Why is it common to talk about "violence against women" and policies that "affect women" and "hurt women" when men experience equal harm, or in many cases greater harm, from the same policies? For example, women getting killed in Mexico generate headlines despite far more male homicides happening in Mexico, and the same goes for Native American stats.
Briefly the reason is that it makes sense to protect women and children above adult men. Morally women are much less capable of defending themselves and (for most of history) providing for themselves. Practically it's important to protect women from hostile forces because it's harder for one woman to birth many children than one man to father many children. Needless to say, a woman is also at a much higher risk of rape (unless they live in the Congo), and rape will severely damage anyone physically and mentally, let alone pregnancy, which directly changes the makeup of the next generation. A society that lets their women get roughhoused and killed at the same rate as men will not last very long.
The reason these concepts seem outdated in the 21st century is because women have largely brought their security up to parity with men through economic, cultural, and technological means. Modern women are capable of meeting and exceeding male earnings due to the white collar economy and affirmative action policies. Advancements in public safety allow unaccompanied women to move about freely. Cars, gated housing, professional services, and guns obviate the need for physical capability. However, the human psyche has not changed, and women's inherent desire for protection is sublimated into calls for economic protection as well as physical. Since women have more economic opportunities than men already, this creates and entrenches a female supremacy.
The next question is, where to go from here? Corporately, we can either attempt to hold women to the new standard (treat them as interchangeable with men culturally and legally, remove all protections) or go the other direction and restore traditional gender roles. The second option is a complex issue that has no real solutions at this time, but the first option is impossible to implement totally because of the indelible nature of the human mind. Male soldiers have been shown to instinctively move to protect female soldiers, regardless of their training. Women will always clamor for protection and assurance. Moreover, even if women were truly forced to exist on an interchangeable level with men, they would be cut down economically and even physically, since they literally have to play by different rules just to survive. Social decay and death will follow.
The final point is that conservatives have to decide which end goal they're driving for. "Equal rights for equal lefts" is a fun way of thinking, but ultimately unworkable and an acceptance of the utopian doctrine that men and women are equal. Taking away economic protectionist measures for women (such as women in STEM programs) is a great idea and necessary, but moves to push women into men's hardships, such as making women eligible for the draft, must only be conceived as accelerationist measures intended to ultimately restore traditional roles.
Its because women are weaker. That's it.
They will never not be weaker, and you will never be able to convince people otherwise. Given that, you will also never be able to convince society that actively hurting weaker people is a good thing, or isn't the worst aspect of any action.
This isn't a pro-women thing, it applies to basically all aspects of life. Women are just, as mentioned, always considered weaker (even when they aren't) and have learned to weaponize that fact. Its why they evolved to be able to cry so easily, it actively benefits them to wield victimhood like a shield.
However, the problem you are running into is the idea that women are your ally. You present the binary of "equality vs tradition" under the notion that we can just return to gender roles of the past. Even the most "conservative" woman doesn't want that, despite many of them pretending they do.
Its not in human nature to relinquish power, so why would they ever do so? There is power in appearing to do so, and that's where almost all "right wing" women sit in appearances, but they wouldn't ever actually give up more than a token amount. That's why they always still devour the fruits of "women's lib" greedily no matter how much they cry out about its evils.
The only way to "return" to those days is through harsh oppression, which as already outlined by us both isn't going to happen, or complete collapse/rebuild. As such, its almost wasteful to philosophize on it, because its an unactionable idea.
That, and women are the ones who get pregnant. That's the foundation for all their traits.
In our current culture, where weakness is a virtue, being weak has become much more significant. But, historically, weak men do not fare as well as women.
I don't believe women, even the majority of today's conservative women, are allies and I don't think I implied that.
Historically speaking it's a different matter. I could talk about female anti-feminists, but that's sort of beside the point since the fundamental truth is that women were allies of the prevailing order in every traditional society. Men were not the sole authorities, only the greater one. Women, under the influence of men, had to police themselves, molding the femininity of the next generation while at the same time guarding it. cf Victorian norms, women's societies, sewing circles, midwives, and scores of other female organizations.
For obvious reasons, men can't show teenage girls how to handle their period or teach them how to maintain a home. Either you're letting the fox in the henhouse or they don't have time for it.
Yes, agree.
The nature of time is change, and when the time comes it's useful to have a hardened core of ideas to consolidate a movement. If anything, the last couple of decades have been characterized by incredibly rapid change.
In my own Christian denomination, for example, the movement to allow female ordination had its high water mark a few years ago when it was narrowly defeated. The global backlash is on the rise against the vapid American membership.
The erosion of female-specific initiatives and scholarship programs would be a very significant, but realistic start. On an equal playing field, women and female influence will be easily outcompeted in male careers (which is most of them).
Right, it wasn't directed at you as an attack. It was simply saying that you are putting it in terms of a binary that isn't really the case.
Its easy to take a sip of alcohol. Its a lifetime journey of struggle to never take one again. These rapid changes can only happen in one direction, and its a massive uphill struggle to even begin to roll the other way.
This is along the same lines as my reply to your other post but yes, of course it isn't a binary. However, men and women have certain concrete irreducible differences that all "traditional" societies built on, or else they would've collapsed, so the spectrum of values isn't that nebulous. Conversely, most egalitarian notions are obviously just wishful thinking. In many cases the difference is as stark as reality vs. fantasy.
That's a great analogy and probably communism's trump card, but we also have a trump card: a society that believes 2+2=5 will eventually break down.
One reason I still have a little hope is my own personal journey. I went from supporting the Bush-McCain suite of beliefs (gay marriage, Iraq, climate change, amnesty, and soft racial justice) to race realism and pragmatic isolationism, and it only took a few years of race riots and Trumpian disruption. Exposure to the facts can work wonders.
There's no way I can claim to be representative of the slothlike center, but there are also important mainstream and conservative bellwethers like Megyn Kelly that have crossed from soft liberalism (attacking Trump from a feminist angle) into principled conservatism (defending Trump and rejecting gender ideology). Like early tech adopters, the bellwethers are pretty important.
And I have had much the opposite. I have been anti-feminist since I was a lad, and my views haven't changed much in the broad since. But I've been able to spend all that time trying and failing, learning what people will and won't do in regards to it, and seeing many of the pitfalls along the way.
Which is why I feel so strongly on it, because I've been at this for a long time and most of the things I see said I've already watched fail.
What do you mean "tradition" ?
Whatever people mean when they talk about "traditional gender roles" in these topics. Which is rarely defined and means completely different things from person to person because its a meaningless idea used to just associate the "good old days like grandpa had."
That's why I don't push for it. Because I have the same question. Do we bring back dowries with only the father able to decide who a girl marries? Do we remove divorce as an option, and if he beats you that's just your lot in life you dumb girl? Actively ostracizing to outright punishing premarital sex? I'd imagine no one who is pro-"traditional gender roles" wants any of that, they just want the good parts they think exist.
In their most basic forms, traditional gender roles mean that the man is the primary provider and the woman is the primary caretaker. The quaint stuff like 3 cow dowries and hats in church matter, but not as much.
And that's a fine definition, but its the same as "communism is when everyone shares everything, and no one is left needing." Its completely true in idea, but the moment it leaves the paper and you try to bring it into the real world it has a lot more needs.
One difference from communism is that traditional gender roles have always worked, while communism has never worked. I think that's fairly significant.
I guess my point is that worrying about the details of transitional or final states isn't that relevant. Instead, it's all about the direction of the trend. That's the mindset communists use to take over a society, and it kind of works.
I believe the contrary. The details are the most important because each one is a supporting strut to keeping the status quo as it is and the direction they are aiming to take it. Ignoring them will leave you chopping at vines growing back faster than you can hack.
That's a nice sentiment, but it's too abstract for politics.
"Nobody knows what it means, but it gets the people going." (well, probably not)
That's just it, the idea isn't some return to some vague hyperreal notion of tradition. It's getting women to put child rearing ahead of jobs and careers. Key here is the realization that these things aren't liberating or empowering let alone protective.
Okay, and how do we accomplish that? Well you need full stay at home moms, which means we need to restructure the entire economy to make that a viable norm for the majority of people. We also need massive social changes to prevent premarital sex, because its poor child rearing to be a single mother, with or without the father "being involved." I can go on but you get the picture.
That's why its a meaningless idea, because its not just as simple as "do this and we fix the gender struggle!" These things are all connected and feeding into each other, reinforcing to keep the status quo. You can't fix one without fixing them all, because in the time it takes you to run through each one, they've already undone your work on the previous.
I get the desire people have, and its a good one. It just doesn't have any legs because its always talking about the problem and then handwaving the solution without a thought to logistics.
You don't need women to never work. Women had a ~33% labor participation rate in 1950. That's why I said priorities, not absolutely zero work. Of course you need radical changes to do this. You need radical changes to do basically anything that's popular here (except among the shills and even sometimes among the shills).
As far as the economy, a good starting point is immigration. Cut that, and you increase wages so that one wage goes further toward supporting a family. Attacking the college pyramid scheme and indoctrination center is another good part.
I think the reason you see so many "tradcon" types not having any answers is that they are only there to subvert radicalizing men and reify their grievances into supporting the system. Look at who owns, for example, The Daily Wire. A lot of these people are just stooges for big business and Israel so they lead people down a path of hapless moralizing without accounting for the economic realities that lead to dual incomes and cratered birth rates.
Good news on that front, younger generations are having less sex than before. The boomer moms of most of the people posting here (I recall you are older) took more dicks than the average zoomer chick. A lot of this is because of young people wasting their lives away on social media. The answer here seems to be distraction rather than moralizing.
Which women were those? Where they the ones with semi-higher incomes who could afford nannies? The ones with extended in home families to cover their children for them? Unmarried, no kids? Because I'd imagine those categories alone made up the majority of those numbers. The first two aren't exactly things most people have the option of (until they are too older to be having kids really), while the last isn't really part of the equation to begin with.
Also, that's ignoring the entire other conversation of "women in the workplace" and the laundry list of issues it causes, but I am of the belief that that is absolutely a necessity to reach many of these goals people want. Especially given that most of those 33% were likely nearly women-only workplaces which is how such problems were avoided then.
Its an improvement, but all it takes is once. Both in terms of "the discipline necessary to keep virginity strengthens your resolve in many facets" being a forgotten concept (for both genders, I won't hold only women to that one) and just one unlucky night and a single mother is created.
Less, especially less than the previous absurd number, isn't anywhere near the "rare" necessary for these ideals and morals to take hold.
It sounds like you are being an idealist now. That's not going to go anywhere. The women who worked probably skewed poor by back then. I know that was the case when women worked in the textile industries, for example. One interesting thing about this post-war era is that a lot of women entered the workforce during the war and left after.
By the way, the labor force participation rate for women in WV is around 50% despite WV being a poor state.
Men and women end up a in different jobs even today, with all of the activism trying to shove women into male-dominated fields.
The "manosphere" won't like it, but we could bring back "shotgun" weddings. Really though, promiscuity is another thing people still find off putting despite the system's best efforts to promote it.
Besides the poor women Arch mentioned, maybe the biggest category was young single women, who left the workforce when they got married. That didn't work too badly.
SK literally begged for a "war on women"
It just takes them pushing enough to snap the very, very thin thread holding us to them.
Explains why you are so successful at convincing everyone you aren't insane. Its just so thin and requires just that right push (murdering children? ruining societies? committing horrors so bad its unthinkable? Nah those were cool) to instantly make everyone hate women just like you.
Also SK had literal open terrorist feminist groups, I can promise that whatever you have in your mind about their country's actions would end the moment Megalia was dissolved with no change to anything else.
Helps if I'm not botted instantly by the Naive Simps Defending Antagonistic Pussy.
Megalia hasn't been dissolved though. And that's not the reason. Women stop themselves from being hated by throwing other groups under the bus. They can't do that as easily in Asian countries (No gay movement, no other races etc), so that's where they're the closest to endgame.
I re-read my old thread about how important it was that Kotick won against CA after getting heavily downvoted for reminding everyone that the moment he calls out the government, suddenly there's a DeSimp cult calling for a boycott. It literally calls the rise of DeSimps, back when an alternative to Trump would be considered ridiculous.
Imagine caring about downvotes.
I don't. It's just how this consensus that I'm never right builds up.
Right, has nothing to do with the content of your posts. The downvotes came first, not your reputation.
100%. Even people on TD noticed.
Which Asian countries? 🤔
Japan, China, South Korea.
All three have gender relations at or past breaking point.
SK has no gay movements? Hmmm
The reason is the gender care gap.
*worst affected
Sure, and then everyone can have a Hapsburg jaw because you killed most of the men and everyone's related. And who will build your society back up? Certainly not the self-absorbed narcissists.
Yes, because the pro-woman society is so good.
"If you don't let women be provided for, the left wins" is a stupid fucking argument.
There is no restoring traditional roles. The DeSimps, the WEF and all of women's allies will learn after pouring billions into propaganda like "Great Replacement" and "groomers" to try and make us ally with them. Our future is SK. A non-violent gender war where the winner takes all.
I'm describing the norm of human history until 80 years ago and your retort is Hapsburg jaws? Lol. That's pretty dumb even for you.
I'm curious, given this talk of building societies, how do you think people should reproduce?