And this wasn't even an issue of racism. This was Christianity. That discrimination is so much scarier than discriminating against racists (which is still bad.)
Yes, because a religious objection to the state's established narrative is not oppression, does not risk the child, and the state's narrative actually causes the most danger.
Lots of old studies compiled on the MRA circles found that kids were better off in violent and abusive homes most of the time than just simple single mother homes in terms of future violence and incarceration as well as diagnosed mental illnesses.
Its almost certainly not that simple, but focusing on the "mega obvious evil" option when we still allow and condone the "we got used to it" super evil option will still leave us pretty fucked as a society.
I'm not going to disagree on that, I'm just saying that obviously uncouth options are way the hell better than the obviously bad ones. Hence criminalizing uncouth options makes no sense.
found that kids were better off in violent and abusive homes most of the time than just simple single mother homes in terms of future violence and incarceration as well as diagnosed mental illnesses.
Never heard that, almost blew my mind, but the more I think about it, it makes sense in some ways.
Not that there aren't people who succeed from a single-mother household, but there are seemingly so many more stories of people rising from actual abuse in a two-parent household.
This is in no way justifying said abuse, but it does seem like it is, at the very least, possible that it's more likely to rise from an abusive two-parent household, than rise form a household with no dad. Perhaps especially for boys/men, although not having a dad fucks up girls and women too, of course.
It's interesting to think about, if having even an abusive father was better than having an absent one.
I think it requires thinking about things a lot more complexly than most like.
Such as, are men really that fucking psycho so often? Or is the woman making him insane enough to become abusive? Because speaking from my own experience, my mother was never directly "abusive" but she would absolutely push every button she could until you just broke and reacted. Sometimes just as simple as a shove to get her away from you after that 40th little "girl slap" or psychotic screaming accusation while you are trying to sit/sleep that suddenly has the cops coming for Domestic Violence and everyone treating you like a monster forever now, which then strengthens her hold on you as now she is all you have.
I could go on about my personal experience but you get the picture. Its not just a way to blame women for what men do but a way to consider the actions women do that people just don't even note that set the stage for men's actions.
Not to mention getting into the discussion of the eugenical aspect. In that, what kind of man abandons his family entirely, what type of woman sleeps with that man, and what type of woman is crazy enough to turn a regular man into one who abandons his family and what all of those genetics will do in a child.
Its almost certainly not one specific factor, but the raw numbers in the most neutral sense possible paint the picture that having a father at all is better for you no matter how bad he is over single motherhood (barring some extreme exceptions I'm sure). Why that is the case, I can keep going, but that seems to be the case.
I would rather a child be taken out of a violent and abusive home and raised by loving stormfags in a safe community.
Obviously don't give them a black kid, but if the kid is white, and you manage to find the equivalent of a non-retarded stormfag, then good.
Broken homes are worse than racist parents by leaps and bounds.
And this wasn't even an issue of racism. This was Christianity. That discrimination is so much scarier than discriminating against racists (which is still bad.)
Yes, because a religious objection to the state's established narrative is not oppression, does not risk the child, and the state's narrative actually causes the most danger.
Lots of old studies compiled on the MRA circles found that kids were better off in violent and abusive homes most of the time than just simple single mother homes in terms of future violence and incarceration as well as diagnosed mental illnesses.
Its almost certainly not that simple, but focusing on the "mega obvious evil" option when we still allow and condone the "we got used to it" super evil option will still leave us pretty fucked as a society.
I'm not going to disagree on that, I'm just saying that obviously uncouth options are way the hell better than the obviously bad ones. Hence criminalizing uncouth options makes no sense.
Never heard that, almost blew my mind, but the more I think about it, it makes sense in some ways.
Not that there aren't people who succeed from a single-mother household, but there are seemingly so many more stories of people rising from actual abuse in a two-parent household.
This is in no way justifying said abuse, but it does seem like it is, at the very least, possible that it's more likely to rise from an abusive two-parent household, than rise form a household with no dad. Perhaps especially for boys/men, although not having a dad fucks up girls and women too, of course.
It's interesting to think about, if having even an abusive father was better than having an absent one.
I think it requires thinking about things a lot more complexly than most like.
Such as, are men really that fucking psycho so often? Or is the woman making him insane enough to become abusive? Because speaking from my own experience, my mother was never directly "abusive" but she would absolutely push every button she could until you just broke and reacted. Sometimes just as simple as a shove to get her away from you after that 40th little "girl slap" or psychotic screaming accusation while you are trying to sit/sleep that suddenly has the cops coming for Domestic Violence and everyone treating you like a monster forever now, which then strengthens her hold on you as now she is all you have.
I could go on about my personal experience but you get the picture. Its not just a way to blame women for what men do but a way to consider the actions women do that people just don't even note that set the stage for men's actions.
Not to mention getting into the discussion of the eugenical aspect. In that, what kind of man abandons his family entirely, what type of woman sleeps with that man, and what type of woman is crazy enough to turn a regular man into one who abandons his family and what all of those genetics will do in a child.
Its almost certainly not one specific factor, but the raw numbers in the most neutral sense possible paint the picture that having a father at all is better for you no matter how bad he is over single motherhood (barring some extreme exceptions I'm sure). Why that is the case, I can keep going, but that seems to be the case.
Ah, you know my parents?