Leaving Reddit for trying erase women.

submitted by hylia from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]hylia[S] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Well... I guess I’m a bit different? I don’t believe in the gender pay gap. That “gap” exists from what women choose to work. It’s an average across the board rather than a comparison to exact careers. I do believe women can do some things better but men can do certain things better than us! Sexual liberation is something quite grotesque to me. I don’t believe it’s mentally healthy for anyone to reduced the intimacy of sex into something like “masturbation but with extra steps”.

Those are my personal beliefs however i will support any woman who makes any sound decision with good intentions.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

You seem pretty sane, no offense meant. The thing I hate most about feminism is that it discourages women from being mothers and housewives. They shouldn't be forced to be those things, but for many their instincts will desire it. To be the center of a home and family, to have children and educate them - to be the rock that her husband leans on.

Feminism has ever been full of propaganda that any lifestyle other than acting like a wage slave is bad, and of course this makes sense when you look at who financed the movements and what their objectives were... Funnier is that they've brainwashed many women to think that corporate ladders and employment position mean something. They certainly don't to men, especially not in mate selection.

This has dropped fertility rates below replacement levels, and doomed our current form of western civilization to death within our lifetimes. Biology cares about successful reproduction, and that's it. Civilizations live and die by their fertility and assimilation rates.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's very active parts of radical feminism looking at the social factors that discourage women from choosing motherhood or from being able to do it safely (health outcomes, not getting fired from jobs). A lot of radical feminist discussion is about women's role in perpetuation of the species. Can we make it less risky? Less miserable? Can we set up systems that encourage those wanting to be mothers to do it well and those same systems don't pressure women who don't want to be mothers away from other life work? What makes for a healthy family? What family systems support a healthy society? What do alternatives look like? How do we mitigate relationship risks? At least, those are the conversations I've followed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

These are all questions worth pursuing answers for. I don't think these questions can best be addressed in an echo chamber.

What makes for a healthy family?

Positive male and female role models that are present and don't abrogate the responsibility for raising their children to the state - would be my opinion.

What family systems support a healthy society?

The nuclear family structure supports a healthy society. Research has strongly shown that what I described above results in optimum outcomes for the success of children and the happiness and health of the parents. Especially into old age, wherein they have people willing to take care of them. Young men that have no options for relationships get into all sorts of trouble. The modern "hookup" culture that has arisen is terrible for both men and women.

What do alternatives look like?

Cancer in my experience, but I'd love to hear some of the things you've heard discussed.

How do we mitigate relationship risks?

If you don't mind, expand on this. Do you mean where one of the partners is abusive? We definitely have flawed systems set up to address those issues. Men often get run over in divorce and custody proceedings but the whole thing is damn uneven and fucked up. From a woman sleeping around and taking everything a man owns, to a man abusing his wife and children for years and getting away with it. These flaws are more systemic to our corrupt justice system though, than they are specific to family court.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

Positive male and female role models is insufficient by itself for a healthy family. A healthy family has got to have so much more. You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency. Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

I think the issues need to be culturally addressed rather than legally. People are pretty inventive and the government usually makes social problems worse, not better.

You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency.

I don't disagree with a thing you've said, but you've basically laid out my definition of "positive role models" in a very verbose fashion. I enjoyed reading it.

Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

In the old days, people didn't move far from home. So, you had a nuclear family (mother, father, kids) in a house that was probably adjacent to or within walking distance of other family. In addition, since old fashioned agrarian lifestyles required lots of community cooperation in many respects the kids were raised by their parents in cooperation with kin, grandparents, and other members of the community.

Much of the comparatively less fulfilling modern life and less stable nuclear family can be laid at the feet of Techno-Industrial society and innovations that have made our lives easier, but also far less fulfilling. I don't think any laws can help this situation - only dedicated lifestyle changes by people. Idle hands are the devil's playground, and people given everything on a silver platter are never happy.

https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia

Don't want to go all Unabomber on you, but read his manifesto. His critique of the human misery caused by Techno-Industrial society is spot on, and has many ramifications in regards to the current problems facing families.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

I'm usually not fond of solutions that rely upon state force to solve social problems. Largely because all states inevitably end up, sooner or later - corrupt. Ours is certainly well into that territory.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

It's a thought, and you might be able to achieve it with a close circle of very good friends; but probably not. Human nature is not caring about other people's children nearly as much as you do your own. Then of course, are the systemic risks. I'm actually terrified of other people's children, and refuse to be alone with any of them. Too easy for a man these days to be accused of inappropriate behavior, and if that happens to you, the burden is on you to prove your own innocence. In the interest of protecting women and children the application of the law has gone from "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" to "Guilty until Proven Innocent" and mounting any sort of defense is incredibly costly. Our legal system is based on money, not justice. Have enough money and you can walk on murder, have none and piss off a prosecutor, you'll do hard time for jaywalking.

[–]radfem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

So if you dislike feminism just for discouraging women from being wives and mothers... How do you feel about broader societal trends that funnel and pressure them directly into it?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

How do you feel about broader societal trends that funnel and pressure them directly into it?

Such as? Show me just one mainstream commercial or propaganda piece trying to convince women to be housewives or stay at home moms. Restriction: Must be within the past 30 years and must be in a Western country. If you can find me even one I'll be impressed, I can provide thousands of counter-examples.

/edit: Outside of propaganda, depressed wages resulting from a doubling of the labor supply have created strong societal pressures for women to work, as the majority of men are no longer able to earn enough alone to support a family. Many families these days either can't afford the luxury of a single income home, or are unwilling to compromise their materialistic lifestyles to achieve it.

[–]radfem 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I never said women aren't required to now work outside the home.

I said women are pressured by broader societal trends to be wives and mothers. Which is why feminism pushes back against that norm.

But please if you'd like, feel free to show me social prop discouraging women from marrying and producing children. I'd really love to see it.

Also... you freely acknowledge that most men cannot afford to have their wives stay at home regardless, is that because of feminism too or do you think predator capitalism might have something to do with it?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

I said women are pressured by broader societal trends to be wives and mothers. Which is why feminism pushes back against that norm.

Ok, show or name them.

But please if you like it, feel free to show me social prop discouraging women from marrying and producing children. I'd really love to see it.

Ok, for the sake of brevity I'll limit myself to some recent entries.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/culture/article/You-don-t-want-to-bring-a-baby-into-a-world-14487515.php

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/children-climate-change-reproduction-conceivable-future-birthstrike_n_5d134d63e4b0aa375f564d27

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/03/26/climate-change-war-famine-drought-makes-women-not-want-children/3099448002/

https://www.mic.com/articles/114040/for-young-women-not-having-children-has-become-the-rational-decision

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/is-it-okay-to-have-children-in-a-time-of-climate-chaos-1.4258290

I can keep going and going, but I'm sure none of this is hitting you outta left field. You've probably seen and heard it's like over and over through the years: perhaps not seeing it for what it is. The biggest obstacle to replacement levels of children seems to be statistically be, educational attainment. The bitch of biology is, it doesn't care why you're not having kids. You're dying out if you're below replacement level. This breeding that is still occurring above replacement level, which the exception of those on the very conservative end of the political spectrum, is very dysgenic.

The left tries to act like humanity is above biology and you can't breed better or worse humans. This is demonstrably wrong, intelligence especially is extremely heritable. To the degree that if you've sequenced your genes, you can conduct a "genetic IQ" test, that is as accurate as the administered ones. Maybe intelligence is a negative trait evolution is correcting for? That's certainly been the effect evidencing itself for the past 70 years. We've been - through welfare programs, encouraging our stupidest and most violent to breed like rabbits - while talking ourselves into having less kids later (higher chances of defects and failure). This has had disastrous effects within only a few generations. The average IQ in Baltimore right now is below 80.

I refuse to give up what we've achieved so easily. I'm not naive enough to think humans above the rules of biology. If we don't collectively sort our shit out and fast, evolution will march on. Natural selection only cares about reproductive success and survival. Our inflated IQ's will be left in fossil territory if we don't buckle up. If we want to have a future that's not a dystopian hellhole we should be encouraging the smartest and healthiest among us to have loads of children while they are young; and discourage our weakest and stupidest from having them at all.

The life stages for women should not mirror those of men. Men are education --> education --> career --> children --> death

A much more healthy pattern for the success of the species would look like this for women. education --> children --> education --> career --> death

Feminism's desire to transform women into men has caused this. A bright 17 year old girl who says, "I want to get married and have children next year, after High School" would have almost all aspects of society and school telling them they are "throwing their life away". Obviously, I'd tell them - "That's fantastic, good luck with motherhood!". That is not what feminists would tell them.

[–]radfem 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

So women are discouraged from having children because it's financially disastrous and the planet is literally dying but... that's just feminists discouraging women from pursuing their natural motherly drives because they want women to be like men? Not seeing the connection. Meanwhile whos fault is it that it's financially disastrous to have children and that the planet is dying? That feminists too or do you think male CEOs, politicians and policy makers should take some credit here as well?

Ps considering the landscape you yourself have described wouldn't that 17 year old be better off working in earth sciences trying to correct some of our current climate issues or should she leave that to the males?

Pps if you're so worried about population why don't you or any of your like minded brothers ever take the initiative to stay home and raise children? Or support men who do?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

So women are discouraged from having children because it's financially disastrous and the planet is literally dying but... that's just feminists discouraging women from pursuing their natural motherly drives because they want women to be like men?

The planet dying is...overrated. If we really wanted to fix pollution issues we'd cut off the two primary sources of pollution, Africa and China. However, those are only ever mentioned in passing when we talk about solving the earth's problems. It's only White western people that need to make changes. By the same token, it's always White western women that are propagandized not to have more children. I assure you the jewish women writing these articles would self identify as feminists.

Not seeing the connection. Meanwhile whos fault is it that it's financially disastrous to have children and that the planet is dying? That feminists too or do you think male CEOs, politicians and policy makers should take some credit here as well?

Heh, who do you think funds Feminism? It's largely not women.

Pps if you're so worried about population why don't you or any of your like minded brothers ever take the initiative to stay home and raise children? Or support men who do?

I suppose I shouldn't be worried. As I said, only those classifying themselves as "extremely right wing" are above replacement rate. That includes people like me and my family. We've done our part.

Even though I think many of you are misguided, I don't necessarily think the world will be better off when your lot has died out. I do enjoy conversations outside of my normal circles.

[–]radfem 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

You didn't answer the question though...

In those articles why are women being told not to have children?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Because it's bad for the environment. I've also seen Whites specifically being told not to have children because their "Whiteness" is toxic. That's particularly cancerous propaganda coming out of the Critical Theory camps.

You didn't provide examples for "pressured by broader societal trends to be wives and mothers". I am still curious what you've got there. I'd probably consider whatever you do have a positive development, but that's aside from the point.