[Rancid]

I hate sounding like this, but it only took feminists 30-40 years to destroy the family unit.

Divorce and broken homes are rampant, single motherhood is common, kids without dads, dogs are women's babies instead of actual babies, children are raised by strangers in daycares, 2 income families working in the corporate meat-grinder is somehow better than 1 when it has only really caused inflation/bigger mortgages, people choosing travel and luxury over children...and then having nobody to look after them when they're old, and having little love and fulfillment in retirement.

They were given the keys to the kingdom for the first time in human history and we rooted for their freedom and within 30-40 years western civilization is on a bee-line to total population collapse and extinction.

Now imagine a culture that worships and reveres motherhood and the givers of life itself.

Don't worry about it!

[Potemkin]

I hate sounding like this, but it only took feminists 30-40 years to destroy the family unit.

Divorce and broken homes are rampant, single motherhood is common, kids without dads, dogs are women's babies instead of actual babies, children are raised by strangers in daycares, 2 income families working in the corporate meat-grinder is somehow better than 1 when it has only really caused inflation/bigger mortgages, people choosing travel and luxury over children...and then having nobody to look after them when they're old, and having little love and fulfillment in retirement.

They were given the keys to the kingdom for the first time in human history and we rooted for their freedom and within 30-40 years western civilization is on a bee-line to total population collapse and extinction.

Now imagine a culture that worships and reveres motherhood and the givers of life itself.

[Steve_American]

I hate sounding like this, but it only took feminists 30-40 years to destroy the family unit.

Divorce and broken homes are rampant, single motherhood is common, kids without dads, dogs are women's babies instead of actual babies, children are raised by strangers in daycares, 2 income families working in the corporate meat-grinder is somehow better than 1 when it has only really caused inflation/bigger mortgages, people choosing travel and luxury over children...and then having nobody to look after them when they're old, and having little love and fulfillment in retirement.

They were given the keys to the kingdom for the first time in human history and we rooted for their freedom and within 30-40 years western civilization is on a bee-line to total population collapse and extinction.

Now imagine a culture that worships and reveres motherhood and the givers of life itself.

Really. Really?
You blame feminists for all those problems?

I would instead blame the Neo-liberal Economic Revolution that began in the late 60s or early 70s, and gained its 1st power with Reagan's disastrous election. Then, Clinton sold out America for campaign contributions. And neo-liberalism has gained power ever since.

After, Bust I's election, the American voters have voted for the anti or less neo-liberal President candidate every time. Even Obama and Trump talked anti-liberalism. But, they were lying like every conman does.

Now the Repuds are on the brink of destroying democracy.

.

[Potemkin]

Really. Really?
You blame feminists for all those problems?

I would instead blame the Neo-liberal Economic Revolution that began in the late 60s or early 70s, and gained its 1st power with Reagan's disastrous election. Then, Clinton sold out America for campaign contributions. And neo-liberalism has gained power ever since.

After, Bust I's election, the American voters have voted for the anti or less neo-liberal President candidate every time. Even Obama and Trump talked anti-liberalism. But, they were lying like every conman does.

Now the Repuds are on the brink of destroying democracy.

.

So you're claiming that it's really the financial and political elite who fucked things up for the average joe...?

You lie! It's the wimminz! The wimminz are the ones who did it! For thousands of years, they were biding their time, pretending to be subservient and submissive, but all the time they were plotting their takeover....

Can't you see it?! Don't you see?! It's so obvious! Why can nobody see it? WHY??!!

[Unthinking Majority]

Don't worry about it!

Don't worry about a unsustainable culture going extinct?

I can't change it so i don't worry too much about it, it's just sad really. The West is ill and Darwinism will mean go the way of the dodo.

[Unthinking Majority]

Really. Really?
You blame feminists for all those problems?

I would instead blame the Neo-liberal Economic Revolution that began in the late 60s or early 70s, and gained its 1st power with Reagan's disastrous election. Then, Clinton sold out America for campaign contributions. And neo-liberalism has gained power ever since.

After, Bust I's election, the American voters have voted for the anti or less neo-liberal President candidate every time. Even Obama and Trump talked anti-liberalism. But, they were lying like every conman does.

Now the Repuds are on the brink of destroying democracy.

.

Sure there's some blame there too, but even during the depression people were having kids and raising them themselves.

I don't like appearing like some meme shaking my fist at feminists. I certainly don't hate equal rights for women, that would be ludicrous, but the results have been pretty disastrous with what they've chosen with their freedom and can't be ignored.

If every culture in the world was like the west the human race would go extinct based on the reproductive rates.

[Unthinking Majority]

So you're claiming that it's really the financial and political elite who fucked things up for the average joe...?

You lie! It's the wimminz! The wimminz are the ones who did it! For thousands of years, they were biding their time, pretending to be subservient and submissive, but all the time they were plotting their takeover....

Can't you see it?! Don't you see?! It's so obvious! Why can nobody see it? WHY??!!

But tell me I'm wrong. Seriously. I have no issues with women having rights. But their choices with those rights and freedoms have been largely selfish on the grand scheme, at the expense of the family unit and their own children or lack of.

Tell me I'm wrong, and give me evidence why if you do.

Of course, men are also to blame, we're part of some of these decisions.

[Rancid]

Don't worry about a unsustainable culture going extinct?

I can't change it so i don't worry too much about it, it's just sad really. The West is ill and Darwinism will mean go the way of the dodo.

Don't blame me man. I'm married, 2 kids, and single income home.

[Unthinking Majority]

Don't blame me man. I'm married, 2 kids, and single income home.

Don't worry, i'm blaming feminists

[Truth To Power]

I hate sounding like this, but it only took feminists 30-40 years to destroy the family unit.

Feminism is extremely weak in places like Japan and Korea, but their marriage rates and birthrates have still plunged because raising children there is financial suicide.

Divorce and broken homes are rampant, single motherhood is common, kids without dads, dogs are women's babies instead of actual babies, children are raised by strangers in daycares, 2 income families working in the corporate meat-grinder is somehow better than 1 when it has only really caused inflation/bigger mortgages, people choosing travel and luxury over children...and then having nobody to look after them when they're old, and having little love and fulfillment in retirement.

We have created an institutional environment in which children are a very large economic liability to their parents rather than an asset. To raise a child is equivalent to taking a vow of perpetual poverty. Not rocket science.

They were given the keys to the kingdom for the first time in human history and we rooted for their freedom and within 30-40 years western civilization is on a bee-line to total population collapse and extinction.

In former times, women could not choose not to have children except by choosing poverty, dependence, and perpetual legal childhood. Probably they did not like raising their sons to be cannon fodder in rich men's wars. But many modern parents are aware, even if subconsciously, that they are raising children to be economic cannon fodder, and it is, I submit, similarly horrifying.

Now imagine a culture that worships and reveres motherhood and the givers of life itself.

Imagine a society in which every resident citizen, right down to newborns, has their rights, or just compensation for their abrogation.

[Unthinking Majority]

Feminism is extremely weak in places like Japan and Korea, but their marriage rates and birthrates have still plunged because raising children there is financial suicide.

Have you seen the culture in Japan? A lot of the men are still boys and spend their time playing videogames in their parents' house and too afraid to even talk to girls. Their culture is far worse than the West. It used to be wonderful, now it's pathetic. Everyone is a perceptual child. If you play Japanese video games most of them treat you like you're a baby that needs your hand held. 30 years ago they were brutally difficult.

We have created an institutional environment in which children are a very large economic liability to their parents rather than an asset. To raise a child is equivalent to taking a vow of perpetual poverty. Not rocket science.

Then what was the excuse for literally every other century in human history when everyone was dirt poor?

My grandmother could barely afford clothes and grew up during the Depression. People would rather have a BMW and travel than have kids. People are lazy and don't want any responsibility, if they even manage to move out of their parents' house by the time they're 35. Sperm counts are down for young men. They're being raised without fathers, brainwashed to be hypersensitive pussies, and their testicles are literally shriveling up.

In former times, women could not choose not to have children except by choosing poverty, dependence, and perpetual legal childhood. Probably they did not like raising their sons to be cannon fodder in rich men's wars. But many modern parents are aware, even if subconsciously, that they are raising children to be economic cannon fodder, and it is, I submit, similarly horrifying.

Women want kids, it's in their DNA, but they just buy a tiny dog instead and treat it like their child.

[Steve_American]

Sure there's some blame there too, but even during the depression people were having kids and raising them themselves.

I don't like appearing like some meme shaking my fist at feminists. I certainly don't hate equal rights for women, that would be ludicrous, but the results have been pretty disastrous with what they've chosen with their freedom and can't be ignored.

If every culture in the world was like the west the human race would go extinct based on the reproductive rates.

Then in a reply to potemkin he wrote:

But tell me I'm wrong. Seriously. I have no issues with women having rights. [highlight=yellow]But their choices with those rights and freedoms have been largely selfish on the grand scheme,[/highlight]at the expense of the family unit and their own children or lack of.

Tell me I'm wrong, and give me evidence why if you do.

Of course, men are also to blame, we're part of some of these decisions.

Unthinking Majority, the time period of feminism is close to exactly the time period of Neo-liberalism.

In neo-liberalism, a key axiom is that every economic player is selfish and greedy to the maximum degree. It proves that when everyone is selfish the economy works at maximum efficiency. It looks to me that women have take that theory to heart and behave that way. You say they are greedy, I say that they have reacted to the changing economic world they find themselves in. And, that world was created by greedy men.

AFAIK, back in the day a young man got a raise if he got married. This is never true now. Yes, feminists complained about this as unequal, but the bosses became more greedy and would not have done it any more anyway.

Peter Ziehan says that the drop in birth rates is a worldwide thing. He says that it is because kids were an asset on farms but are never an asset to the family now. This is because we expect them to move out of the family home and start their own life ASAP after they graduate. So, Peter says that it is a result of city life. BTW, this was always true. That is, through out history, cities needed an inflow from farms to maintain their population. In the past historians blamed this on city diseases, but it may also have resulted from kids being an asset on farms and a liability in cities.

My solution would be to use the national Gov's magic money tree, aka deficit spending of borrowed money, to fund national child support payments every month. Large payments. Even larger than France pays. Basically, what ever it costs to support a kid. Then other free stuff like free schools through college, free healthcare, free child care, etc.

In the US this has been impossible because of racism, i.e., white people don't want to support Black kids with tax dollars. Of course, I'm not using taxpayer dollars, but most people are totally wed to that way of thinking.

Because of ACC and what I see as population overshoot of what the earth can support without damage to the environment, I would cap the payments to just the 1st 2 kids a family (woman) has.

So, I'm asking you to imagine the difference that $1000/month would make to the decision making process of families, even if it was capped at 2 kids. This is $2400/year in addition to what the parents earn. Note, I would have other laws to make corps not take advantage of these payments to overtime reduce the wages they pay.

An example of such a program is the MMT type national Job Guarantee Program that pays a socially inclusive wage to everyone who wants to work. Today, a socially inclusive wage might need to be about $25/hr.

OTOH, I have felt that women have been too choosey. They want the perfect husband. They often refuse to "settle" for the man they can get. [A crazy solution for this is --- a tax on unmarried women over 25 years old. This is intended to be a little push to settle for the man they can get. A spinsters tax. Of course, marrying another woman confuses this. In Japan IMO the men have given up finding a wife because women don't need a husband and refuse to settle for the man they can get. I'm not expert enough to know if Japanese wives are expected to be subservient to their husband too much.]

Also, I studied engineering and anthropology in college around 1969. In anthro I learned that in tribes the men were expected to risk their lives when fighting to defend the tribe from lions and other tribes, while women were expected to risk their lives having kids. It was a duty to the tribe and to the "clan" to have kids. In some tribes they became an adult only when they had their 1st kid.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

Unthinking Majority, the time period of feminism is close to exactly the time period of Neo-liberalism.

In neo-liberalism, a key axiom is that every economic player is selfish and greedy to the maximum degree. It proves that when everyone is selfish the economy works at maximum efficiency. It looks to me that women have take that theory to heart and behave that way. You say they are greedy, I say that they have reacted to the changing economic world they find themselves in. And, that world was created by greedy men.

I don't disagree with the point that neoliberalism has caused some of this. Liberalism, in general, has caused some of this. Liberalism, which certainly has many good points to it, is about individual liberty. But too much freedom can easily lead to chaos. We are seeing a lot of chaos right now, more than in a long time in the West.

The old order that society was built on, for thousands of years, has been eroded since the Enlightenment, and this erosion has sped up greatly since the 60's. There is nothing wrong with knowledge or discovery or new ways of thinking and doing, but change can be dangerous, and it is simply a matter of making sure the new way is better than the old and you're not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The naive will plow forward into "progress" without looking back while dancing on the dead body of the old.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Steve_American]

I don't disagree with the point that neoliberalism has caused some of this. Liberalism, in general, has caused some of this. Liberalism, which certainly has many good points to it, is about individual liberty. But too much freedom can easily lead to chaos. We are seeing a lot of chaos right now, more than in a long time in the West.

The old order that society was built on, for thousands of years, has been eroded since the Enlightenment, and this erosion has sped up greatly since the 60's. There is nothing wrong with knowledge or discovery or new ways of thinking and doing, but change can be dangerous, and it is simply a matter of making sure the new way is better than the old and you're not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The naive will plow forward into "progress" without looking back while dancing on the dead body of the old.

Be careful what you wish for.

With all due respect, this problem is nothing compared to the problems the world faces from CO2 emissions and the resulting ACC, aka AGW. I think we can/must put this on the back burner, and solve ACC.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

With all due respect, this problem is nothing compared to the problems the world faces from CO2 emissions and the resulting ACC, aka AGW. I think we can/must put this on the back burner, and solve ACC.

.

This also applies to MMT so let's stop giving people debt money to consume more resources.

[Steve_American]

This also applies to MMT so let's stop giving people debt money to consume more resources.

I'm just trying to keep the people alive, in a home, and eating without going to a food bank. So, their kids can go the same school year after year.

But, mainly I see MMT as a way to fund the GND to change from burning carbon to using renewable energy, etc.

So, far Congress has not understood that deficit money can do this. Biden doesn't understand either.

.

[Wellsy]

No, it's all natural selection, @QatzelOk. When beavers build a dam, are they using technology? When chimpanzees use sticks to winkle out termites, aren't they using tools? Isn't that technology? Humans just do it on a much, much bigger scale, that's all. There's nothing unique to humans that doesn't exist in the rest of the natural world. When we use trawlers to dredge all living things out of an area of the sea, that is natural selection. And when we have degraded our natural environment so badly that we go extinct, that too will be natural selection.

And I found the very term for such a similarity but of varying scale: niche construction.

Which validates Marx’s emphasis on labour as the basis of all that is human. We shape the world to meet human needs and this shape ourselves. An epistemology that doesn’t consider man inseparable from the natural world doesn’t recognize the distinctly human basis of our early beginnings to modern society in all its forms.

And the whole feminism destroyed the family unit seems a vague talking point of old scare propaganda than analysis of what disrupts family units and makes it difficult to endure our bounce back. And implies of a conservative structuralism as if it was honky dory back in the day and problems only existed now. Lotta rose tinted glasses at the past ignore the anomoly that was 20th century to the masses in first world nations. Lotta shit is going back to business as usua but throw in some more exacerbating technological social trends such as the bitter boy who lives online and doesn’t properly socialize with people.

[Potemkin]

And I found the very term for such a similarity but of varying scale: niche construction.

Which validates Marx’s emphasis on labour as the basis of all that is human. We shape the world to meet human needs and this shape ourselves. An epistemology that doesn’t consider man inseparable from the natural world doesn’t recognize the distinctly human basis of our early beginnings to modern society in all its forms.

Precisely. And in my opinion this is why @QatzelOk is fundamentally reactionary in his politics. As a philosophical idealist, he places an absolute divide between humanity and nature. He doesn't want us to shape the world to meet human needs, and thereby shape ourselves. He wants us to leave nature alone, as though the Neolithic Revolution had never happened. Marx understood that labour is our connection with the natural world, and is the only truly creative force. Abstract thinking limps along in a poor second place.

[Wellsy]

Precisely. And in my opinion this is why @QatzelOk is fundamentally reactionary in his politics. As a philosophical idealist, he places an absolute divide between humanity and nature. He doesn't want us to shape the world to meet human needs, and thereby shape ourselves. He wants us to leave nature alone, as though the Neolithic Revolution had never happened. Marx understood that labour is our connection with the natural world, and is the only truly creative force. Abstract thinking limps along in a poor second place.

Thats quite a strong dislike of humans. But reminds me of green activists spiking trees to stop loggers cutting em down. Willing to injure workers rather than collaborate in creating new economic sources. Feels as cynical as the rest of us and fascinated with a fatalistic end due to the overwhelming nature of redirecting masses to clear ends.

[Truth To Power]

Then what was the excuse for literally every other century in human history when everyone was dirt poor?

They didn't have safe, reliable contraception, and women had no route to economic security but by marriage.

My grandmother could barely afford clothes and grew up during the Depression. People would rather have a BMW and travel than have kids. People are lazy and don't want any responsibility, if they even manage to move out of their parents' house by the time they're 35.

I agree young people don't want responsibility. The problem is that the specific responsibility of raising children now comes with a financial cyanide capsule as well as the unavoidable physical and emotional burdens.

Sperm counts are down for young men. They're being raised without fathers, brainwashed to be hypersensitive pussies, and their testicles are literally shriveling up.

I suspect there's more to it than that, like endocrine pollution.

Women want kids, it's in their DNA, but they just buy a tiny dog instead and treat it like their child.

They see how hard it is to raise a child, physically, emotionally and especially financially, and they don't want to go there.