Sorry, had to trim the quotes because I hit the character limit on Said it.

I don't think it's fair to blame the left for the actions of the right...

I blame the left because they've been setting the tone for more than a decade. The media in the US is overwhelmingly left-leaning as is the corporate world. The rise of anti-migrant sentiment, not entirely unexpectedly, arose from a sharp rise in migration. The UK is a great example of this, where Tony Blair massively increased rates of immigration as part of his a multicultural dream that has never worked. Indeed social scientists have been struggling for decades to find ways to make it work or perhaps make it less bad. People questioning this narrative get denounced as racists, even if simply asking why we should want to substantially change the demographics of the country. The UK, to use it again as an example, has seen a massive shift in demographics in the past 30 years, and people notice this. It also doesn't exactly help contain the far right when certain types of migrants have a habit of showing up in particularly unpleasant crimes that governments and media seem to be reluctant to address. There has been a concerted effort to paper over these problems, and nobody would listen to the concerns. Well, the far right is more than happy to discuss the situation, so we can't be surprised if that's where the conversation goes. I don't think either of us wants a far right response. Trump is not far-right, and I'm hoping he can drag America back closer to the centre and forestall the need for something extreme.

But you're right in that trump is simply a manifestation of a long lying problem...

What Trump has done is to give a voice to people already disenfranchised by leftists and corporate politics. It's easy, if a bit elitist, to dismiss this supporters as a bunch of hick racists. That's part of the problem! He's appealing to a lot of normal people, not racist bumpkins, and leftists and elitists seem to be a condescending denial about this. Can you point to specific damage done by sanctions he imposed, providing data that explicitly links those sanctions to a net loss? Are there any things he's done that you'd support?

With regards to violent crime...

It's actually a good example. Yes, men commit the majority of violent crimes. Domestic violence is more contentious, as both women and men are equally capable instigators of abuse. There is data on this, and I've witnessed it myself. The joy of alcohol... It just happens that men can do more damage, physically, and also women are more likely than men to report abuse. Returning to the general question of violence, are you suggesting that men are privileged, even when physically attacked, because they belong to a gender that has won the violence contest? This is the problem with the collectivist mentality. A victim is a victim, regardless of gender. Statistically women are less likely to be victims of violent crime, plain and simple, and that's what's relevant. That the attackers tend to belong to a specific gender has no bearing on this.

Incidentally, the rate of pregnancy-associated deaths is incredibly low, and I suspect you're referring to the Maryland study. This was a study in a single state that came out higher than the CDCs national figures, yet was still only a double-digit in 100,000 live births. Even in the most at-risk age group (1-19), homicide is the fourth most common cause at 7.7% of deaths, but this itself is tiny when you consider that it's a percentage of the women who die in that age group.

In terms of the west..

Sexual violence is rare, and that's a good thing. It can also be rather vague, so I'm basing this on defined crimes as recorded by arrests and also from victim survey data. Harassment is very subjective. I've no doubt it happens, there are arseholes in this world. I've experienced aggressive behaviours, harassment, and violence. Fortunately not very often. Unfortunately some people generalise rare bad behaviour, perhaps combined with some neurosis, and decide there is a systemic issue that must be addressed. No, we call this life. Some people are good, some are bad - that runs across both genders, albeit expressed in different ways.

With regards to the discussion...

Agreed. Oppression does exist, mostly outside of the West, and based on gender, ethnicity, religion, wealth, and many other things. I don't think problems on the other side of the planet should be brought in to a discussion about Western issues any more than the condition of roads in Kazakhstan has a bearing on discussing driving in Germany.

With regards to marriage/reproduction...

It's not really a trope. It's a biological drive. People, particularly women, want to have kids. It's kind of how the species survived. It's not for everybody, and I'm glad people get to choose. There is a penalty to motherhood, and fatherhood. Having kids is a serious undertaking that places heavy demands on both parents. It's not like the typical mother is at home with the kids while dad is out doing whatever he wants. I know plenty of parents, and I try to be considerate of the demands parenthood places upon them. If anything women have been placed under greater pressure to have careers and eschew the traditional idea of being a mother, and that's not going so well. The political lesbian movement of the UK (1970s I think) was particularly hilarious. Some feminists, and pretty mainstream ones, were viewing heterosexuality as traitorous. Dworkin comes to mind. Turns out you can't choose to be lesbian regardless of your political views. On the shift away from family, indicators of satisfaction with life and depression appear to be heading in the wrong direction for women. I think either direction for men and women is fine. People shouldn't feel pressured for political reasons to go one way or the other.

The other side of that is the world we live in...

I can understand that. News is excessively focussed on negative happenings. Politics is a complete bloody mess and becoming more a team sport than an attempt to build good societies. People killing others over a TV or a pair of shoes. I can see how it could be a downer. The thing is, this remains one of the best times in human history to be alive. Worldwide absolute poverty on a global level continues to decline. Even poor people in the West have opportunities and resources available to them that a 19th century king could dream of. I prefer a more optimistic but realistic view, and that's why I think Trump has to win. He's not the ideal candidate, but I'd take him over the street rabble and those in politics and the media who encourage them. The adoption idea is nice. If it'd make you happy, there's nothing greater than to offer a child a chance of a good family and a home.