naturally arise, men that commanded the respect necessary that other men would literally be willing to die for them. There was no room for bad leadership - just look up the original meaning of 'fragging'... men literally kill their own bad leaders because bad leaders get men killed.

This need for natural leadership extends past war. Coal miners. Ship captains. Prison guards. Construction. Hard men leading hard men.

This combines with other natural male traits like aggression. We see these gender differences everywhere - boys generally bully by hitting, girls with gossip. They barter differently. Manipulate differently. This isn't all positive - men take more risks, are more likely to make rash decisions, etc.

None of which means women can't do x, y, or z. Like I said at the beginning, talent and skill and genius should always be recognized and allowed to flourish. But at the same time, we must acknowledge evolutionary biology led us here, and advances that freed women from traditional roles [tampons, birth control, etc] are still a relatively recent invention compared to tens of tens of thousands of years.

We happen to be in relative peacetime [paradoxically marked by endless war]. But at some point we may be called upon to die for our country again. And evolution has a lot to say about that.

It should not be taboo to suggest men may be more likely leaders. Heck, even within men leadership is a rare skill. It should also not be taboo to mention that female leaders may likely have different priorities [not necessarily, but quite possibly]. It also should not be taboo to discuss what it means when women are both the majority of the population and the majority of the voting population, and that this may lead to very different results than a male vote. Maybe better results. Maybe worse results. But certainly not the same results. And when we are talking about the future of the world, we should take all factors into consideration and not pretend there isn't a conversation to be had here.

Because if one can't be honest about this conversation, then one's argument is built on lies.
And I would agree with the majority of what you said. It is important to understand the evolution and history to how we got to where we are today - however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required or the focus of child rearing is important to keep the human race alive. We live in an age where women are not constrained to such simplistic roles, nor are men.

There will always be outliers, outliers that have been shown to shape the course of history time and again. Suggesting that women should not, as a rule, be in public sphere's of influence is an asinine view. We need those differing views that are unique to females to better ourselves as a society - however that certainly isn't found in third wave feministic bullshit which I am sure we can all agree.
 

Razvedka

Neo Member
Oct 20, 2018
47
40
90
And I would agree with the majority of what you said. It is important to understand the evolution and history to how we got to where we are today - however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required or the focus of child rearing is important to keep the human race alive. We live in an age where women are not constrained to such simplistic roles, nor are men.

There will always be outliers, outliers that have been shown to shape the course of history time and again. Suggesting that women should not, as a rule, be in public sphere's of influence is an asinine view. We need those differing views that are unique to females to better ourselves as a society - however that certainly isn't found in third wave feministic bullshit which I am sure we can all agree.
Not to jump into the debate you're having completely, but as a side note: we've not yet moved away from the need for physical labor or fighting wars. We still rely on the 'strength of men' to build, defend, and destroy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
Should probably ask yourself why men are incapable of voting in a way that helps themselves as a group. Maybe that whole every man for himself ideology shouldn't be pushed because it results in…every man looking out for himself and no one looking out for men as a collective group because that would be like socialism or something…or you can continue to blame everyone else.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
Not to jump into the debate you're having completely, but as a side note: we've not yet moved away from the need for physical labor or fighting wars. We still rely on the 'strength of men' to build, defend, and destroy.
Not really. We primarily rely on tools and heavy equipment for construction and warfare, especially in first world countries. The "strength of men" are not required for either.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
Not really. We primarily rely on tools and heavy equipment for construction and warfare, especially in first world countries. The "strength of men" are not required for either.
You can't just say these things because they feel good to say and you want them to be true.

2017 us workplace deaths:
Male: 4761
Female: 386

That is a result of men being more willing to take on jobs that can kill or catastrophicly injure them.
No, it doesn't mean no women are willing to bear that risk. But it does fall in line with everything we know about human evolutionary biology as well as gender relations in other mammals.

And I would agree with the majority of what you said. It is important to understand the evolution and history to how we got to where we are today - however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required or the focus of child rearing is important to keep the human race alive. We live in an age where women are not constrained to such simplistic roles, nor are men.

There will always be outliers, outliers that have been shown to shape the course of history time and again. Suggesting that women should not, as a rule, be in public sphere's of influence is an asinine view. We need those differing views that are unique to females to better ourselves as a society - however that certainly isn't found in third wave feministic bullshit which I am sure we can all agree.
Again, this sounds more like what you want to be true.

Like I said above, talent and skill should always be recognized. But that doesn't necessarily translate to meaning switching a Male vote to a dominately female vote won't have adverse effects.

Now I recognize nobody wants to say that aloud. Nobody really wants it to be true. But clearly, it has some impact. And what if that undermines something important?

Ultimately what I'm saying is that while appaws position may seem crude, it only sounds crude because it's not currently socially acceptable to say it. But that doesn't make it wrong, afterall It once wasn't socially acceptable to say women should vote and clearly that was wrong according to modern standards. More importantly, it seems to me your position rests on what you want the world to be, rather than what it is [interestingly, this is how I've often seen the gender divide in rule described]. This doesn't make you wrong, either. My issue is that we can't seem to even discuss it because anyone not holding the modern line is shunned and called sexist.

You say: "however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required". But what if it is? Societies can fall. What if the overall nature of women being majority vote does change us in a way that softens us, and another society still led by cutthroat men takes advantage of that? This is a conversation we should be able to have.
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,349
777
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
You can't just say these things because they feel good to say and you want them to be true.

2017 us workplace deaths:
Male: 4761
Female: 386

That is a result of men being more willing to take on jobs that can kill or catastrophicly injure them.
No, it doesn't mean no women are willing to bear that risk. But it does fall in line with everything we know about human evolutionary biology as well as gender relations in other mammals.



Again, this sounds more like what you want to be true.

Like I said above, talent and skill should always be recognized. But that doesn't necessarily translate to meaning switching a Male vote to a dominately female vote won't have adverse effects.

Now I recognize nobody wants to say that aloud. Nobody really wants it to be true. But clearly, it has some impact. And what if that undermines something important?

Ultimately what I'm saying is that while appaws position may seem crude, it only sounds crude because it's not currently socially acceptable to say it. But that doesn't make it wrong, afterall It once wasn't socially acceptable to say women should vote and clearly that was wrong according to modern standards. More importantly, it seems to me your position rests on what you want the world to be, rather than what it is [interestingly, this is how I've often seen the gender divide in rule described]. This doesn't make you wrong, either. My issue is that we can't seem to even discuss it because anyone not holding the modern line is shunned and called sexist.

You say: "however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required". But what if it is? Societies can fall. What if the overall nature of women being majority vote does change us in a way that softens us, and another society still led by cutthroat men takes advantage of that? This is a conversation we should be able to have.
I just want to point out that the people attacking me in the thread are just doing what they have been conditioned to do. I mean, that is the way that mainstream society polices the borders of the overton window. And most of the time it is very effective in getting people to stop saying whatever piece of wrongthink they are spreading around. Now I am not saying anyone has to agree with me. I agree that my view is an extreme minority view. I would not even call it a "conservative" view, it is a pre-modern view, and we are moderns, myself included unfortunately. The entire cultural context that undergirds all of your assumptions (right and left) has been carefully cultivated to keep you from looking at the world in the way your forbears did.

Also, as to this "inherent strength" idea....it is ridiculous to act like the only meaningful difference between the sexes is brute muscle strength. As Autoduelist points out, we live in a different society because men decided to include women in the polity, and I would argue that the changes have made things demonstrably worse. And those changes have nothing to do with the fact that women are physically weaker than men. Women tilt left, especially unmarried women, because of their deeply nurturing nature. They are more inclined toward egalitarianism, more collectivist, risk-averse, and more present-time oriented. They don't look to fantastic futures, or do things that are impractical just because they can, like men do. A society of women would never have flown, walked on the moon, explored the depths of the seas, created magisterial works of art and music, made scientific discoveries, etc. They status quo and security would have been "good enough" and they would have left it at that. Those things are great characteristics to have when you are raising children , but not desirable for guiding a nation in a dangerous world or preserving a Lockean constitutional government. Some female individuals break this mold, of course. I would rather have a bad ass chick like Margaret Thatcher as my leader than some soy drinking urbanite male weakling. But by and large the best way to harness the strengths God gave females is to harness them to males and let them be supports and creators of the next generation.

Also, let me point out that some of you are actually more "sexist" than I am. You seem to indicate that women's value only comes from them doing inherently male things. You actually devalue the things that are truly female, and want them to find fulfillment in acting like men. You really don't value women at all for what they are, which is sad.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
You can't just say these things because they feel good to say and you want them to be true.

2017 us workplace deaths:
Male: 4761
Female: 386

That is a result of men being more willing to take on jobs that can kill or catastrophicly injure them.
No, it doesn't mean no women are willing to bear that risk. But it does fall in line with everything we know about human evolutionary biology as well as gender relations in other mammals.
So, because men are more likely to be in a traditionally male field - that means women should not be allowed in public sphere's of influence?

Again, this sounds more like what you want to be true.
I would argue the same for you. Everything you stated are things you *want* to be true - but are not in-line with the data we have seen, the research that has been done over the decades, nor what history itself has shown. Female leaders have existed for millenia, they have had votes and says in various civilizations over time immemorial. They have not inherently made a country weaker, nor did they cause the downfall of a society. Stop trying to argue for tradition and provide actual, tangible data to support your claims that women should not be in public sphere's of influence.

Like I said above, talent and skill should always be recognized. But that doesn't necessarily translate to meaning switching a Male vote to a dominately female vote won't have adverse effects.
Strawman Argument. I have never argued for a dominantly female vote. I argue for equality - men and women should have a say in how a country is governed. Not only men like Appaws has suggested, nor mostly women like you have tried to assert.

Now I recognize nobody wants to say that aloud. Nobody really wants it to be true. But clearly, it has some impact. And what if that undermines something important?
Everything has some impact on a society. The media, the publications, the quality of lives of each person, their mental states, their medical histories, the price of alcohol, etc. Trying to boil it all down to women is simply silly and makes light of a highly complex system.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that while appaws position may seem crude, it only sounds crude because it's not currently socially acceptable to say it. But that doesn't make it wrong, afterall It once wasn't socially acceptable to say women should vote and clearly that was wrong according to modern standards.
Incorrect. It isn't right, at all. We do not live in a world with high birth mortality rates. We do not live in a society where disease, famine, and war ever dwindles the human population. We do not live in a society where things that traditionally required the strength of men are required. These are all things that relegated women to a primarily domestic role. They had to birth children to maintain population while men were out waging wars. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for centuries.

More importantly, it seems to me your position rests on what you want the world to be, rather than what it is [interestingly, this is how I've often seen the gender divide in rule described]. This doesn't make you wrong, either. My issue is that we can't seem to even discuss it because anyone not holding the modern line is shunned and called sexist.
This has nothing to do with "holding the modern line". What Appaws states is objectively incorrect as the data does not support his conclusion. What he has done and said is the literal textbook definition of sexism.Your defense of him, while admirable, is misplaced.

You say: "however we are not in an age of humanity where the inherent strength of men is required". But what if it is? Societies can fall. What if the overall nature of women being majority vote does change us in a way that softens us, and another society still led by cutthroat men takes advantage of that? This is a conversation we should be able to have.
We can play "what ifs" all day. That doesn't change the situation of where we are as a species currently, nor our roles on this planet. Are you familiar with the concept of argumentum ad antiquitatem? This is the concept of a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. In this case, you both are arguing that women should not be allowed a place in the public sphere because they were relegated to primarily domestic positions for much of history - though you do not seem realize *why* they were and ignore how things have changed. It is a classic red herring fallacy and one that I find as honestly hilarious (alongside the strawmen you both use) - hence my LOL responses to both you and Appaw's recent posts.

You are appealing to tradition, yet you do not provide hard data to support your claims that women cause damage to society, that they should not be allowed in public spheres of influence.

Reduced to lol'ing comments, I see. I guess it was obvious from the beginning you wanted to spout platitudes, not debate.
I was typing, apologies not having the god fingers that you do when making posts. Also, at least quote the person you are responding to or notify them.

I just want to point out that the people attacking me in the thread are just doing what they have been conditioned to do. I mean, that is the way that mainstream society polices the borders of the overton window. And most of the time it is very effective in getting people to stop saying whatever piece of wrongthink they are spreading around. Now I am not saying anyone has to agree with me. I agree that my view is an extreme minority view. I would not even call it a "conservative" view, it is a pre-modern view, and we are moderns, myself included unfortunately. The entire cultural context that undergirds all of your assumptions (right and left) has been carefully cultivated to keep you from looking at the world in the way your forbears did.
This is slightly off topic, but do you see the irony in what you are doing here? You are making the same mass generalizations and argument fallacies that are commonly seen with the far-left, the very ones we both have fought against and rightfully so as it is full of malarkey.

Anyways, back to the conversation at hand.

Also, as to this "inherent strength" idea....it is ridiculous to act like the only meaningful difference between the sexes is brute muscle strength. As Autoduelist points out, we live in a different society because men decided to include women in the polity, and I would argue that the changes have made things demonstrably worse. And those changes have nothing to do with the fact that women are physically weaker than men. Women tilt left, especially unmarried women, because of their deeply nurturing nature. They are more inclined toward egalitarianism, more collectivist, risk-averse, and more present-time oriented. They don't look to fantastic futures, or do things that are impractical just because they can, like men do. A society of women would never have flown, walked on the moon, explored the depths of the seas, created magisterial works of art and music, made scientific discoveries, etc. They status quo and security would have been "good enough" and they would have left it at that. Those things are great characteristics to have when you are raising children , but not desirable for guiding a nation in a dangerous world or preserving a Lockean constitutional government. Some female individuals break this mold, of course. I would rather have a bad ass chick like Margaret Thatcher as my leader than some soy drinking urbanite male weakling. But by and large the best way to harness the strengths God gave females is to harness them to males and let them be supports and creators of the next generation.
The "inherent strength" was going off one of the assertions that were made previously. There are a myriad of differences between the sexes - but none of them preclude women from being part of the public sphere of influence. Please provide data to show otherwise. Everything you listed are completely subjective. Women don't look to fantastic futures? Please provide the data. Women don't do impractical things simply because they can and men do? Please provide that data.

A "society of women" is not something that I have ever argued for - so please stop with the strawman arguments. As for the bolded - you do realize that all of which you listed were done by joint efforts between men and women, right? This wasn't done by a "society of men", but a society of humans. Men, women, children, young, old - all of them have created and contributed to the art, music, science, and more that we have seen in the past few centuries.

Also, you should not rely on the concept of "God" to prove your points. "God" had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Also, let me point out that some of you are actually more "sexist" than I am. You seem to indicate that women's value only comes from them doing inherently male things. You actually devalue the things that are truly female, and want them to find fulfillment in acting like men. You really don't value women at all for what they are, which is sad.
Fighting is not an inherently male thing - it is an inherently human thing. Home raising isn't an inherently women thing, but again - an inherently human thing. We, as animals, have to fight to survive. Male/Female - it didn't matter, if you didn't fight, you died. If you didn't help raise infants, you died. We have evolved as a species and are no longer the same as we were 30,000 years ago or even 5000 years ago. I would highly suggest you look into cultural anthropology in general. I feel that you would learn a great deal from it.
 
Last edited:

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
I just want to point out that the people attacking me in the thread are just doing what they have been conditioned to do. I mean, that is the way that mainstream society polices the borders of the overton window. And most of the time it is very effective in getting people to stop saying whatever piece of wrongthink they are spreading around. Now I am not saying anyone has to agree with me. I agree that my view is an extreme minority view. I would not even call it a "conservative" view, it is a pre-modern view, and we are moderns, myself included unfortunately. The entire cultural context that undergirds all of your assumptions (right and left) has been carefully cultivated to keep you from looking at the world in the way your forbears did.

Also, as to this "inherent strength" idea....it is ridiculous to act like the only meaningful difference between the sexes is brute muscle strength. As Autoduelist points out, we live in a different society because men decided to include women in the polity, and I would argue that the changes have made things demonstrably worse. And those changes have nothing to do with the fact that women are physically weaker than men. Women tilt left, especially unmarried women, because of their deeply nurturing nature. They are more inclined toward egalitarianism, more collectivist, risk-averse, and more present-time oriented. They don't look to fantastic futures, or do things that are impractical just because they can, like men do. A society of women would never have flown, walked on the moon, explored the depths of the seas, created magisterial works of art and music, made scientific discoveries, etc. They status quo and security would have been "good enough" and they would have left it at that. Those things are great characteristics to have when you are raising children , but not desirable for guiding a nation in a dangerous world or preserving a Lockean constitutional government. Some female individuals break this mold, of course. I would rather have a bad ass chick like Margaret Thatcher as my leader than some soy drinking urbanite male weakling. But by and large the best way to harness the strengths God gave females is to harness them to males and let them be supports and creators of the next generation.

Also, let me point out that some of you are actually more "sexist" than I am. You seem to indicate that women's value only comes from them doing inherently male things. You actually devalue the things that are truly female, and want them to find fulfillment in acting like men. You really don't value women at all for what they are, which is sad.
 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
I just want to point out that the people attacking me in the thread are just doing what they have been conditioned to do. I mean, that is the way that mainstream society polices the borders of the overton window. And most of the time it is very effective in getting people to stop saying whatever piece of wrongthink they are spreading around. Now I am not saying anyone has to agree with me. I agree that my view is an extreme minority view. I would not even call it a "conservative" view, it is a pre-modern view, and we are moderns, myself included unfortunately. The entire cultural context that undergirds all of your assumptions (right and left) has been carefully cultivated to keep you from looking at the world in the way your forbears did.

Also, as to this "inherent strength" idea....it is ridiculous to act like the only meaningful difference between the sexes is brute muscle strength. As Autoduelist points out, we live in a different society because men decided to include women in the polity, and I would argue that the changes have made things demonstrably worse. And those changes have nothing to do with the fact that women are physically weaker than men. Women tilt left, especially unmarried women, because of their deeply nurturing nature. They are more inclined toward egalitarianism, more collectivist, risk-averse, and more present-time oriented. They don't look to fantastic futures, or do things that are impractical just because they can, like men do. A society of women would never have flown, walked on the moon, explored the depths of the seas, created magisterial works of art and music, made scientific discoveries, etc. They status quo and security would have been "good enough" and they would have left it at that. Those things are great characteristics to have when you are raising children , but not desirable for guiding a nation in a dangerous world or preserving a Lockean constitutional government. Some female individuals break this mold, of course. I would rather have a bad ass chick like Margaret Thatcher as my leader than some soy drinking urbanite male weakling. But by and large the best way to harness the strengths God gave females is to harness them to males and let them be supports and creators of the next generation.

Also, let me point out that some of you are actually more "sexist" than I am. You seem to indicate that women's value only comes from them doing inherently male things. You actually devalue the things that are truly female, and want them to find fulfillment in acting like men. You really don't value women at all for what they are, which is sad.
This post is largely based on stereotypes. But anyway, good luck with your desires. That's all that they will ever be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
357
407
230
C’mon Claus, you know that’s not true...
I think he interpreted "strength" literally rather than figuratively, when it was pretty much implicitly written that strength in that context meant innovation, ingenuity, persevere, stoicism, risk taking, and courage.

None of the posts against appaw are based on facts and reasons, as evident by the short sentence quips. They skirt around his arguments with rhetorical notions of morality, empathy, compassion and other appeals to emotions while calling him sexist without explaining why. Appaw's line of thinking sounds a lot in tune with classical positivism, along the lines of Aquinas, Voltaire, Paine , which is deeply rooted in the bible and the idea of morality derived from reasoning. His post are as sexist as the philosophical school of thought that the radical left are trying to undermine and rewrite.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I think he interpreted "strength" literally rather than figuratively, when it was pretty much implicitly written that strength in that context meant innovation, ingenuity, persevere, stoicism, risk taking, and courage.

None of the posts against appaw are based on facts and reasons, as evident by the short sentence quips. They skirt around his arguments with rhetorical notions of morality, empathy, compassion and other appeals to emotions while calling him sexist without explaining why. Appaw's line of thinking sounds a lot in tune with classical positivism, along the lines of Aquinas, Voltaire, Paine , which is deeply rooted in the bible and the idea of morality derived from reasoning. His post are as sexist as the philosophical school of thought that the radical left are trying to undermine and rewrite.
Even if taken literally, the notion that strength is not required for construction or warfare is just ridiculous, ignorant, and reeks of ivory tower academia. I would challenge anyone with this view to go and work a shift in an underground mine and tell me if they think that everything is done by tools and male strength is no longer required.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
So, because men are more likely to be in a traditionally male field - that means women should not be allowed in public sphere's of influence?
That isn't my position nor what I said.

I would argue the same for you. Everything you stated are things you *want* to be true - but are not in-line with the data we have seen, the research that has been done over the decades, nor what history itself has shown. Female leaders have existed for millenia, they have had votes and says in various civilizations over time immemorial. They have not inherently made a country weaker, nor did they cause the downfall of a society. Stop trying to argue for tradition and provide actual, tangible data to support your claims that women should not be in public sphere's of influence
No, I have pointed to evolutionary biology, other mammals, and the history of war and politics.
Calling that 'tradition' ignores the underpinnings of the argument.

I repeat, men kill bad leaders. Kill them. Frag them. Pitchforks. Guillotines. Mutinies, walking the plank. Men have tens of thousands of years of history putting their lives on the line, teaching both how to lead and who should lead. I'm simply suggesting we should recognize that maybe we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Strawman Argument. I have never argued for a dominantly female vote. I argue for equality - men and women should have a say in how a country is governed. Not only men like Appaws has suggested, nor mostly women like you have tried to assert.
I wasn't making an argument, I was pointing out a fact. There are more women than men, and more women than men vote. This ist a position, this is math. That is to say, we already live [in the US, at least], to a democratic republic guided by women.

Everything has some impact on a society. The media, the publications, the quality of lives of each person, their mental states, their medical histories, the price of alcohol, etc. Trying to boil it all down to women is simply silly and makes light of a highly complex system.
The only reason this line of debate is hyper focused on gender is because of the thread itself. Nobody is saying gender is the only variable. But it certainly may explain a lot of that 'complexity'.

Incorrect. It isn't right, at all. We do not live in a world with high birth mortality rates. We do not live in a society where disease, famine, and war ever dwindles the human population. We do not live in a society where things that traditionally required the strength of men are required. These are all things that relegated women to a primarily domestic role. They had to birth children to maintain population while men were out waging wars. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for centuries.
You are missing the point. I am saying that we have tens upon tens of thousands of years of evolutionary hardwiring that you can't just handwave away. Men evolved to hunt, fight, lead, protect. That isnt a platitude, its evolutionary biology. Women have plenty of wonderful, important traits as well. We got here together, afterall.

Regarding what I italicized, yes. Exactly. Centuries measured against something like 12 million years, far longer if we include evolutionary ancestors. The modern day tampon was invented in 1929, the pill was in the 60s iirc [my mom wasnt quite a teenage, that's how recent that is]. It wasnt many centuries ago that birth was dangerous and that childhood had a high mortality rate.

You are absolutely correct that modern innovations require us to rework our society. You are absolutely incorrect to completely ignore evolutionary biology while doing so.

This has nothing to do with "holding the modern line". What Appaws states is objectively incorrect as the data does not support his conclusion. What he has done and said is the literal textbook definition of sexism.Your defense of him, while admirable, is misplaced.
My very first sentence said I am reworking his position into something different, not defending him. From my outsider view he is ignoring that talent is rare and must be recognized, and that technology has forever changed the playing field and we absolutely must find a new balance. I am simply pointing out that while he is ignoring technology, you are ignoring evolutionary biology.

We can play "what ifs" all day. That doesn't change the situation of where we are as a species currently, nor our roles on this planet. Are you familiar with the concept of argumentum ad antiquitatem? This is the concept of a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. In this case, you both are arguing that women should not be allowed a place in the public sphere because they were relegated to primarily domestic positions for much of history - though you do not seem realize *why* they were and ignore how things have changed. It is a classic red herring fallacy and one that I find as honestly hilarious (alongside the strawmen you both use) - hence my LOL responses to both you and Appaw's recent posts.
Why they were? Because it was evolutionarily successful. It was a wholly symbiotic relationship. Men hunted, fought, protected, and died doing so. Women guided evolution by choosing their mates [without looking it up, something like half of males aren't chosen to procreate while the vast majority of women do], raising and educating the children, and structuring home life. Fathers provided discipline, mothers providing nurturing, hence the extremely high rates of unchecked aggression in communities struggling with ~75% fatherless rates.

Excuse me if I think ignoring this creates multiple crisis, like the one this very thread is about.

The new theory of male domination is absurd. Thus was, as I said, symbiotic because the world was fucking hard. Your are absolutely correct the world is easier now, as I and others have touched on. That should not lead to simply ignoring the past.

My cats and kids listen to me. They don't listen to my wife, who is a very strong independent women that is a high ranking executive in a large company, no matter how much she yells. I can't explain this, but maybe it means something.

You are appealing to tradition, yet you do not provide hard data to support your claims that women cause damage to society, that they should not be allowed in public spheres of influence
I have never argued that they shouldn't be. I have simply pointed out that genders are wired differently, and that switching from Male leadership to females being the majority vote will absolutely impact society, and discussing this, even appaws position, should be on the table. Instead, nothing is on the table without cries of sexism.

Regarding examples of "women cause damage to society"

Um... this thread. Male suicide rates. Single motherhood being glorified into crisis statistics because people are afraid to speak up. The programs that directly led to single motherhood being based on focusing too heavily on the nurture component of our personalities. Abortion numbers skyrocketing. The Male crises in education. Mass killers statistically coming from homes without dad's [crime in general, actually].

I was typing, apologies not having the god fingers that you do when making posts. Also, at least quote the person you are responding to or notify them.
I'm on a tablet. These responses are painful to edit and type.

Ps, I didnt call you out on the lol comment out of politeness. Is was tangential to the debate and I didnt want it to be personal by naming you.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: weltalldx

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
I think he interpreted "strength" literally rather than figuratively, when it was pretty much implicitly written that strength in that context meant innovation, ingenuity, persevere, stoicism, risk taking, and courage.

None of the posts against appaw are based on facts and reasons, as evident by the short sentence quips. They skirt around his arguments with rhetorical notions of morality, empathy, compassion and other appeals to emotions while calling him sexist without explaining why. Appaw's line of thinking sounds a lot in tune with classical positivism, along the lines of Aquinas, Voltaire, Paine , which is deeply rooted in the bible and the idea of morality derived from reasoning. His post are as sexist as the philosophical school of thought that the radical left are trying to undermine and rewrite.
That is indeed how I interpreted it as it was not as "implicitly written" as you claim. I have yet to see any facts and reasons provided to support the idea that women should not be allowed in public spheres of influence and have instead been shown the same tired argumentum ad antiquitatem ad nauseum. I would like to see reports, research, and data that support such a claim.

Everything I have stated is based on facts and evidence cultivated over the decades from research, reports, history (such as the anthropological work of folks like Dr. Bauman), etc. I am not one to talk in overly long sentences full of needless grammar and prefer to be short and sweet with what I say, so if this annoys you then I am sorry to say that I would suggest you get used to it as it won't be changing any time soon.

Even if taken literally, the notion that strength is not required for construction or warfare is just ridiculous, ignorant, and reeks of ivory tower academia. I would challenge anyone with this view to go and work a shift in an underground mine and tell me if they think that everything is done by tools and male strength is no longer required.
I did take it literally as that is how I read it. I also resent the idea that I am being "ignorant" of a physically laborious job. I know a hard day's work - prior to moving to Academia I was a farmer for nearly two decades. I also believe you are misunderstanding something. Strength is a requirement for some jobs, but the inherent strength levels is far less important due to the nature of our ever evolving tool set. We do not simply rely on pickaxes to chip away at stone. We have ever more powerful drills, hammers, explosives, and large machinery (especially in regards to things such as strip mining). Compare the required levels of strength needed 100 years ago to today - the job is far more welcoming to people who previously would be unfit to be a miner. The same goes with farming, fishing, military, and other careers that normally were male dominated. Hence my claim that the inherent "strength of men" is not required. Not strength in general.

That isn't my position nor what I said.
Then I misunderstood. I was under the belief that you were trying to argue that women should not be in public spheres of influence by altering the argument of Appaws to be something more amenable. Before we continue on and to prevent any further confusion or misunderstandings, is this not what you are trying to argue for?

I'm on a tablet. These responses are painful to edit and type.

Ps, I didnt call you out on the lol comment out of politeness. Is was tangential to the debate and I didnt want it to be personal by naming you.
I can understand. While I don't use a tablet, I primarily use my phone for typing and it takes a long time to do. Large thumbs and tiny keyboards are not something that go well together.

As for the politeness - don't worry about that. I would rather be confronted directly with an issue - plus it was rather obvious that you were referring to me with the comment anyhow.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
Then I misunderstood. I was under the belief that you were trying to argue that women should not be in public spheres of influence by altering the argument of Appaws to be something more amenable. Before we continue on and to prevent any further confusion or misunderstandings, is this not what you are trying to argue for?
First, I would hope and appreciate that you read my response, it took a lot of time. If you already did, thank you. It covered a lot of stuff.

My position is that for millions of years, men and women found a workable, symbiotic balance thats success can be measured by our species very survival and dominance. Over the course of millions upon millions of years, this 'solution's to evolutionary combat against Earth is hardwired into us like any other creature.

Further, the relatively recent industrial revolution, but even more so the invention of tampons, birthcontrol, and advances in medicine shifted this balance significantly and needs to be reestablished in a new way that both recognizes our technological achievements as well as our hardwired tendencies and knowledge.

Further, that feminists [and now modern culture] looked at the past and misunderstood what was happening. They see patriachy when in fact it was a tightly honed symbiotic relationship hardwired by millions of years of evolutionary biology. This complete misreading led to the concept of patriarchy.

Further, that this has, in part, led us to today. A completely fractured society that is not in natural harmony because no one is willing to have the discussion because the dominant ideology of feminism [now intersectional feminism] teaches that even acknowledging men is sexist. Those that do are ostracized, like Karen straughan.

So, we went from symbiotic, to one that certainly teetered too close to Male dominance at times [mistakes were made, certainly, but we survived] to one that is wildly now leaning in the opposite direction and about to fall over. Intersectionalism is a dangerous ideology, and it sprang directly from core misunderstandings of the past.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
First, I would hope and appreciate that you read my response, it took a lot of time. If you already did, thank you. It covered a lot of stuff.
Yes, I did. However, I wanted to make clear on your position before I responded to any of that as to not have anymore misunderstandings as much of what I had assumed was you pushing for females being relegated solely to domestic roles, like Appaws - which seems is not the case. I do apologize for that confusion and misunderstanding.

My position is that for millions of years, men and women found a workable, symbiotic balance thats success can be measured by our species very survival and dominance. Over the course of millions upon millions of years, this 'solution's to evolutionary combat against Earth is hardwired into us like any other creature.

Further, the relatively recent industrial revolution, but even more so the invention of tampons, birthcontrol, and advances in medicine shifted this balance significantly and needs to be reestablished in a new way that both recognizes our technological achievements as well as our hardwired tendencies and knowledge.

Further, that feminists [and now modern culture] looked at the past and misunderstood what was happening. They see patriachy when in fact it was a tightly honed symbiotic relationship hardwired by millions of years of evolutionary biology. This complete misreading led to the concept of patriarchy.
Up to here is where I can agree with you for the most part. I slightly disagree with your views of the male/female dynamic and how it is a "symbiotic balance" - but this is a minor difference of wording based on differing conclusions based on theories of evolution, biology, anthropological studies and isn't really relevant for the conversation at hand (and one that would be a bit off topic regardless).

Further, that this has, in part, led us to today. A completely fractured society that is not in natural harmony because no one is willing to have the discussion because the dominant ideology of feminism [now intersectional feminism] teaches that even acknowledging men is sexist. Those that do are ostracized, like Karen straughan.
This I also agree with... except for the bolded. I would argue that we, as a society, have never been unified outside of very rare moments and for very brief windows of time. There have always been competing groups and interests even as far back as the Akkadian Empire nearly 4000 years ago. While Feminism, as a concept is a dominant presence within the western world - it is split into so many competing groups with different interests (some egalitarian, some progressive, some batshit insane) that you can't really call it a single ideology at this point. Feminism isn't what it was 100, 50, or even 20 years ago. This is similar to when you converse about Christianity - you can't simply talk about it as a whole at this point as there are many differing views and denominations within the overall umbrella. Evangelical is not the same as Lutheran, just as Intersectionalist is not the same as First Wave.

So, we went from symbiotic, to one that certainly teetered too close to Male dominance at times [mistakes were made, certainly, but we survived] to one that is wildly now leaning in the opposite direction and about to fall over. Intersectionalism is a dangerous ideology, and it sprang directly from core misunderstandings of the past.
I agree that Intersectionalism is a problem - however I don't see us living in a female dominated world - nor do I see Intersectional Feminism as a dominant force that is destroying the nation. At most, I see that some people that believe in that particular ideology have gotten into places with media presence and some power - but they are similar to the evangelical right in the late 90s and early 2000s - they will kick up some dirt and make a minor mess, but ultimately won't be changing society or dooming us all.
 

Razvedka

Neo Member
Oct 20, 2018
47
40
90
Fighting is not an inherently male thing - it is an inherently human thing. Home raising isn't an inherently women thing, but again - an inherently human thing. We, as animals, have to fight to survive. Male/Female - it didn't matter, if you didn't fight, you died. If you didn't help raise infants, you died. We have evolved as a species and are no longer the same as we were 30,000 years ago or even 5000 years ago. I would highly suggest you look into cultural anthropology in general. I feel that you would learn a great deal from it.
Overt methods of violence are absolutely an innately male thing. Testosterone is literally linked to aggression and anger, men are physically bigger so as to better exert physical force.

You'll never see a top female powerlifter outlift her male equivalent, or a female MMA defeat her male counter part. Why do you suppose this is?
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
This I also agree with... except for the bolded. I would argue that we, as a society, have never been unified outside of very rare moments and for very brief windows of time. There have always been competing groups and interests even as far back as the Akkadian Empire nearly 4000 years ago. While Feminism, as a concept is a dominant presence within the western world - it is split into so many competing groups with different interests (some egalitarian, some progressive, some batshit insane) that you can't really call it a single ideology at this point. Feminism isn't what it was 100, 50, or even 20 years ago. This is similar to when you converse about Christianity - you can't simply talk about it as a whole at this point as there are many differing views and denominations within the overall umbrella. Evangelical is not the same as Lutheran, just as Intersectionalist is not the same as First Wave.

I agree that Intersectionalism is a problem - however I don't see us living in a female dominated world - nor do I see Intersectional Feminism as a dominant force that is destroying the nation. At most, I see that some people that believe in that particular ideology have gotten into places with media presence and some power - but they are similar to the evangelical right in the late 90s and early 2000s - they will kick up some dirt and make a minor mess, but ultimately won't be changing society or dooming us all.
Removed some of your post to reduce the scope.... still have a lot to cover. It's late apologies if I'm scattered and jumping from topic to topic.

I'm not talking about unity between groups so much as unity across a single culture. I was born in the 70s. I lived through Reagan and Bush. Religiously I'm atheistic and politically I'm somewhere near minarchist. I've never, ever, seen anything like current day, when people are now being called fascist nazis for voting for New Order in a Disney poll. Single motherhood is at absolute crisis levels, especially in black communities, and its tearing the social fabric apart. When Terry Crews tweeted that fathers are important, he got lambasted by Twitter and a single mother on The View took issue because she is unwilling to admit, like millions of others, that fathers are important, because they view the very statement that fathers are needed as sexist... and are willing to ignore the 'boy crisis'this thread is about to get there.

Regarding our collective history, I again believe men were literally bred to lead through the need for combat. Not all men. But it's hard wired in ways I've already discussed at length. Women can prove themselves as solid leaders, but that doesn't mean they can collectively guide a society in distress [as in, there is a difference between a specific woman who has proven herself and the collective will of the majority of women voting as a group]

As @appaws stated, we are talking two bell curves that, for the most part, overlap in many ways but are quite different in the extremes. I would posit the idea that perhaps leadership of the level to run a superpower in the nuclear age may require those extremes, which are dominated by men [I can go deeper into what I mean by this, but men's bell curve having wider edges explains why men dominate prisons,etc... while an average man and woman are relatively similar, the most aggressive male [or strongest, etc] is far more aggressive, etc.

And I think the general issue is that some people see the best in others, and some people see the worst, and I believe this difference is noticable along gender lines. The way men rule is thus quite different from the way most women rule. And while I'm not saying the Male way is better than the female way in every way. in fact, I think balance is best but that we can no longer communicate to find balance.

Perhaps better put.... I think almost all men are very down for equality [ie, direct meritocracy]. But words like egalitarianism and merit are now considered dog whistles. I think, or at least it feels like, women lean towards equity instead of equality at the governance level, which is extremely dangerous at the societal level.

I also think that women severely underestimate their historic power- for a silly example, have you ever seen how quickly most men get whipped? Women have always exerted great power, just in different ways.

Most importantly, we cant forget Intersectionalism tracks directly back to feminism and grievance studies. While some old school feminists did have noble goals it's been coopted imho by identitarians that are as dangerous as the worst etho-nationalists but are multiplying under the cover of 'moral' wokeness.

You're saying women dont rule, but I'm not buying it. They vote more, guiding politics. They decide their mates, guiding evolution. They spend more, guiding consumer products. They dominate education. They complain more [ducks for cover]... but seriously, men suck it up but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They have far more choice in whether they work or not. They do not need to enter the draft to vote. They control our culture right now. I'm watching a HGTV show right now and an ad came on where the woman says "get out of my way, boys" ... would that fly in the other direction?

More and more people are waking up to this imbalance. And all major issues of the day, from those in this topic, to immigration, etc are rolled up into it. Culturally, that shift is massive right now. Boy scouts getting scuttled. Gillete turning 'boys will be boys', an obvious truth, into a symbol of sexism. Male suicide, etc, I'm repeating myself. And I think this is extremely dangerous. Shutting down conversations out of fear of being sexist, or racist, or islamaphobic is extremely dangerous. How can we solve anything if we can't risk offend?

The strong and aggressive [males at the extremes] are being wholly marginalized, drugged, and forgotten, no role models, no discipline, and people wonder why we have mass shootings. And the answer those unwilling to look at root causes jump to is to disarm the citizens [uck], an inherently weak stance. Let's address root causes. Let's talk about how maybe we need to stop shouting girl power and start a serious discussion about 'family unit' power, despite years of propaganda telling us that is a sexist, conservative talking point. Let's shout about mom power, and reward/incentive that instead of incentivizing not marrying your man, embracing sex without responsibility, embacing abortion, etc. These girl power movements are about power, but do not care one iota about responsibility. Men intrinsicallly know power comes with massive responsibilty, because we know bad leaders get fragged, we know we need to provide and protect, kill our mortal enemies dead, and it has been our responsibility to ensure we feed our family [not someone else's who made bad choices because we empathize with them, unless they belong to our social circle - church, synagogue, etc - in which case we help without need for the state]. etc.

Again sorry if all over the place, feeling scatterbrained.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
Removed some of your post to reduce the scope.... still have a lot to cover. It's late apologies if I'm scattered and jumping from topic to topic.

I'm not talking about unity between groups so much as unity across a single culture. I was born in the 70s. I lived through Reagan and Bush. Religiously I'm atheistic and politically I'm somewhere near minarchist. I've never, ever, seen anything like current day, when people are now being called fascist nazis for voting for New Order in a Disney poll. Single motherhood is at absolute crisis levels, especially in black communities, and its tearing the social fabric apart. When Terry Crews tweeted that fathers are important, he got lambasted by Twitter and a single mother on The View took issue because she is unwilling to admit, like millions of others, that fathers are important, because they view the very statement that fathers are needed as sexist... and are willing to ignore the 'boy crisis'this thread is about to get there.
There was never unity during the 70s, 80s, 90s, or 2000s as a single culture in the US. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignoring historical records and fact (i.e. evangelical right, hippies, etc). You will need to provide evidence and data to show that single motherhood is 'tearing social fabric apart' - otherwise that is just pure hyperbole. Twitter != America. There have always been dumbasses pushing for idiotic claims on social media and the internet in general. I highly doubt The View is how the majority of America views fatherhood. Data - provide it please to show that what you are claiming is accurate.

Regarding our collective history, I again believe men were literally bred to lead through the need for combat. Not all men. But it's hard wired in ways I've already discussed at length. Women can prove themselves as solid leaders, but that doesn't mean they can collectively guide a society in distress [as in, there is a difference between a specific woman who has proven herself and the collective will of the majority of women voting as a group]
Subjective and not at all based on factual data, otherwise you would have provided it. Provide the data to show that women cannot lead a nation. Do not rely on argumentum ad antiquitatem.

As @appaws stated, we are talking two bell curves that, for the most part, overlap in many ways but are quite different in the extremes. I would posit the idea that perhaps leadership of the level to run a superpower in the nuclear age may require those extremes, which are dominated by men [I can go deeper into what I mean by this, but men's bell curve having wider edges explains why men dominate prisons,etc... while an average man and woman are relatively similar, the most aggressive male [or strongest, etc] is far more aggressive, etc.
So, the bell curves overlap for the majority outside of the extremes - yet those extremes which would contain a very tiny portion of the billions of people on this planet - are what you wish to focus on? That is silly, especially when it was stated in this thread by the very person you reference that those extremes should not be paid attention to when it is in reference to females.

That is not to even mention the myriad of variables that would vastly change how you would view that very tiny percentage. What were their educations like? Their morals? Personal philosophies? Religious doctrines? Would you be so willing to promote that top 1% extreme if they were far-left? Far-right? Communist? Socialist?

And I think the general issue is that some people see the best in others, and some people see the worst, and I believe this difference is noticable along gender lines. The way men rule is thus quite different from the way most women rule. And while I'm not saying the Male way is better than the female way in every way. in fact, I think balance is best but that we can no longer communicate to find balance.
Please show data to support your claim that there was balance or that communication is no longer possible.

Perhaps better put.... I think almost all men are very down for equality [ie, direct meritocracy]. But words like egalitarianism and merit are now considered dog whistles. I think, or at least it feels like, women lean towards equity instead of equality at the governance level, which is extremely dangerous at the societal level.
I can understand your fears and worries - but feelings don't really mean anything. Data, accurate data at that, is what is important. Do you have substantial data to back up your worry that women lean more towards equity over equality? If not, why worry?

I also think that women severely underestimate their historic power- for a silly example, have you ever seen how quickly most men get whipped? Women have always exerted great power, just in different ways.
Sorry, I am rather lost with what you are trying to tell me here. Not all women had the chances to "whip" men, nor had the education, the charisma, or the assets to do so. This would be more relying on a small percentage of women (and men at that). If you have data to support that the majority of women had whipped their men into subservience, I would love to know.

Most importantly, we cant forget Intersectionalism tracks directly back to feminism and grievance studies. While some old school feminists did have noble goals it's been coopted imho by identitarians that are as dangerous as the worst etho-nationalists but are multiplying under the cover of 'moral' wokeness.
Yes, that would generally be for subsections of a movement or belief that has grown as large as feminism has. Just as Lutheran or Methodist track directly back to Christianity - they are still not the majority of that group. They are a subsection and should be treated as such.

You're saying women dont rule, but I'm not buying it. They vote more, guiding politics. They decide their mates, guiding evolution. They spend more, guiding consumer products. They dominate education. They complain more [ducks for cover]... but seriously, men suck it up but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They have far more choice in whether they work or not. They do not need to enter the draft to vote. They control our culture right now. I'm watching a HGTV show right now and an ad came on where the woman says "get out of my way, boys" ... would that fly in the other direction?
Strawman. I never said the bolded. I stated that I don't see us living in a female dominated world as you tried to assert. The rest I need data for. Men have also chosen mates throughout history to guide evolution and their seeds - this can be seen time and again throughout history and trying to suggest otherwise is being purposefully ignorant. Men also vote, purchase consumer products, etc. Last I remember, the majority of higher education (College+) throughout the world are primarily driven by male educators.

Some 22 per cent of professors – 4,415 out of 19,750 in total - were female in 2013-14 compared with just 15 per cent in 2003-04, according to a report by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

The report, titled Staff in Higher Education 2013-14, which was published on 26 February, also says 45 per cent of the UK’s 194,245 academic staff are women.
This is an older study - but one that quickly popped up. If there is a newer one, I would love to be proven wrong. Also provide data that women buy more consumer products which guide product design and development across the board (as you seem to claim). Or how they "control our culture". You are relying entirely on anecdotal evidence which doesn't fly.

You are also ignoring that many feminists and egalitarians are fighting against the Draft rule, pushing for women to be forced to apply just as men currently are. Same goes with complaining, crying, etc.

More and more people are waking up to this imbalance. And all major issues of the day, from those in this topic, to immigration, etc are rolled up into it. Culturally, that shift is massive right now. Boy scouts getting scuttled. Gillete turning 'boys will be boys', an obvious truth, into a symbol of sexism. Male suicide, etc, I'm repeating myself. And I think this is extremely dangerous. Shutting down conversations out of fear of being sexist, or racist, or islamaphobic is extremely dangerous. How can we solve anything if we can't risk offend?

The strong and aggressive [males at the extremes] are being wholly marginalized, drugged, and forgotten, no role models, no discipline, and people wonder why we have mass shootings. And the answer those unwilling to look at root causes jump to is to disarm the citizens [uck], an inherently weak stance. Let's address root causes. Let's talk about how maybe we need to stop shouting girl power and start a serious discussion about 'family unit' power, despite years of propaganda telling us that is a sexist, conservative talking point. Let's shout about mom power, and reward/incentive that instead of incentivizing not marrying your man, embracing sex without responsibility, embacing abortion, etc. These girl power movements are about power, but do not care one iota about responsibility. Men intrinsicallly know power comes with massive responsibilty, because we know bad leaders get fragged, we know we need to provide and protect, kill our mortal enemies dead, and it has been our responsibility to ensure we feed our family [not someone else's who made bad choices because we empathize with them, unless they belong to our social circle - church, synagogue, etc - in which case we help without need for the state]. etc.

Again sorry if all over the place, feeling scatterbrained.
A few things here:
  • Millions criticized Gillette across the board.
  • Boy Scouts are allowing women to join the troops - how is this an issue? How is this the 'scouts getting scuttled'. Did I miss something where the boy scouts were being forcibly closed down?
  • Suicide is a problem and has been since time immemorial. Provide data that male suicide is primarily related to what you claim.
  • Provide Data that Gun Control is an "inherently weak stance". Is most of Europe and Asia "weak" then?
  • What is wrong with Abortion, promiscuous sex, or not marrying a man? Sounds more like you are pushing your own political views into trying to act as they are objective facts.
  • Many feminists/egalitarians are fighting against modern "girl power" concepts.
  • Provide data that men "intrinsically know power comes with massive responsibility".
You seem to rely on personal feelings, anecdotes, and argumentum ad antiquitatem to assert your claims as facts. Please provide peer-reviewed data, not feelings.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
. Please provide peer-reviewed data, not feelings.
Im the one providing feelings? C'mon, we were having a decent discussion. I've referenced fact after fact. I've explained why I think boys are in crisis. I've discussed why and how I think evolutionary biology led to gender differences and given examples of how we now ignore this. I've discussed why I think this is dangerous. I've shown real world statistics that I believe are core to all of this.

So now you want peer reviewed stuff? C'mon. I'm already spending like 30+ minutes per response and consolidating my thoughts down to something suitable for a forum. I dont see any peer reviewed documents from you, nor do i see a working theory that explains the differences between men and women and how it might affect politics. Do you agree men and women are different? If so, do you agree that means government policy run by men will necessarily be different than run by women? If not, we are at a dead end and I don't see any point in continuing the conversarion.

I mean, if you don't even see a ~%75 percent single motherhood rate in black communities as an issue, man, this is going nowhere.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
Im the one providing feelings? C'mon, we were having a decent discussion. I've referenced fact after fact. I've explained why I think boys are in crisis. I've discussed why and how I think evolutionary biology led to gender differences and given examples of how we now ignore this. I've discussed why I think this is dangerous. I've shown real world statistics that I believe are core to all of this.
Yes, we were having a decent discussion - but you are trying to assert your feelings as facts. Much of what you stated relies on data to accurately claim - provide that data. I have not seen real world statistics from you, unless I missed it which is very possible. Please repost them if so.

So now you want peer reviewed stuff? C'mon. I'm already spending like 30+ minutes per response and consolidating my thoughts down to something suitable for a forum. I dont see any peer reviewed documents from you, nor do i see a working theory that explains the differences between men and women and how it might affect politics. Do you agree men and women are different? If so, do you agree that means government policy run by men will necessarily be different than run by women? If not, we are at a dead end and I don't see any point in continuing the conversarion.
Peer reviewed data, accurate data- it doesn't really matter which specific phrase I use, I simply would like to see the data. I am not the one making claims that the world is run by females, that intersectionalism is a dominant force, that single mother hood is tearing the fabric of society apart - the burden of proof is on you. If you cannot provide this data, I have nothing else left to assume other than you are basing it on your personal feelings and not fact.

I mean, if you don't even see a ~%75 percent single motherhood rate in black communities as an issue, man, this is going nowhere.
Stop with the strawman arguments, mate. I never said I never saw an issue with high single motherhood rates in black communities - I simply asked you to provide reliable data as to why single motherhood would "tear the fabric of society apart". They are not one in the same.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,019
8,258
1,450
No skin in the debate one way or another, but a cursory search for studies pulled up this, which cites other studies linking poorer academic performance and poverty with single parenthood, but disputes it. Notably, it shows a 2/3 standard deviation increase in 4th grade math level after a period with an increase in single parenthood from 23% to 33%. I'll clip some excerpts but it's a long study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4508674/

Abstract
Although many studies have examined associations between family structure and children’s educational achievement at the individual level, few studies have considered how the increase in single-parent households may have affected children’s educational achievement at the population level. We examined changes in the percentage of children living with single parents between 1990 and 2011 and state mathematics and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Regression models with state and year fixed effects revealed that changes in the percentage of children living with single parents were not associated with test scores. Increases in maternal education, however, were associated with improvements in children’s test scores during this period. These results do not support the notion that increases in single parenthood have had serious consequences for U.S. children’s school achievement.
2. Background

Two well-known facts provide a rationale for the current study. First, the percentage of children living with single parents increased substantially in the United States during the second half of the 20th century. Only 9 percent of children lived with single parents in the 1960s—a figure that increased to 28 percent in 2012 (Child Trends, 2013). Given current trends, about of half of all children will spend some time living with single parents before reaching adulthood (McLanahan and Percheski, 2008). Second, research shows that children in single-parent households score below children in two-parent households, on average, on measures of educational achievement (Amato, 2005; Brown, 2010; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). The combination of these two observations suggests that the rise in single parenthood has lowered (or slowed improvements in) the educational achievement of children in the United States.

Some observers have claimed that the rise of single-parent families (as reflected in high rates of divorce and nonmarital childbearing) is the primary cause of school failure and related problems of delinquency, drug use, teenage pregnancies, poverty, and welfare dependency in American society (Blankenhorn, 1995; Fagan, 1999; Pearlstein, 2011; Popenoe, 2009; Whitehead, 1997).
A small number of studies have suggested that single parenthood has problematic consequences for children’s school performance at the aggregate or societal level. Using multilevel modeling, Pong (1997, 1998) found that U.S. students performed more poorly on math and reading achievement tests in schools with high proportions of children from single-parent families, even after controlling for school socioeconomic status and other school characteristics. Bankston and Caldas (1998) obtained comparable results with aggregate data on general academic achievement from students in Louisiana. In a cross-national study, Pong, Dronkers, and Hampden-Thompson (2003) found that single-parent family status was negatively associated with math and science achievement scores in nine out of 11 countries. Moreover, the gap in achievement between children with one rather than two parents was smaller in countries with more supportive social policies, such as family and child allowances and parental leave. These four studies are useful in showing that single parenthood and academic performance are associated within schools and countries. None of these studies, however, used longitudinal data to see if increasesin single parenthood are accompanied by declines in the aggregate level of student performance.

Several studies have shown that the rise in the percentage of children living with single parents since the 1960s was related to an increase in child poverty in the U.S., although the strength of this association varies with the particular years studied (Eggebeen and Lichter, 1991; Iceland, 2003; Martin, 2006; Thomas and Sawhill, 2005). Given that single parents (usually mothers) are more likely than married mothers to be poor, this result is not surprising. Nevertheless, the rise in child poverty associated with single parenthood since the 1960s may have had negative consequences for children’s educational outcomes.

Several good reasons exist for assuming that the number of parents in a household affects children’s academic achievement (for reviews, see Amato, 2010; Brown 2010; McLanahan and Percheski 2008). First, children in single-parent households have a lower standard of living than do children in two-parent households. Family income, in turn, is a good predictor of children’s school grades and test scores. Second, parents are important sources of social capital and provide many resources to children, including emotional support, encouragement, everyday assistance, and help with homework. Parents’ provision of social capital, in turn, is positively associated with children’s school success. Children who live with single parents, however, have less access to these social resources, in general, than do children with two parents in the household. Finally, most children with single parents have experienced the disruption of their parents’ unions, and many of these children endure additional parental transitions before reaching adulthood. The cumulative amount of household instability or “turbulence” in children’s lives is associated with a variety of problematic outcomes, including school performance and educational attainment.

Selection provides an alternative explanation. Growing up in poverty increases the risk of becoming a single parent as well as the risk of academic failure for one’s children. In addition, some parents have personal traits that predict poor academic outcomes for children, such as low cognitive ability, personality disorders, alcohol or substance use problems, and poor social and parenting skills. These traits also increase the risk of relationship disruptions and the formation of single-parent households. Because these traits can be causes of single parenthood as well as problematic child outcomes, the association between family structure and children’s academic achievement is likely to be at least partly spurious.

Researchers have adopted a variety of strategies to assess whether the links between family structure and child outcomes are causal or spurious, including the use of fixed effects models to control for unmeasured time-invariant variables. Results from studies using fixed effects models are mixed, however, with some suggesting that associations between family structure and child outcomes are spurious (Aughinbaugh, Pierret, and Rothstein, 2005; Bjorklund and Sundstrom, 2006; Bjorklund, Ginther, and Sundstrom, 2007), and others supporting a causal interpretation (Amato and Anthony, 2014; Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, and McRae, 1998; Ermisch and Francesconi, 2000; Gennetian, 2005). After reviewing studies that used fixed effects models and other methods to adjust for unobserved heterogeneity, McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider (2013) concluded that father absence probably increases children’s antisocial behavior but may not affect children’s cognitive outcomes and academic performance. This debate in the literature is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, and most reviewers have concluded that a combination of selection and causal factors are responsible for the links between family structure and children’s well-being (e.g., Amato 2010; McLanahan and Percheski, 2008; McLanahan et al., 2013).
Mean 4th grade math scores increased from 218 in 1992 to 240 in 2011. This 22-point improvement represents a gain of about two-thirds of a standard deviation. Although mean math scores improved in all states, some states improved more than others, with increases ranging from +12 to +30 points. Scores on the 4th grade reading test increased modestly, rising from 215 to 220 overall, or about one-eighth of a standard deviation. Not all states showed improvements, with changes for individual states ranging from −5 to +16 points.

Figure 1 also shows that mean 8th grade math scores increased from 263 in 1990 to 285 in 2011. This 22-point improvement represents a gain of about two-thirds of a standard deviation. States varied a great deal, however, with the amount of change ranging from −5 to +57 points. Between 1998 and 2011, mean 8th grade reading scores increased from 261 to 266—a change of about one-seventh of a standard deviation. The amount of change across states ranged from −17 to +35 points. (The overall trends for 4th and 8thgraders were similar, although this similarity would be less striking if different starting and ending years had been selected.)

Despite a good deal of variability across states, bivariate fixed effects regression analyses (not shown) revealed that the year of observation was positively and significantly associated with the state means of all four tests (all p < .01). Although not shown in the figure, the percentage of children scoring at below basic and advanced proficiency levels mirrored the trends for the means. That is, between the early 1990s and 2011, the percentage of children at both grade levels scoring at the below basic level declined and the percentage of children scoring at the advanced level increased, although these trends were stronger for mathematics than for reading. All of these time trends were statistically significant (p < .01).

The demographic variables also changed over time. Figure 2 shows that the mean percentage of 4th grade children living with single parents increased from 23% in 1990 to 33% in 2011. This 10 percentage point change represents an increase of about half of a percentage point per year. Variation existed across states, however, with increases ranging from 3% to 19%. A regression analysis (not shown) revealed that the overall increase was statistically significant (p < .001). The percentage of children living with neither parent also rose slightly during this period, from about 3% in the early 1990s to 4% in the late 2000’s. Although small, this increase was statistically significant (p < .001). The figure also shows that the percentage of Black children changed relatively little during this time (a decline of one half of a percent). In contrast, the percentage of Hispanic children increased substantially from 7 percent in the early 1990s to 15 percent in 2011 (p < .001). Maternal education also increased. The percentage of mothers with college degrees, for example, increased from 18 percent to 32 percent (p < .001). Finally, the percentage of children living in poverty fluctuated a good deal during this period, although it rose after the Great Recession in 2007. The trends for 8th grade children were nearly identical to those of 4th grade children and never differed by more than a percentage point across years. For this reason, only the 4th grade trends are shown in a figure.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
Stop with the strawman arguments, mate. I never said I never saw an issue with high single motherhood rates in black communities - I simply asked you to provide reliable data as to why single motherhood would "tear the fabric of society apart". They are not one in the same.
But if you do see a problem, the you can't just handwave it away. You object to my phrase 'tearing the social fabric apart' because you think its hyperbole. I think it's an understatement.


In 1960, nine years before Reagan kickstarted the era of the optional-father, only 5 percent of American children were born out of wedlock. Forty years after no-fault divorce entered the United States, a shocking 41 percent of children are born to an unmarried mother
Entire article worth reading.

The following bulleted points are all from


The link above has all sources, I deleted them for brevity. I also deleted other findings along the same lines just for brevity.

– The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse

- There is significantly more drug use among children who do not live with their mother and father

– A study of 1,977 children age 3 and older living with a residential father or father figure found that children living with married biological parents had significantly fewer externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems than children living with at least one non-biological parent.

– Children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide.

– Data from three waves of the Fragile Families Study (N= 2,111) was used to examine the prevalence and effects of mothers’ relationship changes between birth and age 3 on their children’s well being. Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Living in a single-mother household is equivalent to experiencing 5.25 partnership transitions.

– Children in grades 7-12 who have lived with at least one biological parent, youth that experienced divorce, separation, or nonunion birth reported lower grade point averages than those who have always lived with both biological parents.

– Children living with their married biological father tested at a significantly higher level than those living with a nonbiological father.

– Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A’s. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.

71% of high school dropouts are fatherless; fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills; children from father-absent homes are more likely to be truant from school, more likely to be excluded from school, more likely to leave school at age 16, and less likely to attain academic and professional qualifications in adulthood.

– Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in single-parent families and stepfamilies were more likely to engage in delinquency. This relationship appeared to be operating through differences in family processes—parental involvement, supervision, monitoring, and parentchild closeness—between intact and non-intact families.

– A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health explored the relationship between family structure and risk of violent acts in neighborhoods. The results revealed that if the number of fathers is low in a neighborhood, then there is an increase in acts of teen violence. The statistical data showed that a 1% increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood is associated with a 3% increase in an adolescent’s level of violence. In other words, adolescents who live in neighborhoods with lower proportions of single-parent families and who report higher levels of family integration commit less violence.

Children age 10 to 17 living with two biological or adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, other types of major violence, and non-victimization type of adversity, and were less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers living in single-parent families and stepfamilies.

-A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.

– A study using a sample of 1409 rural southern adolescents (851 females and 558 males) aged 11 – 18 years, investigated the correlation between father absence and self-reported sexual activity. The results revealed that adolescents in father-absence homes were more likely to report being sexually active compared to adolescents living with their fathers.

– Being raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree

-------------


Here is an attempt to examine all studies with a strong effort to remove any bias [read the abstract for more on this]. They actively tried to implement controls that respect the most common criticism of studies like this.



There is stronger evidence of a causal effect of father absence on educational attainment, particularly for high school graduation.
We identified six analyses that examined substance use, measured as cigarette smoking and drug and alcohol use. The evidence for this set of outcomes was very robust, with only one analysis reporting a null effect (Evenhouse & Reilly 2004). Furthermore, the findings were consistent across multiple strategies, including SFE models, which often showed no effects for other outcomes
We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability.
. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.
Plenty of more in there, and that's from a paper actively applying multiple critiques to other studies.


-------

That's from 20 minutes on the web.

Now, to me, if single motherhood is linked to aggression, failure in education, drug use more single motherhood, crime, suicide, mental health issues, mass killings, etc then 'tearing the social fabric apart' is not hyperbole.

At the very least, we should be examining why fatherless rates have skyrocketed. And we should be incentivizing family units, not single motherhood.

I entirely agree other issues are at play, like excessive drugging of young boys. But it's all interconnected.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
This originally began when you referred to a minority population (the black community which comprises less than 14% of the US population as of the 2017 Census) is experiencing high levels of fatherless families. Even if you look at the 2010 census for households and families, single parents in general make up a tiny portion, let alone ones that are mother or fatherless. So, your claim of "tearing the fabric of society apart" is absolute hyperbole. Suggesting such would indicate it is a wide-spread problem - something that is not the case given both the census data and the information you have provided.

A few other things that I wanted to point out from your data and quotes:
  • In the quoted post of Reagan - a "unmarried mother" does not indicate a family without a father or a father-figure. Also being unmarried shouldn't matter - marriage is a governmental/religious concept - not something that is necessary to raise children.
  • It goes without saying that if you are a single parent, whether male or female - you will have a much higher chance of being in poverty while raising children as children are highly expensive. Many single adults can barely pay themselves in this day and age.
  • There is nothing wrong with sexual activity for teenagers.
  • GPA is not an indication of intelligence.
  • While they may be "more than twice as likely" to commit suicide - how many actually go through and succeed? This also doesn't indicate this is from strictly fatherless homes - only single parent households.
    • This brings up the idea of 'Correlation does not equal causation' - something the Fathers.org link seems to be doing quite often. Much of the data referred references single households, not differentiating between fatherless or motherless.
  • I would go more in-depth, but I am on the tail end of my 48 hour shift in the lab so I need to get some sleep.
Ultimately, I believe a single parent household does lead to complications and issues and these concerns need to be addressed - but currently they are not at a level that is so widespread as to "tear the fabric of society".
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
This originally began when you referred to a minority population (the black community which comprises less than 14% of the US population as of the 2017 Census) is experiencing high levels of fatherless families. Even if you look at the 2010 census for households and families, single parents in general make up a tiny portion, let alone ones that are mother or fatherless.
Tiny portion?


Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69. Of those 50.7 million children living in families with two parents, 47.7 million live with two married parents and 3.0 million live with two unmarried parents.

During the 1960-2016 period, the percentage of children living with only their mother nearly tripled from 8 to 23 percent and the percentage of children living with only their father increased from 1 to 4 percent. The percentage of children not living with any parent increased slightly from 3 to 4 percent.

In what world is 31% tiny? In what world is over 1 in 5 kids [23%] being raised by single mothers tiny?

What percent does it need to be before you recognize it is a serious problem?

Because its wayyyyy higher for black America.


According to the above chart, 6,123,000black children live in single parent homes in America.

Here's a different chart with even higher numbers:


Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 17 percent

Non-Hispanic whites 29 percent

Hispanics 53 percent

American Indian and Native Alaskans 66 percent

Non-Hispanic blacks 73 percent
Politifact goes on to adjust for later marriage and says "Estimates for the percentage of African-American children growing up in single-parent households are slightly lower, at 67 percent." But still ranks Don Lemon's original statement as true.

Tiny?

Lemon, sage that he is, goes on to suggest abortion as one way to solve this. More black children are already aborted in NYC than born.


They rank assertion as true. "The numbers for black women in NYC starkly contrasted with women in other racial and ethnic categories. In 2013, births far surpassed abortions for white, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander women." Margeret Sanger would be proud her plan worked. Disgusting.

Now look at gun violence. Look up black on black gun violence. Look at arrests based on police being called to scene [ie, removing random stops, etc] based on race. Think back to the links between single motherhood and increased aggression, drug use, violence.

I won't provide links to the above because this gets into dicey territory because literally nobody wants to talk about it because the people speaking up get called racist. By pointing out causal links other than 'police are racist', I risk getting called a racist. When I'm the one trying to actually provide a solution better than Don 'I'm far left' Lemon suggesting part of the answer is 'more abortions'.

How about we address the problems. How about we recognize the crisis instead of waffling over whether it qualifies as 'tearing the social fabric apart'.



This attention to deteriorating family structures is not new. In 1965, a U.S. Department of Labor official named Daniel Patrick Moynihan created a long-running national debate with a report arguing that "the family structure of lower class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is approaching complete breakdown." He went on: "In essence, the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which ... seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male and, in consequence, on a great many Negro women as well."

Moynihan's diagnosis, controversial a half-century ago, became accepted wisdom. But at the time, the proportion of African-American children born out of wedlock was 24 percent. Today, nationally, it's 72 percent.
Also from that article:
Fact: In Chicago, 51 percent of all children live in single-parent households.
But Chicago isn't in crisis, right?

From same article:
Phillip Jackson, founder and executive director of the Black Star Project, minces no words. "The most important reason parts of the South and West sides are the way they are is the breakdown of the family," he says. "You can't have a strong society without strong families."

The data bear him out. "Poverty rates in female-headed families now hover around 40 percent," Ron Haskins of the liberal Brookings Institution recently wrote. "By contrast, children living in married-couple families have poverty rates that have been as low as 7 percent in recent years."
So yeah, I think the sexual revolution made a critical error in embracing new found freedoms without teaching responsibility. I think well meaning folks underestimated the cultural destruction their programs would cause. I think Larry elder had it right when he said: "And you look at how much money that we spent on welfare and the lines are parallel. It was a neutron bomb dropped on this country not just in the black community but on people in general."

[Full video at bottom]

Sure, some things are great. But I believe our culture, in embracing these newfound freedoms, forgot about responsibility. And I lay the blame partially on the proponents of feminist ideology feminists that block any talk of this as sexist, etc.

The left got some things very, very wrong. And the chickens are coming home to roost, but they just continue to close their eyes because to open them and admit their policy had severe adverse effects on society, especially blacks, is verboten.

 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
3,135
1,420
515
Chicagos numbers are not surprising since the dem party instituted the beta test for the welfare and single mother system in the late 40
s that everyone forgets conveniently. As quoted by one guy "cut the head the body will fall".
 

Vow

Neo Member
Dec 19, 2018
46
47
100
I think we're effectively living in a techno matriarchy. The 80/20 rule means that the majority of men are going to fail at successfully adapting to it. Men who can adapt to it will do well.
 

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,339
1,481
340
Austin, TX
Tiny portion?





In what world is 31% tiny? In what world is over 1 in 5 kids [23%] being raised by single mothers tiny?

What percent does it need to be before you recognize it is a serious problem?

Because its wayyyyy higher for black America.


According to the above chart, 6,123,000black children live in single parent homes in America.

Here's a different chart with even higher numbers:




Politifact goes on to adjust for later marriage and says "Estimates for the percentage of African-American children growing up in single-parent households are slightly lower, at 67 percent." But still ranks Don Lemon's original statement as true.

Tiny?

Lemon, sage that he is, goes on to suggest abortion as one way to solve this. More black children are already aborted in NYC than born.


They rank assertion as true. "The numbers for black women in NYC starkly contrasted with women in other racial and ethnic categories. In 2013, births far surpassed abortions for white, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander women." Margeret Sanger would be proud her plan worked. Disgusting.

Now look at gun violence. Look up black on black gun violence. Look at arrests based on police being called to scene [ie, removing random stops, etc] based on race. Think back to the links between single motherhood and increased aggression, drug use, violence.

I won't provide links to the above because this gets into dicey territory because literally nobody wants to talk about it because the people speaking up get called racist. By pointing out causal links other than 'police are racist', I risk getting called a racist. When I'm the one trying to actually provide a solution better than Don 'I'm far left' Lemon suggesting part of the answer is 'more abortions'.

How about we address the problems. How about we recognize the crisis instead of waffling over whether it qualifies as 'tearing the social fabric apart'.





Also from that article:


But Chicago isn't in crisis, right?

From same article:


So yeah, I think the sexual revolution made a critical error in embracing new found freedoms without teaching responsibility. I think well meaning folks underestimated the cultural destruction their programs would cause. I think Larry elder had it right when he said: "And you look at how much money that we spent on welfare and the lines are parallel. It was a neutron bomb dropped on this country not just in the black community but on people in general."

[Full video at bottom]

Sure, some things are great. But I believe our culture, in embracing these newfound freedoms, forgot about responsibility. And I lay the blame partially on the proponents of feminist ideology feminists that block any talk of this as sexist, etc.

The left got some things very, very wrong. And the chickens are coming home to roost, but they just continue to close their eyes because to open them and admit their policy had severe adverse effects on society, especially blacks, is verboten.

So glad we have these cool new emoji-like likes so I don't have to quote-reply just to say "what he said", but, what he said. The act of incentivizing single motherhood through government welfare is one of the single biggest crimes against modern black (all really, just for the sake of discussion) communities. That they've also managed to convince them that they NEED this welfare, and thus make them feel beholden to the democratic party is such a travesty.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,074
2,765
385
So glad we have these cool new emoji-like likes so I don't have to quote-reply just to say "what he said", but, what he said. The act of incentivizing single motherhood through government welfare is one of the single biggest crimes against modern black (all really, just for the sake of discussion) communities. That they've also managed to convince them that they NEED this welfare, and thus make them feel beholden to the democratic party is such a travesty.
I cant figure out how to do the fancy emoticons. I'm on a tablet and my only choice is 'like' and I dont have the energy to figure out what I'm doing wrong, since if I had that energy I'd grab an entirely new browser so I could install dissenter.

If any of you havent seen the rubin/elder interview I put up above it is fantastic, as are the 2 or 3 later ones. You can literally see Rubin fall apart at his inability to defend against Elder, realizing the gaping holes in his own assumptions, and Rubin isn't dumb.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,019
8,258
1,450
I cant figure out how to do the fancy emoticons. I'm on a tablet and my only choice is 'like' and I dont have the energy to figure out what I'm doing wrong, since if I had that energy I'd grab an entirely new browser so I could install dissenter.

If any of you havent seen the rubin/elder interview I put up above it is fantastic, as are the 2 or 3 later ones. You can literally see Rubin fall apart at his inability to defend against Elder, realizing the gaping holes in his own assumptions, and Rubin isn't dumb.
Tap and hold
 
  • Love
Reactions: autoduelist

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
2,903
3,320
265
boy crisis? i mean women naturally have always lived longer, done better on tests, etc. none of this seems really that new. i read the facts stated in OP and they could've come from the 90s or whenever IMO. everything has to be a crisis these days tho.

personally i think we are living in a golden era of plenty. i think we have historically low crime and violence, and historically high privacy, rights, access to information, etc.

i also think the media and politicians need us to feel the entire opposite. things are bad! they are so bad! so we have to amplify all the bad stuff and make it seem all-consuming. this is what the media does. this is why THEY are so bad. they distort reality. reality is really not so bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
I recognize that single parent familes have problems, but you are only further showing that it isn't an issue large enough to "tear the fabric of society apart." Every single thing you posted only further shows that. 31% of families are single parent - however that doesn't mean that 31% of those are all experiencing the issues stated or suggested, nor is it entirely based on fatherless families as you keep asserting (and which your data does not support). I will reiterate what I stated previously:
  • This brings up the idea of 'Correlation does not equal causation' - something the Fathers.org link seems to be doing quite often. Much of the data referred references single households, not differentiating between fatherless or motherless.
Just change out the Fathers.org link with many of the ones you just added as it still holds true. As an aside, you keep moving goalposts and it is getting rather tiring. First it was the nation that was falling apart, now it is Chicago - make up your mind on what you mean.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,282
5,152
485
boy crisis? i mean women naturally have always lived longer, done better on tests, etc. none of this seems really that new. i read the facts stated in OP and they could've come from the 90s or whenever IMO. everything has to be a crisis these days tho.

personally i think we are living in a golden era of plenty. i think we have historically low crime and violence, and historically high privacy, rights, access to information, etc.

i also think the media and politicians need us to feel the entire opposite. things are bad! they are so bad! so we have to amplify all the bad stuff and make it seem all-consuming. this is what the media does. this is why THEY are so bad. they distort reality. reality is really not so bad.
Media does what it does to earn money and bad stuff earns views. Hell, South Park did this perfectly with their 9/11 episode, IIRC. Sharon was glued to her TV the entire time thinking the world was going to hell in a handbasket as that is what the media only portrayed, yet that was not reality.

You would think this would be common sense, but it is not so common.