Feminism

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/twkV_xXPMvI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BeauBenken]

She was so preoccupied with whether or not she could that she didn't stop to think if she should.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lpuS7_NPv6U" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

Reminds me of "free bleeding."

This feminist marathoner didn’t hide her period for 26.2 miles - Massachusetts news - Boston.com

 

[woolybug25]

Feminist Hero Bakes Sourdough Bread Using Her Own Vaginal Yeast

I wonder what kind of hairnet is required for that sort of thing.....

I cannot believe that I clicked that link. That's filthy.

 

[dang227]

I cannot believe that I clicked that link. That's filthy.

I did the exact same thing. WTF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buster Bluth]

Feminist Hero Bakes Sourdough Bread Using Her Own Vaginal Yeast

I wonder what kind of hairnet is required for that sort of thing.....

See now this is a bannable post.

 

[wizards8507]

New Yorkers sample cheese made from human breast milk | Reuters

 

[Grahambo]

I cannot believe that I clicked that link. That's filthy.

I was disgusted with myself.

 

[wizards8507]

Dear Millennial Men, Don’t Be Afraid of Marriage And Fatherhood | TheBlaze.com

Discuss.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Dear Millennial Men, Don&#146;t Be Afraid of Marriage And Fatherhood | TheBlaze.com

Discuss.

Would you like to begin?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

Would you like to begin?

I think it's spot-on. For all of the hyperbole thrown around about millennials, I don't think it can be disputed that adulthood, and manhood in particular, has been bastardized. In 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men achieved the five milestones of adulthood--completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying, and having a child--by age 30. In 2010, that percentage fell to 13% of women and 10% of men. Boys don't become men anymore, they become "guys" until their mid-30s and then men somewhere down the line if they get to it.

 

[IrishLax]

I think it's spot-on. For all of the hyperbole thrown around about millennials, I don't think it can be disputed that adulthood, and manhood in particular, has been bastardized. In 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men achieved the five milestones of adulthood--completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying, and having a child--by age 30. In 2010, that percentage fell to 13% of women and 10% of men. Boys don't become men anymore, they become "guys" until their mid-30s and then men somewhere down the line if they get to it.

You know what happened after 1960? The pill.

Ethological studies of men are rather conflicted on how much we're biologically hardwired to pair-bond (what has evolved into the institution of marriage) versus try to "spread our seed" as much as possible. Pre-1960 most men ended up marrying early because that's how you got to have sex, and society also stigmatized anything other than that type of hetro-normative nuclear family behavior.

Every year since the "sexual revolution" societal norms have moved further and further away from that. I think it has almost nothing at all to do with "fear," as author postulates at one point. And much more to do with narcissism, which he also discusses in a roundabout way.

Millennials are the first generation to grow up with internet porn, and there have been lots of studies that show how that is really fucking up our brains. Then they watch all kinds of approved shows... whether it's Entourage or Friends or Seinfeld or Sex in the City or PICK ANY FUCKING SITCOM ON TV FOR LITERALLY THE PAST 2+ DECADES... that all broadcast the idea that living as a "dude" and chasing "strange" is what men should aspire to.

Naturally, that's what people do. And I don't think there is necessarily anything "worse" with the way Millennials are behaving relative to people multiple generations ago. Are we going to sit here and say getting married at 18-22 and having 5+ kids is "better" than getting married between 28-35 and maybe having 1-2 children? Because I won't make that argument.

Also, I like my room and I like my toys. So the author can suck it.

 

[Wild Bill]

Men get slammed by family courts and women file close to 70% of all divorces. That's a tough pill to swallow for a man who has something to lose.

 

[ThePiombino]

You know what happened after 1960? The pill.

Ethological studies of men are rather conflicted on how much we're biologically hardwired to pair-bond (what has evolved into the institution of marriage) versus try to "spread our seed" as much as possible. Pre-1960 most men ended up marrying early because that's how you got to have sex, and society also stigmatized anything other than that type of hetro-normative nuclear family behavior.

Every year since the "sexual revolution" societal norms have moved further and further away from that. I think it has almost nothing at all to do with "fear," as author postulates at one point. And much more to do with narcissism, which he also discusses in a roundabout way.

Millennials are the first generation to grow up with internet porn, and there have been lots of studies that show how that is really fucking up our brains. Then they watch all kinds of approved shows... whether it's Entourage or Friends or Seinfeld or Sex in the City or PICK ANY FUCKING SITCOM ON TV FOR LITERALLY THE PAST 2+ DECADES... that all broadcast the idea that living as a "dude" and chasing "strange" is what men should aspire to.

Naturally, that's what people do. And I don't think there is necessarily anything "worse" with the way Millennials are behaving relative to people multiple generations ago. Are we going to sit here and say getting married at 18-22 and having 5+ kids is "better" than getting married between 28-35 and maybe having 1-2 children? Because I won't make that argument.

Also, I like my room and I like my toys. So the author can suck it.

Amen to all of this.

 

[wizards8507]

You know what happened after 1960? The pill.

Ethological studies of men are rather conflicted on how much we're biologically hardwired to pair-bond (what has evolved into the institution of marriage) versus try to "spread our seed" as much as possible. Pre-1960 most men ended up marrying early because that's how you got to have sex, and society also stigmatized anything other than that type of hetro-normative nuclear family behavior.

Every year since the "sexual revolution" societal norms have moved further and further away from that. I think it has almost nothing at all to do with "fear," as author postulates at one point. And much more to do with narcissism, which he also discusses in a roundabout way.

Millennials are the first generation to grow up with internet porn, and there have been lots of studies that show how that is really fucking up our brains. Then they watch all kinds of approved shows... whether it's Entourage or Friends or Seinfeld or Sex in the City or PICK ANY FUCKING SITCOM ON TV FOR LITERALLY THE PAST 2+ DECADES... that all broadcast the idea that living as a "dude" and chasing "strange" is what men should aspire to.

Naturally, that's what people do. And I don't think there is necessarily anything "worse" with the way Millennials are behaving relative to people multiple generations ago. Are we going to sit here and say getting married at 18-22 and having 5+ kids is "better" than getting married between 28-35 and maybe having 1-2 children? Because I won't make that argument.

Is your position that there is no benefit to society from nuclear family behavior? If so, I hope Whiskey jumps in articulates why you're wrong much more eloquently than I can.

Also, I like my room and I like my toys. So the author can suck it.

I agree the he goes a little overboard and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I collect toys, read comic books, and play a little bit of video games. I also got married at 21, bought a house at 22, and had a baby at 25, so it's not like those things are mutually exclusive of one another.

 

[IrishLax]

Is your position that there is no benefit to society from nuclear family behavior? If so, I hope Whiskey jumps in articulates why you're wrong much more eloquently than I can.

I agree the he goes a little overboard and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I collect toys, read comic books, and play a little bit of video games. I also got married at 21, bought a house at 22, and had a baby at 25, so it's not like those things are mutually exclusive of one another.

Actually, I think the "traditional" nuclear family has one of the single highest correlations to what we would consider good societal behavior. This has more or less been proven with by lots of studies. I don't want to get too far off topic here, but I think self-indulgent behavior coupled with the "everyone is a special snow flake" mantra is the single biggest cause of most societal ills.

My point was more that I half-agree, and half-disagree with what the author is saying. I don't think waiting to marry is inherently bad. I don't think electing to not have kids (or electing to have a small number of kids) is necessarily bad either in a world that inches more and more towards overpopulation.

I do think that self-indulgence taken to an extreme is very bad. He talks a lot about how selflessness and what amounts to "duty" is important. And I agree... not only that it's important, but that Millennials trend heavily towards being "individualistic" which really is a euphemism "self-centered douchebags."

So I don't have a problem with the guy who isn't getting married and starting a family because he's in medical school and wants to finish that first. I also don't judge the guy that is looking for the right person and it's maybe taking them awhile. Nor do I think people that live at home for a year or two after graduation to save money are a problem (especially when you consider how in the few western societies I'm familiar with [basically, Italy] children traditionally live at home until they marry). I think he paints with way too broad of a brush, because I think a lot of these people are could be lumped into the categories he disparages.

But I think of some other people that I know that are 25ish and still living at home despite having no good reason... and have no serious relationship prospects... and treat life with literally zero urgency of any kind whether professionally or personally or otherwise... and yeah, they're a fucking problem. They end up being the kind of people who grow up expecting to be taken care of by others or "the system" or whatever and contribute nothing to society but self-righteous social media posts.

 

[connor_in]

Is your position that there is no benefit to society from nuclear family behavior? If so, I hope Whiskey jumps in articulates why you're wrong much more eloquently than I can.


I agree the he goes a little overboard and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I collect toys, read comic books, and play a little bit of video games. I also got married at 21, bought a house at 22, and had a baby at 25, so it's not like those things are mutually exclusive of one another.

YOU had a baby at 25?

 

[Emcee77]

Dear Millennial Men, Don’t Be Afraid of Marriage And Fatherhood | TheBlaze.com

Discuss.

Some interesting stuff in there. I generally disagree with his attitude toward feminism. "Feminism" isn't even one thing; it's a concept that's evolved over decades and it still means different things to different self-proclaimed "feminists." But in general, at least as a critical theory it relies on an understanding that women see the world differently based on their different experiences within it, and that's a good thing to be aware of.

But he makes a good, really irrefutable point that people grow up more slowly nowadays. That's been happening for centuries. I remember learning in school that Milton was horribly embarrassed by the fact that he had never accomplished anything by age 21. He thought of that as a "protracted adolescence," my prof called it. Nowadays, you can't accomplish much by age 21, unless you are Ronan Farrow or some kind of genius. But anyway, the phenomenon the author describes, of people growing up more slowly, is undeniably real, and I've often wondered why that is, myself. Maybe part of it is that you need so much more specialized knowledge to get into a career now? That's certainly not the whole story, though it might be part of it. I don't really know.

The author seems to think that basically that the quicker men realize how good it is to be a father, the better. Whenever I hear people say that, I always think of an article I read about James Cameron a few years ago. He was previously married to the director Kathryn Bigelow, and she wanted them to slow down their careers and start a family. And he would say to her, why should I do that? Anyone can be a father. There are maybe 5 people on the planet who can do the kind of film-making that I am doing.

And that's a fair point ... in the modern world, many careers aren't conducive to family life, and I think more people should realize that before they get into them and/or before they start families. A lot of people gave Paul Ryan a lot of sh*t for saying that he wasn't sure he wanted the speakership b/c he wasn't sure what it would do to his family, suggesting that that was complete bullsh*t, but I thought that criticism was unfair. It's definitely something to consider. Some people will choose high-powered career, others will choose family, rather than risk underperforming at both.

I don't know that there is anything wrong with that, per se. The problem is that so many totally unexceptional people think they are geniuses destined for greatness so they had better put off or avoid starting families, and if these people don't settle down at some point, they may regret it down the road, but who am I to tell them whether they really do or don't have the potential to be the one guy in the world who can make Avatar.

For my part, I'm really glad I did settle down, get married and have kids, and I suppose I am glad I did it as soon as I realistically could, given my and my wife's career trajectories. What the author said about dividing your life into childhood and fatherhood ... it's an insulting thing to say and surely there is a better, less offensive way to put it, but there is also some truth in it, to the extent what he meant is that your worldview changes in a wonderful but truly revolutionary way when you have kids. I recently read this WaPo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esome/?postshare=7241452988601509&tid=ss_mail

which is pretty dead on. Just like the author of this piece, I used to care about music, for example, meaning I put a lot of effort into listening to new music and forming an opinion about what new stuff was good and what wasn't. Nowadays I don't have time and really care don't care about that--and I'm totally fine with that.

I guess I am rambling at this point, but that's my 2 cents' worth.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I think it's spot-on. For all of the hyperbole thrown around about millennials, I don't think it can be disputed that adulthood, and manhood in particular, has been bastardized. In 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men achieved the five milestones of adulthood--completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying, and having a child--by age 30. In 2010, that percentage fell to 13% of women and 10% of men. Boys don't become men anymore, they become "guys" until their mid-30s and then men somewhere down the line if they get to it.

I didn't mean to sound so terse in my previous post; I just did not have time to read the whole article because I was at work.

I agree with the article, though I could have used less talk about the problems with modern women in the article. That's not because I'm a champion of modern feminism or that I deny that women have similar problems, but because this article, addressed to my generation, should not let our minds wander to another group. We have a crisis of true manhood in our generation, but it is not limited to a lack of marriages or procreation. Even before the drop in marriages and families, men were merely embracing the facade instead of manhood itself. We can look to the amount of "deadbeat dads" and the divorce rates and see that men have not wanted to be men for a while. Sometimes it's hard to have serious friends around my own age, just because the expectation of actions and lifestyle is now reversed. Men are allowed to remain boys for far too long and it scares me.

 

[Grahambo]

29
Married
3 kids

I wouldn't change it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You know what happened after 1960? The pill.

That's very perceptive. Lots of people much smarter than I have argued persuasively that widespread acceptance of contraception is the moment Western society started falling to pieces. It logically entails abortion and euthanasia, it causes demographic collapse, and it encourages selfish anti-social behavior on a historically unprecedented level. Contraception is literally societal suicide.

Men get slammed by family courts and women file close to 70% of all divorces. That's a tough pill to swallow for a man who has something to lose.

Good girls are a lot harder to find than they used to be, but if that's what's holding you back from marriage, you simply haven't found the right woman yet.

I agree the he goes a little overboard and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I collect toys, read comic books, and play a little bit of video games. I also got married at 21, bought a house at 22, and had a baby at 25, so it's not like those things are mutually exclusive of one another.

I often agree with Walsh on substance, but find his delivery off-putting. He tends toward the #HotTake.

I'm reminded of a good Art of Manliness article on the universal constants of manliness across time and culture:

Are men everywhere alike in their concern (and desire) for being manly?

Is the concept of manliness meaningless and entirely culturally relative?

For the last several weeks we have been exploring the answers to these questions by discussing the findings contained in Dr. David D. Gilmore’s Manhood in the Making.

Twenty years ago, Gilmore set out to conduct an exhaustive cross-cultural analysis of how masculinity is perceived and lived around the world.

What he discovered was that far from being exceptional and widely divergent, conceptions of what constitutes a “real man” have been common and consistent through time and around the world. A distinct code of manhood has not only been part of nearly every society on earth — whether agricultural or urban, premodern or advanced, patriarchal or relatively egalitarian — these codes invariably contain the same three imperatives; a male who aspires to be a man must protect, procreate, and provide.

As the subject is a fascinating and vital one, we have given each of these “3 P’s of Manhood” a thorough treatment. It was definitely a lot to take in; it’s really turned into a kind of Manhood 101 course! So today, for those who didn’t make it through the beastly posts, and for those who did but could use a quick re-orientation, today we’re providing a crib sheet that distills what we have covered thus far down to the basic fundamentals.

In the past, sex frequently resulted in pregnancy; so if you wanted to have sex, you needed to get married. And marriage was limited to those men who utilized their strength for the protection and provision of the tribe. Thereby, the male sex drive was harnessed in ways that benefited the entire community.

But in the modern West, military service is limited to a small minority, our jobs are often undignified or abstract, and sex is now cheap and meaningless. So the problems with Millennial masculinity are really the problems of Western modernity. The only way to fix the former is to make major changes to the latter. A widespread rejection of contraception, periodic universal military service mandates, and a return to more local and sustainable modes of living would probably do the trick, but the odds of that happening absent a global catastrophe seem incredibly slim.

Here's what I tell my boys: the difference between a boy and a man is power/ agency. Once a boy attains enough education and self-control that he can free himself from prejudice and passion, then it's fair to call him a man. A good man then takes that power/ agency and puts it at the service of some larger communal benefit. For some that entails the priesthood or military service. For most others, it involves a wife and children.

 

[Quinntastic]

I would argue that life wasn't "so great" in the 1960's. Sure, men and women were married and having kids, but were marriages happy? Were children happy? I can only speak anecdotally, but children grew up "behaving" for fear of physical retribution if they didn't behave (and, for that matter, so did housewives for the same reason). It was socially acceptable for men to hit women or verbally abuse them at the least, and socially acceptable to do the same to their children.

So was it all to do with contraception being invented in 1960 that "society started going downhill" as some are arguing? If percentages of people married then vs now is your only measuring post for societal health, then maybe, but my argument would be that time has glossed over some of the darker realities of life for anyone who wasn't a white, middle class male in the "good old days" everyone likes to reference. But yes, let's blame contraception for the ills of society. Heaven forbid women get to have some say in their own reproductive health, amiright?

 

[woolybug25]

Here's what I tell my boys: the difference between a boy and a man is power/ agency. Once a boy attains enough education and self-control that he can free himself from prejudice and passion, then it's fair to call him a man. A good man then takes that power/ agency and puts it at the service of some larger communal benefit. For some that entails the priesthood or military service. For most others, it involves a wife and children.

While we do have respectful difference in opinion regarding traditional family, your wisdom on this point should be written in stone somewhere. The majority of failures in our society can be greatly attributed to our failures in addressing this single topic. Very well said.

 

[wizards8507]

A widespread rejection of contraception, periodic universal military service mandates, and a return to more local and sustainable modes of living would probably do the trick, but the odds of that happening absent a global catastrophe seem incredibly slim.

Some might call that slavery, and I think it would have exactly the opposite effect. Any restoration of the protective function of masculinity would be more than offset by the dehumanizing effect of involuntary servitude. I know you're not a big believer of ownership of self, but agency is necessary to develop any kind of personal telos. Even if you throw all of that out, painting compulsory military service as any kind of positive thing puts an awful lot of faith in governments to conduct just and legitimate wars.

 

[wizards8507]

But yes, let's blame contraception for the ills of society. Heaven forbid women get to have some say in their own reproductive health, amiright?

That's not what anyone said. I don't recall anyone suggesting that contraceptives be outlawed. I think alcohol is a net detriment to society, but that doesn't mean I support prohibition.

 

[Quinntastic]

That's not what anyone said. I don't recall anyone suggesting that contraceptives be outlawed. I think alcohol is a net detriment to society, but that doesn't mean I support prohibition.

I did not say that anyone suggested contraceptives be outlawed. Nowhere in my post do I say that anyone here is saying contraceptives should be outlawed.

But may I direct you to the following quote found conveniently in the post at the top of this current page?

That's very perceptive. Lots of people much smarter than I have argued persuasively that widespread acceptance of contraception is the moment Western society started falling to pieces. It logically entails abortion and euthanasia, it causes demographic collapse, and it encourages selfish anti-social behavior on a historically unprecedented level. Contraception is literally societal suicide.

I have so many problems with this argument. That's all I was saying.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I would argue that life wasn't "so great" in the 1960's. Sure, men and women were married and having kids, but were marriages happy? Were children happy? I can only speak anecdotally, but children grew up "behaving" for fear of physical retribution if they didn't behave (and, for that matter, so did housewives for the same reason). It was socially acceptable for men to hit women or verbally abuse them at the least, and socially acceptable to do the same to their children.

So was it all to do with contraception being invented in 1960 that "society started going downhill" as some are arguing? If percentages of people married then vs now is your only measuring post for societal health, then maybe, but my argument would be that time has glossed over some of the darker realities of life for anyone who wasn't a white, middle class male in the "good old days" everyone likes to reference. But yes, let's blame contraception for the ills of society. Heaven forbid women get to have some say in their own reproductive health, amiright?

It is striking, though, what the widespread use of the pill did not lead to. It did not lead to fewer abortions, nor to fewer unplanned pregnancies, nor to a lower out-of-wedlock birth rate. Instead, and counterintuitively, widespread use of the pill was accompanied by massive increases in all of these phenomena. Now why might that be? Is it because women don't have sufficient control over their "reproductive health"?

 

[Quinntastic]

It is striking, though, what the widespread use of the pill did not lead to. It did not lead to fewer abortions, nor to fewer unplanned pregnancies, nor to a lower out-of-wedlock birth rate. Instead, and counterintuitively, widespread use of the pill was accompanied by massive increases in all of these phenomena. Now why might that be? Is it because women don't have sufficient control over their "reproductive health"?

Hahahahaha - okay dude. You try taking a pill at the same exact minute every day to keep your sperm from swimming and see how well it goes from that end. It was a step in the right direction, not a permanent fix (pun somewhat intended)

 

[NDgradstudent]

Hahahahaha - okay dude. You try taking a pill at the same exact minute every day to keep your sperm from swimming and see how well it goes from that end. It was a step in the right direction, not a permanent fix (pun somewhat intended)

So it doesn't always work. But even if it works some of the time, we would still expect, say, the abortion rate to decrease following widespread use of the pill. In fact, Margaret Sanger predicted that is what would happen. But the opposite happened.

 

[Quinntastic]

"X happened and then Y happened as a result" does not necessarily show causation. Correlation, possibly. But not causation. You have to look at (and nullify) all other possible factors before you can even begin to show causation. There are other possible reasons that the abortion rate didn't decrease - abortions became more socially acceptable, abortions became more accessible through programs like Planned Parenthood (PP started performing abortions around 1970), etc. You can't just look at one variable and say, "Oh well this happened (or didn't happen) as a result, it must be caused by this one variable" while leaving all other variables on the table. That's not science.