U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2016, 04:39 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,787 posts, read 64,231,537 times
Reputation: 68604

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
I've tried to provide "food for thought" -- a couple of points where you can do a little more reading and then re-evaluate, or retain your own conclusions. But they might not be in synch with the "pop wisdom" provided by the crowd at MSNBC, HuffPost, and the Daily Kos.

Conservative media are far less prone to the oversimplification and spoon-feeding of pre-formed dogma; intended example: the refinement of climate change (a real phenomenon) into "global warming", with its emotional advertising aimed at 14-year-olds.
Do a little more reading about what? Re-evaluate what? You still haven't stated the topic. I'd be happy to read and evaluate, but I need to know what the discussion topic is. Is the topic now "conservative media" spin? Why does the topic keep shifting? What am I supposed to be reading about and evaluating? Why are you being so mysterious about it? Why can't you just answer my question, straightforwardly and clearly?

 
Old 09-23-2016, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,095,819 times
Reputation: 12891
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post

Males do outnumber females at birth. but the circumstances by which the population is reduced (loss of women to childbirth and poverty, men to primitive industry and war) have changed to favor women in the advanced societies over the past century. Only the Middle East and a few other parts of the Third World retain a surplus of men.
Let's not forget that young males also have (and have always had) a propensity for doing stupid, dangerous things that led to their deaths. A quick youtube search will show that young boys are still doing stupid stunts that could cause them serious injury, if not death. They just get rushed to the hospital now.

Further, I don't recall any stories of women dueling in the street or having shootouts in the old west because their "honor" was besmirched.

And the places you mention that have a surplus of men are because girls and girl babies are not valued in those societies - they get less medical care, less food, are neglected/abandoned/killed at birth because a boy is what's wanted. The girls that do survive have to work just as hard as the boys (sometimes harder) and/or are sold off at a young age to start the cycle again, if they survive giving birth a 12.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
But the point remains; Both greater options for single women, and the deindustrialization of society increase the pressures faced by the "traditional" male. Demands for physical strength and stamina have given way to demands for an ability to handle stress, and both agrarian and heavy-industrial settings (not to mention the lessons given in both contact sports and the military) conditioned that male to react both quickly and physically; now we're conditioned to "suck it up" and the resentments build along with the blood pressure.
Traditional male? Any men under 40 today who call themselves a "traditional male" are that way because they have chosen that lifestyle. They made a choice. Same goes for women - any woman under 40 who wants to be completely supported by a husband and be a housewife/SAHM for her whole life has made that choice. And to be quite honest, I don't know a single married mother who isn't doing some kind of work on the side or in the home to contribute an income to the household.

I was raised to be a "traditional female" and I rejected that concept wholly, and my life has been the better for it.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 08:15 PM
 
8,620 posts, read 2,402,963 times
Reputation: 8192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
BLAME SOCIALISM

We know that one of the pitfalls of socialism is the precipitous drop in birthrate. When people believe that government (and other people’s children) will care for them (via taxes), they avoid the trouble and expense of a large family. This results in genocide, and an aging population with less young to support it. Europe (and Russia, in particular) is suffering from that fact.

Yardeni notes that, "Socialism may breed infertility. In the past, people relied on their children to support them in their old age. Your children were your old-age insurance policy. Over the past few decades, people have come to depend increasingly on social security provided by their governments. So they are having fewer kids."
Maybe the world sorta sux and intelligent people don't think you are doing your kids a favor by bringing them into the world??

I've seen a LOT of friends and family and others state this over the years. It has nothing to do with socialism - in fact, it seems to be closer related to capitalism (selfishness).

I know a lot of guys who made a good living and just never felt like using their money to support a wife and/or kids. They wanted their freedom. Absolutely nothing to do with safety nets.

You have to love those quotes "Socialism may breed infertility". Some things we know for a fact - like heavy pollution as well as certain chemicals lower fertility - yet Capitalism loves the money made from both.

Anyway, the OP and the subject isn't capitalism and socialism and all that. The basic subject is simple.

Should both males and females be able to have a certain degree of freedom and self-determination?

Obviously, many here think not. Instead, they think males should be able to dictate - in various ways - what the deal is.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 08:24 PM
 
8,620 posts, read 2,402,963 times
Reputation: 8192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Do a little more reading about what? Re-evaluate what? You still haven't stated the topic. I'd be happy to read and evaluate, but I need to know what the discussion topic is. Is the topic now "conservative media" spin? Why does the topic keep shifting? What am I supposed to be reading about and evaluating? Why are you being so mysterious about it? Why can't you just answer my question, straightforwardly and clearly?
The topic is whether females in this country deserve the right to self-determination.
The OP and those spouting Breitbart quotes think not. They seem to like the ideas of Pakistan, Afghanistan and many other societies where men have some right to self-determination, but women have none.

They lament what the American freedoms are doing to their (better and smarter and more capable) sex.

That's what I see as the point - and, as usual with such "conservatives', they are driven by fear...which is somewhat stated in the title as "beware the effects" of allowing women to self-determine.

The few men who feel this way - who are "winners" can surely have their pick of brides from the many catalogs (binders?) full of women from other countries...such women are often taught "properly" that the man is king.

So I wonder what they are complaining about? Their vaulted capitalism can buy them what they want. Why do they have to try and force such policy on everyone?

Answer: They are RWA (Right Wing Authoritarians). Unfortunately, those who lean RWA cannot be changed by facts, debates or outcomes. They know that "strong men" can fix things.
Right wing authoritarianism / Dr. Simon Moss - Sicotests
 
Old 09-23-2016, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,095,819 times
Reputation: 12891
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Perhaps that is your experience.
From what I researched, BEFORE SOCIALISM (1933) wealthy families didn't need to rely on children for old age security, and usually had the smallest families. Whereas the poorest families had prodigious broods.
From my own experience, we had 3 children, the two parental families had a combined 8 children, their forebears had a combined 20 children, and 16 children, respectfully, etc., etc.
None of them were on the "wealthy end."
And before socialism, they cared for their own.
My grandmother took care of her retarded brother till the day he died. Not one dime of gubmint support, did she ever receive. Civilized people took care of their own kinfolk.
Wealthy women had access to birth control.

Poor women did not.

Now everyone has access to birth control.

The end.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 09:38 PM
 
6,167 posts, read 3,257,447 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Let me say at the outset that I don't want this thread to turn into an orgy of gender-bashing. For whatever it's worth, the majority of close friendships I've made since the age of roughly thirty have been with the opposite sex.

But primarily because of simple demographic and societal trends -- most notably, that women now outnumber men (and for the first time) in the advanced, Westernized societies, new imbalances continue to develop, and new pressures build up, and in a limited number of instances, traditional "safety valves" are "tied down" for politically-rooted reasons.

The greatest driving forces are economic, and will remain so. Back during World War II, "Rosie the Riveter" decided she liked the independence (and the money) that came along with the responsibility of a "mainstream" job -- but the path upward from there was too often blocked by an Old Boys Network. And structures tended to develop within those career fields such as teaching and nursing which kept the motivated few from getting too far.

But the free play of human interaction, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and the development and growth of alternative means of communication opened more doors. So far ... so good. But the pressures of the job now began to spill over into the home, with consequences for the stability of many marriages. And since both education and communication/entertainment are fields with a strong female presence, the overall view of societal organization changed greatly.

Principal point being: Men born after roughly 1970 have been conditioned toward a different approach to both rights and responsibilities -- particularly if many of their formative years are spent in a single-parent female-headed household. I'm posting a link to some personal experience with one of the many casualties of that imbalance,

What Should We Do About "Justin"?

and I'm sure many of us can think of instances, if only from headlines, where the consequences were far worse.

The one point I do want to stress is that I don't believe very many of these concerns can be addressed with a broad-brush ideological approach -- something that too many of the partisans on both sides of the current election-season circus and the national polarization underlying it seem determined to do. In my own experience I've met people who've struggled and adapted, mostly via their own efforts -- and their stories are seldom told. Divisive action pays far better for those without a conscience.
That sure reads like an anti-female post to me.

I have no idea what in your head you think "feminization" is, and why you think it's bad. Being female is a GOOD thing. If only more world leaders were female, the world would be a more peaceful place, and there would be less suffering of the masses. Female leaders have shown they wage war when they believe it's necessary, but they seem to wage it for the right reasons and not to, say, Christianize other nations, invade and conquer, steal the resources of another place, or just to show their might. Although they can do those things, too (Queen Elizabeth).

Women and men are both human beings. They are not different species. Some men are so hung up on stressing the differences (and there are differences), and in the course of doing so, denigrating the female gender.

My brother seems to get along better with women than men. He likes women. He's not "feminized." He's a big tall burly motorcyle-ridin' man collects guns....and who was raised mostly by a divorced mother and with four sisters.

I think some men just plain don't like women. Tainted by rejection, maybe? Not raised in a female household, maybe, so they don't see women as real people? No tellin.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,123 posts, read 9,212,549 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Before "socialism" (1933) my paternal grandmother, a widow, had to feed her two kids on a domestic servant's wage. No gubmint help, just like you said. Needless to say, the kids only got one meal a day, if that, living in Chicago's southside ghetto (I'm talking about White people). No doctors; conveniently, she was Christian Scientist. She couldn't have afforded a doctor if she'd needed one. That's "civilization" for you.

P.S. Need you be reminded that "socialism" came about in the middle of the worst economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression? Civilized people weren't able to take care of their own, because so many had lost their jobs. People were living in tent cities. "Hoovervilles", they were called. Soup kitchens were keeping people alive. It's' very easy to pontificate about "socialism" (TM) from the comfort of one's chair nearly 100 years later.
Stating that socialism = slavery is not pontificating.
Socialism is the wrong remedy for the wrong problem.

If you think that poverty is caused by a lack of money reconsider. The remedy is not to redistribute wealth, because poverty is caused by money, not resolved by it.

To illustrate, if “needing money” was the problem, let us give everyone 22 billion billion quatloos, and no one will need money ever again. Does that end poverty? No.

If no one needs money, why bother to work, sweat, farm, mine, transport, refine, manufacture, ship, display and sell? All that money is useless, worthless, and meaningless. Even starving children are equally 'rich.' Civilization thus collapses, despite everyone being “rich.” Obviously, people need to be productive because that is what civilized people do. But 'money mad' people cannot see that. All they perceive is the illusion of money.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 11:52 PM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,818,976 times
Reputation: 17499
If it were actually happening, the answer would be "a more peaceful society". But it isn't happening.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,123 posts, read 9,212,549 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Maybe the world sorta sux and intelligent people don't think you are doing your kids a favor by bringing them into the world??

I've seen a LOT of friends and family and others state this over the years. It has nothing to do with socialism - in fact, it seems to be closer related to capitalism (selfishness).

I know a lot of guys who made a good living and just never felt like using their money to support a wife and/or kids. They wanted their freedom. Absolutely nothing to do with safety nets.

You have to love those quotes "Socialism may breed infertility". Some things we know for a fact - like heavy pollution as well as certain chemicals lower fertility - yet Capitalism loves the money made from both.

Anyway, the OP and the subject isn't capitalism and socialism and all that. The basic subject is simple.

Should both males and females be able to have a certain degree of freedom and self-determination?

Obviously, many here think not. Instead, they think males should be able to dictate - in various ways - what the deal is.
Subjective anecdotes notwithstanding, from antiquity people relied on their children for support and assistance in old age. That today's 'enlightened' (indoctrinated?) generation are clueless is not persuasive.
The data shows that Socialist countries are depopulating - regardless of wealth or level of industrialization. (Look at tiny Cuba, FGS!)

Socialist nations fertility rate : 1-2 children
Non socialist nations fertility rate : 2-4 children
Muslim nations fertility rate : 5-8 children

Guess which nations are facing an influx of immigrants, and their source?

The future belongs to the descendants, and people who stop making enough are pushed out by those that keep fighting "BioWar."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SOCIALIST GENOCIDE
<><><><>
Birthrate per woman; 1960; 2014 (2.2 = equilibrium)
Sweden: 2.2;1.9
Norway: 2.9; 1.8
Denmark: 2.6;1.7
Finland: 2.7; 1.8

Russian Federation: 2.5; 1.7
Ukraine: 2.2; 1.5
Cuba: 4.2; 1.6 (Impressive result of socialism)

United States: 3.7, 1.9 (USA is more and more socialist)
Mexico: 6.8; 2.2 (still exporting their surplus, eh?)

India: 5.9; 2.4
Syrian Arab Republic: 7.5; 3.0
Iraq: 6.3; 4.6
Niger: 7.4; 7.6 (WHOA !)

Source:
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
 
Old 09-24-2016, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,123 posts, read 9,212,549 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33 View Post
Wealthy women had access to birth control.
Poor women did not.
Now everyone has access to birth control.
The end.
If that's the case, pity those POOR Muslim women in Afghanistan, West Bank, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and so on.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2054.html
COUNTRY . . . . . . . BIRTH RATE(BIRTHS/1,000 POPULATION)
Afghanistan . . . . . . . 38.57 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Australia . . . . . . . . . 12.15 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . 9.41 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Germany . . . . . . . . . . 8.47 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.74 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Switzerland. . . . . . . 10.5 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Saudi Arabia . . . . . . 18.4 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . 18.78 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
United States . . . . . . 12.49 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
West Bank . . . . . . . . 22.99 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top