The traditional family

[Ken-1122]

Or perhaps not.

Family values - RationalWiki

It also says:
To most people, family values is a phrase meaning "Treat your family well and take care of them.
Just because there may be some Christians who are as you discribed, I don't think it is fair to accuse all of them as being that way. What would you call someone who claimed all black people are criminals because some of them are? What would you call a person who said all white people are racist because some of them are?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes initially there was a problem and thus women began to stand up for their rights. I am saying that this has now gone too far.

Right. In a world where girls are educated at a much lower rate than boys, a world where the majority of people in extreme poverty are women, and a world where women are systematically excluded from leadership and power structures, feminism has "gone too far."

Not.

Women have gained a lot but still regard all men as bad.

This is simply not true.

The discourse today is described with language like toxic masculinity, rape culture, and misogyny. This is not a true reflection of men and this is causing many problems for men to the point that I think the discrimination and abuse is going the other way.

Toxic masculinity, rape culture and misogyny are ways of describing particular elements of our culture. Not every man will participate in each of those elements, but all of us - men and women - feel their effects. Discussing these elements is not causing problems for men, it is an attempt to address them, for the benefit of all of us.

As mentioned men wanting to be the bread winner and head of the family originates from evolution. It was a natural development for survival. Men were stronger and better at taking the lead in matters of survival.

And yet we have evidence that many hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian, and that patriarchy arose with agriculture and the development of larger and more highly structured communities (cities).

Your claim is unsupported.

But feminism to a point has made it harder for the genders to find that natural fit because now everything is scrutinized and even if men are good at taking the lead in certain things they can't as hard line feminist will complain.

Feminists don't complain about men in leadership as such. We complain about not being given equal opportunity to participate in leadership. Men who lead in such a way that they exclude women should be criticised.

That is why I think that not only men but women have now lost that natural identity that they need to have to allow them to find their true identities. this is affecting men more at the moment and is seen in the high mental illness and suicide.

See, I read this as, "If only women would go back to being pliant doormats life would be so much easier." Well, "doormat" isn't my natural or true identity, and while mental illness and suicide are bad, we need to find ways to help men build healthy masculine identities which don't depend on depriving women of agency.

It is not a case of allowing men to oppress women to stop them committing suicide.

That does seem to be the implication of your argument. If only women were more passive, we wouldn't have so much male suicide... come on. We can do better than that.

It is about going to far with making out that they are monsters.

That is not an accurate representation of feminist discourse.

Yes but there was also the radical side which Greer has stated that the family was a symbol of oppression.

And to a high degree, it was. We've gradually made it less so, but it's still a struggle, as any working mother will tell you.

When experts say that the best setup for a family is where the male is the breadwinner women shout patriarchy and misogynist.

Yes. Because that setup leaves women vulnerable and powerless, as well as often miserable and unfulfilled. It's only "best" if we ignore the damage done to women in the process.

 

[stevevw]

Right. In a world where girls are educated at a much lower rate than boys, a world where the majority of people in extreme poverty are women, and a world where women are systematically excluded from leadership and power structures, feminism has "gone too far."

Not.

lol. It depends which way you look at it and as mentioned with the glass ceiling many of the stats for males are overlooked when talking about gender equality. Yes, there is still a lot of work to do in some countries, but I was mainly talking about western nations where the movement began. It is well recognized even by many of the feminist who were associated with the earlier movement that things have gone too far and males are suffering as a result.

That is why many people including women don't want to be associated with feminism today as they realize it demonizes males. Women have gained a lot in western societies and if you look at the stats now for example in education 60% of women are in college and university. Young boys actually rate lower than girls for education outcomes and are more likely to drop out of school which leads to a number of other issues they suffer that females don't.
The gender gap: Why are boys doing worse than girls in school?
The gender gap: Why are boys doing worse than girls in school?

This is simply not true.

I’m not saying all individuals see men as bad, but a growing discourse has been created over the years that has demonized men. This can be seen in the type of language being used such as toxic masculinity, rape culture, mansplaining, manspreading” and manterrupting which creates the impression that all men by nature/culture are bad and that masculinity is bad.

Masculinity itself is not bad and is a natural part of being a man. Not all men rape women just because they are men and every time a man may try to explain themselves are not being condescending or patronizing or trying to interrupt women. Also, the Me-Too movement began from some genuine complaints about abusive men. But it went on to make accusations and blame a lot of innocent men who have lost their jobs and reputations, and many have made out all men are abusive.

Feminists treat men badly. It’s bad for feminism.
Things have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media. Take a recent piece on Broadly, the women’s section of Vice, titled, “Men Are Creepy, New Study Confirms” — promoted with a Vice Facebook post that said: “Are you a man? You’re probably a creep.” The actual study found something very different: that both men and women overwhelmingly think someone described as “creepy” is more likely to be male. If a study had found that a negative trait was widely associated with women (or gays or Muslims), surely this would have been reported as deplorable stereotyping, not confirmation of reality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...minists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/

Toxic masculinity, rape culture and misogyny are ways of describing particular elements of our culture. Not every man will participate in each of those elements, but all of us - men and women - feel their effects. Discussing these elements is not causing problems for men, it is an attempt to address them, for the benefit of all of us.

Unfortunately this is not the case out in the real world where these descriptions have become the language of an ideology that is tarring all men as sexist, misogynists, and rapist. As mentioned above it has created a perception that masculinity is bad when it has more than one meaning and is a natural part of men.

The idea behind this is to feminize men and this can contribute to men's identity being undermined and mental illness. An example of this ideology and stereotyping was given where a man may compliment a women on her legs and this is regarded as a type of mini rape. Or where a male my make a clumsy attempt at flirting with a women at work and this is regarded as sexual harassment. When feminism is combined with the modern idea of leftist ideology it can be harmful for men.

When radical feminists treat men badly, it's bad for feminism
Feminism, its loudest proponents vow, is about fighting for equality. The man-hating label is either a smear or a misunderstanding. Yet a lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behavior: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transit. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.

Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use “man” as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: “mansplaining,” “manspreading” and “manterrupting.”
Cathy Young: When radical feminists treat men badly, it’s bad for feminism

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Smear
But in their effort to eradicate the destructive male tendency, the Left has pushed emasculation as a solution. While they champion the notion that women can do anything, they set their minds to (true!), they simultaneously castigate men as the barriers to progress and masculinity as a condition to be avoided. The goal of the Left, therefore, becomes to train boys not to become men. Instead, boys should be feminized; they should never be encouraged to “be a man.” That’s too pressure-filled, too nasty, too mean.

The Left’s dichotomous choice between emasculation and toxic masculinity leaves men out in the cold — and leaves them searching for meaning. If they are not the defenders of their families, what are they? If they are not providers, what are they? But in a society that denies manhood altogether, that denies men’s special protective and creative role in society — or worse, categorizes masculinity as mere violence — it’s easy to fall into a simplistic self-identification with toxic manhood. The age of emasculation cannot last. It will eventually boil over into violence, sink away into irrelevance, or return to the truth: that the male aggressive instinct can be good but must be trained, not excised.
Masculinity Is Not Toxic. Stop Blaming Men for Everything. | National Review

And yet we have evidence that many hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian, and that patriarchy arose with agriculture and the development of larger and more highly structured communities (cities).

Your claim is unsupported.

Once again it depends how you look at it. The advent of agriculture was an inevitable consequence of evolution. Humans were not going to live in the stone age forever because of their evolving brains. So along with agriculture stronger males were needed to work and defend their resources. This was a natural evolution of things for survival and not some patriarchy based on abuse of power by males. It is unreal to say that a society can be totally equal. All living creatures have hierarchies where one sex or group is at the top. But what happens is the feminist perception of this is that every situation where a male has advantage is seen as an abuse of power over women and that is not the case. Jordan Peterson explains this very well.

Jordan Peterson Takes on Feminist’s ‘Patriarchy’ Arguments
“Our culture confuses men’s desire for achievement and competence with the patriarchal desire for tyrannical power. And that’s a big mistake,” says Peterson (comments start around the 4:00 mark). Lewis uses this comment as a jumping off point for the discussion of Peterson’s arguments against the modern feminist concept of the patriarchy as a “male-dominated society.” When she asks him to define what he means by patriarchy, Peterson responds with a question: “Well, in what sense is our society male-dominated?”

Lewis “The fact that the vast majority of wealth is owned by men, the vast majority of capital is owned by men, women do more unpaid labor…” Lewis replies.

Peterson“That’s a very tiny of proportion of men,” Peterson interjects. “A huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected are men; most people in prison are men; most people who are on the street are men; most victims of violent crime are men; most people who commit suicide are men; most people who die in wars are men; people who do worse in school are men. Where’s the dominance here, precisely? What you are doing is taking a tiny substratum of hyper-successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of Western society. There’s nothing about that that’s vaguely appropriate.”

Lewis counters by saying that she could give examples of women suffering more in some circumstances, for example most rape victims are women and most rapists are men. Peterson says she can certainly argue that but “that doesn’t provide any evidence of a male-dominated patriarchy.”

The Left’s attempt to define western civilization as “purely” a “tyrannical patriarchy,” Peterson goes on to argue, is irrational and unjust. Acknowledging that the West has its corruptions and imperfections, some of which are “patriarchal,” is far different than trying to cast the entire civilization as fundamentally flawed, which Peterson contends feminists like Lewis are consistently attempting to do. When Lewis says she doesn’t describe it as that, he asks her then why she insists on reductively labeling the West as “a patriarchy.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_aAxIA55D0
http://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-jordan-peterson-takes-feminists-patriarchy-james-barrett

 

[stevevw]

Feminists don't complain about men in leadership as such. We complain about not being given equal opportunity to participate in leadership. Men who lead in such a way that they exclude women should be criticised.

No not all the time and that is what Petersen was trying to explain. That not all situations where males are in power or have an advantage are about the abuse of power. Today's PC has it that we have to have a blanket 50/50 rule across all sectors of work even if that means denying the best and suitable male candidates which is unreal and unwarranted.

See, I read this as, "If only women would go back to being pliant doormats life would be so much easier." Well, "doormat" isn't my natural or true identity, and while mental illness and suicide are bad, we need to find ways to help men build healthy masculine identities which don't depend on depriving women of agency.

The fact that you and other feminists see it that way supports what I am saying. That some feminist perceive everything as male dominance when it is not.

I haven’t implied this. It is about balance and the problem is that things have gone from one extreme to another in that yes, some men were abusive of power and women needed to say something. But in some cases, this has gone too far in tarring all men and society as abusing power and being misogynist.

It is well acknowledged even by some feminist that men are suffering as a result of some of the discourse portrayed by the feminist as already supported above.

That does seem to be the implication of your argument. If only women were more passive, we wouldn't have so much male suicide... come on. We can do better than that.

This is how modern-day feminism are analyzing men’s thoughts and assuming that it is always thinking in terms of abuse of power and wanting women to be submissive. What I am saying is that things have gone from feminism wanting equality to now causing inequality in some cases for men which I have highlighted above.

Even if that is just in the language used for example. If men used the same language, there would be an uproar and that is the inequality I am speaking about. Women are now projecting into men's thoughts what they think we are thinking that is not there to create situations of patriarchy.

That is not an accurate representation of feminist discourse.

Then what about the language used today by feminists as mentioned above? The proof is in the pudding in that many people are moving away from feminism because they perceive it demonizing men.

Men after #MeToo: ‘There’s a narrative that masculinity is fundamentally toxic'
Men after #MeToo: ‘There’s a narrative that masculinity is fundamentally toxic'

This week, in the New York Times, Tom Edsall bravely exposed the politics of this. He looked at the data and found, believe it or not, that gender-studies feminism is not shared by all women by any means, and is increasingly loathed by men — and not just older men.

Two-thirds of Independents now suspect the sincerity of most claims of sexism. Other polls show a declining support for core feminist principles among high-school seniors in the last decade.
Andrew Sullivan: #MeToo and the Taboo Topic of Nature

And to a high degree, it was. We've gradually made it less so, but it's still a struggle, as any working mother will tell you.

Not really and that’s what Petersen was talking about when we break things down there were natural reasons why men became the head of families and communities that were not about abuse of power. It is the perception of feminism that has created this negative perception of patriarchy. Women in western societies have gained a lot and yes there is still some work to do. But in most cases, they are gaining equality and in some cases it is going the other way where men are suffering inequality. But total equality cannot and should not be something we demand as this is unreal.

Yes. Because that setup leaves women vulnerable and powerless, as well as often miserable and unfulfilled. It's only "best" if we ignore the damage done to women in the process.

I don't think all women believe this and there is a growing number who are preferring to be stay at home mum's but modern feminism is killing any chance of those women having the right to do so.

The science shows that when the male is the breadwinner and earning more than the women that families and women are happiest. This is another example of how feminism takes a divisive view that even shoots down what is best because it wants the unreal result of equality in all situations.

The support for this seems to be coming out where the best setup for a family that brings the best results for all is where the male is at the head. Not because of power but because that is naturally the best. This does not mean women cannot go out and work and find themselves. As mentioned it is materialism and individualism that is the problem not necessarily all because of patriarchy.

GENDER IDENTITY AND RELATIVE INCOME WITHIN HOUSEHOLDS
https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023.pdf

More Millennial Women Are Becoming Stay-At-Home Moms -- Here's Why
More Millennial Women Are Becoming Stay-At-Home Moms -- Here's Why

Why family matters, and why traditional families are still best
Column: Why family matters, and why traditional families are still best

Advantages of the Traditional Nuclear Family You Never Knew Existed
Advantages of the Traditional Nuclear Family You Never Knew Existed - Apt Parenting

Men go off to war, defend women and children against harm because they’re stronger. They are inherently providers. Women bear children, care for them and their husbands because we are naturally nurturers. It’s time for men to man up; women to be feminine again and America to reject the lies feminism is built upon: abortions and career women. No one can have it all, especially women. You can’t be a millionaire CEO and great mom too without sacrificing something.
How feminists and feminism has destroyed masculine and feminine roles

In identifying the family as an instrument of female oppression, radical ‘gender feminism’ (itself the child of a form of Marxian analysis, to be distinguished from ‘liberal feminism’) actively contributed to the deconstruction of traditional Western marriage and the family system based upon it.
https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm53.pdf

In the state of nature, man subjugated woman by being physically stronger, while woman was frequently incapacitated by pregnancy and childrearing, which, through giving birth and breastfeeding, naturally fell upon her.

“As in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the responsibility for their maintenance and health.” Dawson wrote this in 1933, which makes his next observation even more startling: “The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,” he noted. “He is often a comparative stranger to his children, who know him only as ‘that man who comes for weekends.’”
Freedom & the Family: The Family Crisis & the Future of Western Civ- The Imaginative Conservative

 

[Paidiske]

The idea behind this is to feminize men...

No it isn't. It isn't "feminising" to say that women ought to be able to be safe in their homes, their workplaces, and the community in general.

It's hard to find consistent statistics, but about one in six women will be the victim of a rape or intended rape over her lifetime. One woman a week is killed by her partner or former partner in Australia, where I live.

That is not good enough, and we have to be able to talk about this stuff!

It is unreal to say that a society can be totally equal. All living creatures have hierarchies where one sex or group is at the top.

This seems to be the heart of your argument. Men dominate by nature, and that's perfectly fine, so women should just accept it and not try to change things.

No not all the time and that is what Petersen was trying to explain. That not all situations where males are in power or have an advantage are about the abuse of power.

You do realise that denying women power, or putting them at a disadvantage, is itself an abuse of power?

Today's PC has it that we have to have a blanket 50/50 rule across all sectors of work even if that means denying the best and suitable male candidates which is unreal and unwarranted.

I'd settle for not living in a world where, when I look at the job ads, I have to filter out the ones which explicitly state that women won't be appointed. And yes, those are live job ads right now.

Never mind 50/50, at this point I'd settle for the opportunity to apply.

I don't think all women believe this and there is a growing number who are preferring to be stay at home mum's but modern feminism is killing any chance of those women having the right to do so.

There will always be a proportion of women who prefer to be stay at home mums, and feminism has no problem with that. What is a problem is making that the default for every woman.

The science shows that when the male is the breadwinner and earning more than the women that families and women are happiest.

I'd like to see a citation for that. In my experience, families and women are happiest when they're able to structure things to suit the particular needs, gifts, personalities and passions of the people in that family. (Which also answers your concern about men no longer having a "vital position" in the family).

The support for this seems to be coming out where the best setup for a family that brings the best results for all is where the male is at the head. Not because of power but because that is naturally the best.

"Really, dear, I want you to be subordinate to me not because of power - no, really! - but because it's best for you not to have to worry your pretty little head about hard things you're not naturally suited to handle. Now please do fetch my slippers and then go make dinner."

Does anybody actually expect us to buy this line any more?

 

[stevevw]

That is how I see it. My husband and I have always had an equal relationship. Obviously there are things he can do better than me, and visa versa.

And because he can do those things better doesn't mean he is denying you the chance to do those things. He can just do those things better and should be able to do those things just like you should be able to do what you are good at. But say you are better at nurturing your children and you stay home to look after them and your husband goes out to work is that unfair or abusing women.

 

[Paidiske]

And because he can do those things better doesn't mean he is denying you the chance to do those things. He can just do those things better and should be able to do those things just like you should be able to do what you are good at. But say you are better at nurturing your children and you stay home to look after them and your husband goes out to work is that unfair or abusing women.

If one spouse does something better and because of that does deny the other spouse the chance to do those things (even if the other spouse wants to); then that's a problem.

And when the wife is not better at being the hands-on parent, but is expected or required to do the bulk of that work (and thereby prevented from working or doing other things), because biology; then that's a problem.

Amazingly, people's gifts, talents and abilities don't neatly align with gender. But the real point is about not controlling or limiting someone, but about allowing each person to set their own goals, pursue their priorities, and have support in that from their spouse.

 

[stevevw]

on what planet is this going on?

OK I may have got that wrong. I am not that familiar with US politics. All I know is there is usually one party who has a right leaning and the other who has a left leaning but today these leanings are becoming more pronounced. The left leaning parties usually supports individual rights such as pro-choice, gender rights and are support socialism. The right leaning parties are more conservative and support family values, religious rights, traditions etc. From what I have read I thought the Liberals and democrats were the more left leaning parties and therefore support abortion, gender ideology, and policies that make it easier to be a single mother.

if there is an academic reference then it would be the reference. as it is all we hear of it are rumors. Frankly there is more evidence for Bigfoot than this supposed reference.

I gave the original reference. But I am not going to get fixated with that one stat because there are many other stats that say similar things about juveniles from single parent families having higher crime rates not just for murder but for several crimes. If you go into any goal and ask the offenders about their family history, I guarantee many will say they come from broken homes as the stats show. So, Bigfoot must be real lol.

but you can't say what it may or may not have been correct about .

It tells us what it is correct about, that children from single parent families have higher rates of crime including murder. Other articles say the same thing.

if there is overwhelming evidence why can't you show any?

I have already here #160 , here #168 , here #169 and here #193, for starters. But here are some more.

Did the journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency engage in research about the reason(s)why there was more crime in one section of the community?
Let em save you the time of going and looking. No they didn't.
What you presented was an editorial from a book not research.

It isn't an editorial but rather a journal article based on 4 pages of the book with references to support it, so it is still classed as a scientific peer reviewed paper. Just because an article is a book doesn’t mean they don’t use research and verified support.

none of these claims came from the journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Then why would they be contained in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. They have either done the study themselves or are citing data on facts from other verified sources throughout the article. Their site says
The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families.
So you would have to say they are lying about the facts they have presented.

I find it funny though that when stats are shown to support my case that either the individual such as Ann Coulter or now an entire journal is called into question about its credibility and not the contents being discussed or taken as fact.

we are going to stop right here. The heritage foundation is a far right "think tank with a long history of race based claims about the intellectual and social inferiority of non-whites. the stuff listed here has been used for the promotion of racism. Check your sources already

Another example of trying to discredit the source rather than deal with the truth of the contents. I have linked around a dozen different sources that say the same thing and still you want to deny the truth. What chance have I in trying to stand up for this organization if you don’t even believe a credible one like the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. But I will give it a go anyway.

It seems the Heritage Society helps form government policies so I cannot see how it is some biased and radical organization that discriminates against black people. You said this about Coulter which was found to be wrong. It seems there is a pattern forming here.

The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

But let’s look at the content rather than the source. To qualify what they say the sit states that it uses empirical evidence and that empirical evidence is cited throughout the article. So, to say that the Heritage Foundation is giving false information and is bias is to say that the many articles they cite are also biased and false. This begins to look like some conspiracy theory where many people are concocting some imaginary idea that single parent families have worse outcomes for children then couple parent families.

Also, to say that the Heritage Foundation is some raced based against non-whites can easily be refuted. Even the same article is defending blacks by saying that blacks are not the cause of high crime but rather it is the family structure regardless of race.
There is a widespread belief that race is a major explanatory cause of crime. This belief is anchored in the large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure
The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

But it is becoming apparent to me that you are determined to defend your position that single parenting makes no difference to a child or juveniles upbringing and has no negative effects by discrediting each and every support I link no matter if it is credible or not. This is surely an indication of some bias here are every link cannot be false and lying.

 

[stevevw]

If one spouse does something better and because of that does deny the other spouse the chance to do those things (even if the other spouse wants to); then that's a problem.

And when the wife is not better at being the hands-on parent, but is expected or required to do the bulk of that work (and thereby prevented from working or doing other things), because biology; then that's a problem.

Amazingly, people's gifts, talents and abilities don't neatly align with gender. But the real point is about not controlling or limiting someone, but about allowing each person to set their own goals, pursue their priorities, and have support in that from their spouse.

I agree with you on not denying peoples rights but I think there can be a conflict in modern individualistic society where individual rights are placed over other peoples rights or the family and group rights. For example abortion is said to deny the rights of the unborn baby at the expense of the women's right to free choice. Often that free choice is about lifestyle and convenience. The right of a male to self identify as a women and then compete in women's sports and enter their safe spaces is said to be a denial of women's rights. Some see the rights of women to be free of the family commitments is a denial of family rights as to what is best.

Often there is too much focus on self and not enough on others. The core christian belief is about self-sacrifice as Jesus showed but modern rights based individualism conflicts with this and would say that this philosophy is weak and being submissive. The majority of research shows the mother is best at nurturing and bonding with the child which creates the situation where the father has to work to earn money to live. Not because of any rights or power abuses but that is just what is best and how the circumstances lay out at the moment.

Unfortunately now modern society has created this false ideal that it is material wealth that makes us happy and is all important. Along with individualism this causes people to be preoccupied with self and what work, career they want and how much money they earn to but the material things. This conflicts with what is best for the family, for children. But what happens is that people put their individual rights first and justify this as the best when its not. This issue is not just in gender but across all society where materialism overrides peoples welfare. IE profits before people and economy before planet.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree with you on not denying peoples rights but I think there can be a conflict in modern individualistic society where individual rights are placed over other peoples rights or the family and group rights....Some see the rights of women to be free of the family commitments is a denial of family rights as to what is best....Often there is too much focus on self and not enough on others. The core christian belief is about self-sacrifice as Jesus showed but modern rights based individualism conflicts with this and would say that this philosophy is weak and being submissive.

There has to be a balance. Marriage needs to be teamwork; a husband and wife supporting each other and (if they have children) working together to do what's best for their children. It's not about focussing on self and not others, but about being true to oneself while being in healthy relationships with others.

The problem comes when only one spouse's rights are honoured, and the other spouse's needs are not met.

It's not a matter of being free of family commitments - I work full time and I have significant family commitments - but a matter of allowing people to discern how best to fulfill those commitments, in partnership with their spouse, for themselves; not imposing a one-size-fits-all model on every household.

The majority of research shows the mother is best at nurturing and bonding with the child which creates the situation where the father has to work to earn money to live. Not because of any rights or power abuses but that is just what is best and how the circumstances lay out at the moment.

Oh, bunk. It might be true for some couples, but it's certainly not true for all couples because not everyone is the same. For example, some women have awful post-natal depression and need to go to work for their mental health (and are better enabled to bond with their children by doing so).

Not that you need a reason like post-natal depression; just that that is one example where your model is just la-la land.

 

[stevevw]

Here's another example of how feminism has gone and is going to far. Bettina Arndt was a feminist in the 70's and 80's and a well known media sex therapist. After seeing how feminism has gone to far and is now discriminating against men. She said she was a feminist as it was about a level playing field and equality bit now it has crossed a line and is causing men problems. She began to advocate for men's rights in the last 20 years a s a result. For this she has been awarded a Australia day honor with an OBE. But this has sent feminist crazy demanding her sacking all because she says that feminism has gone to far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P7einU--xg

 

[Paidiske]

I'm aware of Bettina Arndt, and let's just say I'm not taking her opinions on how men are being harmed too seriously, after she described the child victims of a rapist as "sexually provocative."

If holding the rapists of children to account is "causing men problems" then I'm happy to cause those problems.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[stevevw]

No it isn't. It isn't "feminising" to say that women ought to be able to be safe in their homes, their workplaces, and the community in general.

It's hard to find consistent statistics, but about one in six women will be the victim of a rape or intended rape over her lifetime. One woman a week is killed by her partner or former partner in Australia, where I live.

That is not good enough, and we have to be able to talk about this stuff!

You keep confounding two different aspects of the feminist movement together. One is the core beliefs of feminism which are right and justified equality. The other is how feminism has become more than the core values along the lines of radical feminism. I have posted ample support for this.

The fact is this radicalized feminism has created a discourse that makes out masculinity is toxic which is a natural part of being male is proof. So, when masculinity is made toxic feminist are more or less saying men need to become more feminine. This is frustrating males and is one cause of male aggression and gender dysphoria. The science says masculinity is important in men's identity just as femininity is in who females are.

Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society
Let’s face it: Little boys are different from little girls and adults. And unless we allow them to have outlets for natural boy play and ideas, we should not be surprised when they seem frustrated and can’t succeed in modern society.
Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Smear
But in their effort to eradicate the destructive male tendency, the Left has pushed emasculation as a solution. While they champion the notion that women can do anything, they set their minds to (true!), they simultaneously castigate men as the barriers to progress and masculinity as a condition to be avoided. The goal of the Left, therefore, becomes to train boys not to become men. Instead, boys should be feminized; they should never be encouraged to “be a man.” That’s too pressure-filled, too nasty, too mean.

The Left routinely speaks about a world run by women and why such a world would create better men. But the most male-free environment in America exists in black communities, where well over half of black children grow up without fathers. This hasn’t made black boys less violent; it’s made them far more prone to criminality than their non-black peers.

The Left’s dichotomous choice between emasculation and toxic masculinity leaves men out in the cold — and leaves them searching for meaning. If they are not the defenders of their families, what are they? If they are not providers, what are they? They become non-entities — or they become societal tumors or at least tacit supporters of “men who are men!”
Masculinity Is Not Toxic. Stop Blaming Men for Everything. | National Review

Even Anglican's agrees that males are being feminized and treated badly.
Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships | Intellectual Takeout
Is it time to stop treating the traditional, rough-and-tumble boy like a dangerous creature who must be toned down to suit feminized society?
Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships | Intellectual Takeout

 

[Paidiske]

The fact is this radicalized feminism has created a discourse that makes out masculinity is toxic which is a natural part of being male is proof. So, when masculinity is made toxic feminist are more or less saying men need to become more feminine.

This is a common misunderstanding, but it is not accurate. "Toxic masculinity" is not making out that masculinity is toxic; it is talking about cultural norms around masculinity which are harmful to men themselves and to wider society.

Nobody is saying men have to be "more feminine." What some people are saying is that masculinity needs to be idealised and lived out in healthy ways.

Even Anglican's agrees that males are being feminized and treated badly.

That is a blog by a member of a schismatic splinter group which refuses to ordain women (not the global Anglican communion, of which I am a part). I'm not looking to them to define healthy gender dynamics either.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[stevevw]

I'm aware of Bettina Arndt, and let's just say I'm not taking her opinions on how men are being harmed too seriously, after she described the child victims of a rapist as "sexually provocative."

If holding the rapists of children to account is "causing men problems" then I'm happy to cause those problems.

But once again this is a personal attack on the individual and not the facts. Arndt did not say that a rape victim was being "sexually provocative." She said that some teachers need to be careful because some girls may be "sexually provocative" towards them and they can be falsely accused of sexual harassment. Even so she apologized for the comments realizing that it was insensitive but it was certainly not like some have made out. It is unfair how people immediate twist things to discredit people which also destroys lives and is a good example of what I am talking about.

 

[Paidiske]

But once again this is a personal attack on the individual and not the facts. Arndt did not say that a rape victim was being "sexually provocative." She said that some teachers need to be careful because some girls may be "sexually provocative" towards them and they can be falsely accused of sexual harassment. Even so she apologized for the comments realizing that it was insensitive but it was certainly not like some have made out. It is unfair how people immediate twist things to discredit people which also destroys lives and is a good example of what I am talking about.

Nope. Bettina Arndt has form on this stuff. She has repeatedly supported convicted child sexual abusers, including Cardinal Pell.

She has demonstrated a complete lack of insight into the lived experience of people who have been badly harmed by those with power, and she has zero credibility on these issues.

 

[stevevw]

This is a common misunderstanding, but it is not accurate. "Toxic masculinity" is not making out that masculinity is toxic; it is talking about cultural norms around masculinity which are harmful to men themselves and to wider society.

Then why is there so many people even feminists themselves saying that feminists have created this narrative about masculinity for which I have posted support for. Why is it so easily acknowledged by many people that this is the case to the point that feminism has lost support because of the perceived harm done to men. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this.

Nobody is saying men have to be "more feminine." What some people are saying is that masculinity needs to be idealised and lived out in healthy ways.

Then why is their wide agreement that society and men are being feminized. It is the "masculinity needs to be idealised" that worries me because ideology is something based on feelings and pseudoscience and not facts.

That is a blog by a member of a schismatic splinter group which refuses to ordain women (not the global Anglican communion, of which I am a part). I'm not looking to them to define healthy gender dynamics either.

Fair enough

 

[stevevw]

Nope. Bettina Arndt has form on this stuff. She has repeatedly supported convicted child sexual abusers, including Cardinal Pell.

She has demonstrated a complete lack of insight into the lived experience of people who have been badly harmed by those with power, and she has zero credibility on these issues.

Then why was she awarded an OBE by a panel of 19 independent people assessing her work including a past member of the anti-discrimination board. Also this is another logical fallacy to say that the association of a person discredits the fact or truth about what they say on other matters. I find that this is becoming a common theme of attacking people and sources rather than the facts and content.

I guess being a person who is going to advocate for men especially those accused of abuse towards women she is going to be associated with guilty men at times. But I don't think she is trying to get guilty men off rather trying to advocate for innocent men being accused. That seems to be the fact in her work by the many she has represented who were found innocent. As for Pell many people supported him. This was not a straight forward case and even some legal experts have questions about due process.

Anyway I don't want to get caught up on an issue about personalities which derails the topic. The point of Arndt's work and why she was awarded an OBE is about how men have suffered from the fallout of feminism. The statistics speak for themselves which show men suffer nearly as much DV as women and in some cases there are more women perpetrators of DV. Yet there are over 500 refuges for women and less than 20 for men.

Men suffer higher mental health, suicide, job losses, poor education, homelessness and now men are falling behind in jobs and education. Many men lose out in the family law courts which has been feminized to ensure women get the better deal in divorce and many men have been falsely accused of harassment of women which has resulted in loss of jobs and reputations.

Yet no one is standing up for them or even acknowledging that this is happening. Bringing this back to the OP this has contributed to the undermining of men and their role in the family. The facts show that men are losing their roles and identities and this has a major effect on family life especially child well-being.