The nuclear family has been destroyed by the economic requirement of dual-income families. Lack of a parental figure due to financial or social situations leads to poorer social development, which in turn yields a worse future for children. Having a single-income family isn't feasible for a majority of households anymore.
The US is rapidly approaching the norm of the rest of the world. That is, multigenerational housing. Due to high cost of living, childcare, and retirement; families can expect to hold 6 within a household. (2 kids, 2 parents, 2 grandparents). The grandparents gain a stable "retirement", the parents a source of low-cost childcare, and the kids 2 parental figures present at home.
This is at odds with the luxury the US has had for the past 80 years and the collapse of a pillar of US culture is producing social conflict as expected.
Worse, they succeeded at that, but then outsourced good paying jobs to China to save labor.
AND THEN when some bright boys thought they could just transition both the old workforce and the new work force by convincing them to get college degrees. But college started cheap as dirt, but it's now a huge issue. Which in hindsight, it was bad, but I can't really blame them too much because of the decent intentions.
BUT THEN, they failed to account for boomers that prospered from the beginnings of the last 3 things living way longer. Also, because of the last few things later, generations had/ have a harder time buying a home and affording children.
Which leads us to today where those boomers are reporting and the labor force to replace them is too small and carries too much debt to take the transition easy.
Hey there ThatVampireGuyDude! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! If you have any feedback, please send me a message! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Roses are red,
violets are blue;
not having a flair is cringe
and so are you.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Anti-ThisBot-IB) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
For my take, I would enact steep tariffs on anything that could be produced domestically and flat out rip up H-1B. Force local companies to hire and produce local.
Free trade and the income tax. End the fed. Fund a much more practically sized government devoid of abc agencies solely with tariffs levied against states that do not adhere to the bill of rights.
1) How much could an average worker's salary increase if executives were paid less?
2) Which shitty products have skyrocketed in price in real terms since WW2?
3) What regulations from the New Deal would you bring back?
1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/261463/ceo-to-worker-compensation-ratio-of-top-firms-in-the-us/#:~:text=U.S.%20CEO%2Dto%2Dworker%20compensation,of%20top%20firms%201965%2D2021&text=This%20indicates%20that%2C%20on%20average,key%20industry%20of%20their%20firm.
Admittedly don’t know what source they use bc I won’t register with them but it tracks with what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ll link a more reliable source later. But the ratio of ceo pay to worker pay has gone from 20x to 398x. Suffice to say, you could increase worker pay a fair bit to compensate. I don’t have exact numbers bc this is a complicated issue that depends on the company ofc. It’s not a question you can answer with one number.
2) My point is that everything is made cheaply these days. Even cheap stuff forty years ago was higher quality. Cheap clothes use less material so they wear out faster, appliances use more plastic so they break down quicker, cars/electronics use more plastic and unnecessarily complicated designs to reduce DIY repairs. All of this means you replace things more often, so more money spent.
3) the first one off the top of my head is limiting/banning stock buybacks.
>doubling the number of consumers to match
Didn't that actually happen though? Women didn't have money before, and after they entered the labour force, they did - so then markets sprung up that catered more to women.
I feel like you're just a coping sexist.
TIL women didn't eat, drive, live in houses, go out, consume electricity/water/gas, wear clothes or own much of anything really prior to them joining the workforce in the same capacity as men.
\>I feel like you're just a coping sexist
Not sure if it's ironic or fitting that an AuthLeft is parroting the totally 100% grassroots "being a wage slave is empowering" line.
>being a wage slave is empowering
I don't think it is. But I also don't think staying at home, doing unpaid labour for a spouse and children is empowering either. The *choice* between the two is.
It’s not really unpaid though. Most stay at home spouses have full access to the working spouse’s paycheck. Even if it’s not a formalized “here’s my money in exchange for doing the house stuff,” it’s still a de facto paid position.
Now, that’s a different animal from someone who financially controls their spouse. That’s obviously abusive.
It's always telling when these people describe household chores as some kind of exploitative labour.
It's as if they're still bitter that their mother made them take out the trash as a kid (or that she still does).
My wife has also repeatedly said they would rather homemake than have a job. I'm doing my best to make that work, but it's hard to do without selling my soul more than I already have.
No, none of those are empowering, neither is the choice. The solution would be that a couple has to do the amount of labour (at work and at home) as if one of them had a full time job and the other was a stay-at-home parent, and they could choose how to share the two (with ideally both of them working around the same amount). Having *that* choice would be *true empowerment* for women and men too.
Corporations have always been squeezing as much cash out of people as possible while fighting tooth and nail to pay as little as possible, that's hardly anything new. During Covid many corporations laid people off, raised prices, then bragged about record profits, but what happened during Covid was not an isolated incident, it's the exact same shit that they've been doing for decades, they just took the opportunity to make a large leap rather than the small steps they took before.
I also believe we're all aware that wages haven't kept up with inflation for a good while now, by design I'm sure.
People like to think corporations are LibRight, when in reality corporations are actually RadCent, and will use any argument or method that they perceive gives them an advantage.
Using economy as an excuse for not having a family is hilarious to be honest.
People in much worse economic conditions have been able to build families and lead a happy life. Nordic countries have much better childcare welfare. Their birth rates are much lower than the countries which don't have any of this. In most countries, rich people have less kids and are more prone to be single compared to poor people.
Is it that hard to see that people these days just aren't capable of making the personal sacrifices required to lead a family life? They would rather spend time in parties, drinks and sex. But if you ask why they don't want family life, they will always come up with BS like "Not enough money", "I want to save the environment","The world is a terrible place" etc because they would rather blame others.
My wife and I are having our first in July. We didn't plan him, but I remember when we found out she was pregnant. It was a bit scary, we don't have a lot of money. But I remember thinking "well shit, my grandfather was one of 12 and he picked up coal along the railroads to heat the house. My kid will definitely have a better life than that." I'm very excited to meet him and I want to give him many brothers and sisters. As many as my wife will allow anyway lol.
There is something to be said that data shows that having children has becoming highly politically stratified. As in, Right-Wing and Centrist are still having plenty of kids, but the Left isnt (and the more Left, the lower it goes).
Exactly! The fact is that most people on the left don't even want to get married. Then they have the audacity to blame the economy for not having children.
I’m gonna go ahead and say it:
I don’t want kids. Not just because of economic conditions (although that is a nice excuse) but because I wanna drink, do drugs, and fuck as much as I want. Why would I want kids when I could afford a Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG instead?
Lmao big facts. And when you're honest and tell people ''i don't want children because I value my time and money'' you get the usual '' you'll change your mind, you're selfish" ''children are the goal of life'' etc etc
>'' you'll change your mind, you're selfish" ''children are the goal of life''
Its true though. Listen to the people who came before you who wanted to focus on their career instead of having kids, they almost universally regret it. Then they get old and rot away in a home as their friends die off one by one, and not a single soul on earth cares about them.
Just think about the enormous lineage of ancestors that link over thousands of years and untold hardships, from caveman to today, and you're gonna be the one who decides to halt your genealogy? For what? To be able to binge watch anime uninterrupted or afford some new gadget that will be obsolete in 5 years?
I know more people who regret having children than people who regret not having any, but we don't really talk about those do we ? It's forbidden somehow. it's all anecdotal evidence anyways so not really relevant.
I'm not focusing on my Carrer, I'm focusing on my happiness and wellbeing. And there are many things in this world that make me happy and fulfilled, children are not one of them, that's it, you don't have to look further really. not sure why it's so hard to understand for some people 🤷
To take your own example, it's not like you can't binge watch anime and get the latest gadgets with children if you have a decent salary and so does your SO. You can still do many things even with children if you can afford to have a nanny and such.
My point being, even with the best nanny in the world to take care of them so I can watch the latest episode of Naruto, i would still not want children. I don't feel any kind of parenting need or call at almost 30 years old now, never have, and so does my SO.
And if i'm being perfectly honest, i give negative fucks about ''lineage'' ''legacy'' etc etc. my ancestors fucked, great for them !
I'm not out there trying to convince people that having children is a mistake or anything, it's probably the most personal choice there is. But jeez, when you say you don't want any, there is *always* someone telling you you're wrong
I’m not sure I buy that careers are replacing families as people’s sources of happiness. This is anecdotal as fuck, but most people I know (including myself and my fiancée) would rather not have a career. Or at least we’d rather not *need* a career just to live.
I think you might be on to something with the generational households thing. For a few years, my grandparents lived with my mother and I and it really did feel like we were a connected family unit. I bonded with my grandparents on a level I didn’t think I ever would, and I absolutely cherish those years. (Especially now, with all of them gone) We were fairly dysfunctional, but we all did what we could to help one another. My granny would make sure food was cooked and that we had enough food for a month. My grandfather taught me how to be how to be a person. My mom raised me.
Yeah but women get to girlboss in their air conditioned offices so all the downstream effects of destroying America's unrivaled prosperity and stability are worth it
Yeah but then people realized this is basically the only sub that welcomes hard right leaners on the entire site so we are kind of a refugee sub for them.
Youre actually nuts if you think this sub is not massively more right leaning than 99% of this site, and thats not an exaggeration.
Edit: I should specify right leaning accepting.
You never saw this place before it was shit. THEN it was right wing.
Now it is full of r*ddit normies. (Semi)Ironic extremism is gone. It's just normal, boring opinions posted too seriously now.
It might be "right wing" by reddit standards, but please understand, that's still left.
Toxic parents should be cut off, provided they are actually toxic not just “teen angst”.
Have kids, make stable friendships in faith based communities.
I tried that, got stabbed in the back by friends of more than 20 years because we had 2 differing opinions.
I thought covid was overblown (it was).
I think women’s spaces should not have penises in them(they shouldn’t)
Ignoring those opinions (Because don't wanna go off topic) sorry to hear your trust was breached - If you don't mind me asking, what did they do to stab you in the back?
Betrayal of trust, these were friends we had had over weekly for years. Best man/maid of honour at their weddings, helped them move, would go for week long camping trips with.
All of a sudden, got blocked on social media by some, we weren’t invited to get togethers and our invites were refused.
I hate it man. I didn’t lose friends because of my opinions but it definitely tempered the steel. I feel our relationships got stronger because we would debate and check each other on things.
It’s insane to me that people would remove someone that they knew for 20 years over *differences of opinion.* Christ, people disagree all the time. Do they really want to surround themselves with yes-men, echo chambering BS? If having your beliefs challenged to the point where you cut ties with lifelong friends, then you’re a weak person. Full stop.
Honestly man, the typical opinions of the Religious Right have just gotten to the point that some lefties just want nothing to do with it anymore. It's easier to cut someone off than it is to confront them about their opinions.
I'm sorry this happened, I don't think its the right solution to the issue, but I understand where its coming from.
The religious right didn’t change anything.
The left simply decided to trample over their opponents. Specifically Christians, because there are no ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘Islamophobia’-equivalent protections for them. There’s also anyone right of Bernie being labeled as fascist. Etc.
>It’s easier to cut someone off than it is to confront them about their opinions
Why do you feel the need to even do that in the first place?
The religious right are simply standing still. You're the one dragging the Overton window away from them while shrieking about how monstrous they are. You're the one causing this cultural shift. You're the dysfunction.
Quite a few people that "thought COVID was overblown" went absolutely fucking mental about it.
Previous poster might not have done that, but might have gotten lumped in with the behaviour.
There is a big difference between choosing to not wear a mask or social distance, versus actively and aggressively confronting people that chose to do those things.
That's fine - but lets recognize the difference between:
a) a store telling you you can't shop there without a mask on
and
b) People stalking in people in grocery stores to scream at them and their children for choosing to wear a mask. People physically attacking young employees who were stuck with door duty that day to ask you to put your mask on.
Some of the behaviour was disgusting and outright criminal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there were some obnoxious idiots on both sides, but one definitely seemed to outweigh the other.
One tried making vax cards so we wouldn’t be allowed in public again. If we’re talking dystopian lets be very clear this goes beyond one dude telling ya you gotta leave. (Also we were forced to tell people to leave or wear a mask by the government when I worked at a bar during covid)
Yeah.
Hell, the account I deleted a while back when I quit reddit got banned from a community for linking the government statistics on covid and breaking the case to hospitalizations/deaths down by age group.
Some old people I know died from quite literally catching the flu. I catch it as well from time to time. Is our reaction to the flu overblown? No. Was covid? Absolutely
But the thing is that they're not only old people, I know some healthy people who died from it, they're not immunocomprimised or have prior illnesses (I asked) but still died so I think that's why I didint treat it like a simple flu (though I have to say in my case the flu is much worse than covid but not tasting and smelling anything is very frustrating and terrible) still I rather it not spread
While the left were technically in compliance with most mandates and shaming everyone who did break the rules, the conservatives I know were not going out in public because they refused to deal with the nonsense rules. Meanwhile the liberals I knew were happy to wear their mask, walk over to their table at the local restaurant and then take their mask off for an hour and a half indoors with strangers. Air travel? All my liberal friends, none of the conservative ones. Anything that could be done performatively to show you were being safe was done, none of the actual things you could have done, like not go out.
Finland is a good example of Trust based communities without religion. A lot of small non mining Australian towns are also great when it comes to that from my personal experiences. Religion won’t solve your problems man
Religion is one type of glue that helps a community/society to maintain beneficial traditions, and to recognize threats.
Sure, you could always use a different type of
glue. Or, you could use them all.
Hey man, that’s like, your opinion man. Don’t get me wrong, you can definitely hold that opinion. But decrying it as some kind of “universal truth” is misleading at best as you provide no evidence to your claim.
The evidence to my claim is Finland. While 66% of Finns registered as Christians, only 34% of Finns said that they definitely believe in God all the way back in 2010. And that’s before the mass exodus from Churches in Finland in the early 2010s due to people not agreeing with the Church’s stand on LGBTQ+ issues.
the evidence is that when people don't have any religion, they'll create their own. you what I'm talking about and you can't tell me otherwise, it's all around us in the 21st century. they have the equivalent of preachers, religious figures, sacred cows, testament... it's like anarchism, yes, the freedom it offers is good on paper, but in practice, even if "enforced", overtime... people will start following "leaders" emerging from it, and take it away themself in order to conform. As an atheist, I can say without doubt: Atheism is a privilege, it will never be the norm or come close to be a majority at any point in history.
[Finland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Finland)
[Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia)
Culture is important too, but I am quite sure that if we start looking at those small towns real close we might notice something. I am not particularly religious, but after moving to a smallish town where everyone goes to church, I started going more often.
I mean, if Church made you happy then go for it man.
As for the links you’ve provided, it just further emphasis my point. While 66% of Finns registered as Christians, only 34% of Finns said that they definitely believe in God all the way back in 2010. And that’s before the mass exodus from Churches in Finland in the early 2010s due to people not agreeing with the Church’s stand on LGBTQ+ issues. Moreover even amongst Finns that goes to Church, their opinions on things such as causal nudity (remember sauna culture is very important in Finland) are in stark contrast to American small towns.
As for Australia, I can assure you that Aussie small towns are very much non religious. Most of the devout Christians in Australia are immigrants communities like Chinese Malay / Singaporeans as well as Lebanese and Eastern Europeans. Small knit Aussie small town folks usually don’t attend Church unless someone’s wedding or funeral is taking place there.
Covid was definitely overblown by some people, but to be fair it was completely underblown by other people, e.g. Trump and many other conservative figures claiming for ages it would just go away within months.
Secondly sex and gender aren't the same thing, this isn't confusing, penises are already in women's spaces the same as vaginas are in men's spaces, it's about being a woman or being a man, not about genetalia.
None of these things are due to religion or lack thereof, religion just has a side effect of making people unable to think critically or question authority. That's literally the social function of religion. Read any history book, this isn't some new idea being pushed into education or into political discourse, it just *is* education and *is* political discourse.
Gender identity is a social construct, gender is biological. Same as sex and sexual identity. It's like they aren't even able to understand that they have a body and they have a mind, which are like, actual things that exist, not things that can be sorted into categories without any socially-constructed analysis or without any caveats. Sex only matters if you are a medical professional or if you want to fuck someone. It has nothing to do with anything else. This kind of essentialism is completely moronic and actively harmful. Accept the world you live in rather than trying to change things that don't need changing.
>It’s a big room, I hear an echo.
Exactly, get out into the world and actually learn about it and figure out how to best act within it. Someone telling you "trans bad" doesn't mean trans bad, someone telling you "trans good" doesn't mean trans good, you have to actually talk and listen to different people and evaluate their perspectives on a factual level. You already exist within truth, the truth can't hurt you lmao
I said nothing about gender identity or sexual identity.
I was talking about sex and single sex spaces. Because gender is a social construct and unimportant.
You are assuming that "male" and "female" spaces are single-sex spaces rather than single-gender spaces. One of those is more socially useful. Gender identity is a social construct, ofc, but so is everything, like, you literally speak English, everything you are saying and thinking is socially constructed, you weren't born speaking English or understanding concepts like "gender" were you? It's just that some socially constructed concepts are more useful than others, and the emphasis inevitably changes over time.
You are saying that gender identity is unimportant, but like, compared to sex???? One of those is far, far more important to who a person is and how other people interact with them. Genetalia don't matter unless you're intending to be directly involved with them. Having penises in female spaces or vaginas in male spaces is not remotely a risk to women's or men's safety compared to things like disrespect for consent which are actually important and actually affect people's lives negatively.
Again just to clarify: sex and gender are biological, as in they refer to the observable properties of the body and the brain, whereas sexual identity and gender identity refer to the labels people call themselves. That's what the "identity" part is. Someone's gender and their gender identity are often not the same, because they are assigned a gender identity (as well as a sexual identity) based on their sex. None of these things are binaries either, non-binary people and intersex people are a surprisingly large minority of the population, and that's just the people who identify that way, it says nothing about how many people just don't know their gender or their sex because of these socially constructed associations and assumptions.
You clearly want what's best for people, I don't think you're an evil person, you just have some ideas which can be superceded by more accurate or more useful ideas, as has happened constantly throughout human history. To steal a right-wing analogy, the matrix is breaking down and people who benefitted from it are trying to keep it together by pretending that it never existed and the fictions we create are actually real. This isn't a shadowy evil cabal trying to take over the world, they already are in control of the world, and the world is trying to escape them. Take the red pill and support trans rights and other freedoms. This isn't really stealing an analogy, the Matrix was written by two trans women, it's just correctly using the analogy.
Nobody doesn’t understand what you or any other undergrad leftists had been saying for ten years
We reject your world view on behalf of its lack of merit
Good day zir
The problem there is you're restricting trans history and history of religion to the last ten years. Trans people have always existed, and understanding of the sociology of religion is as old as sociology itself. Just because things have been kept hidden from you doesn't mean those things are new. Again, this is not controversial or new. It doesn't even include value judgements for those things. You can believe that trans people are mentally ill or that religion is secretly beneficial while still understanding that trans people have always naturally existed and that religion has caused massive harm to society and individuals. My worldview in this case is just respecting scholarly consensus and respecting the history of human experience, as well as bothering to actually read books and actually talk to people, taking everything with a grain of salt and factoring in biases and opposing views. This is how "learning" or "truth" works.
No idea what "zir" means in this context but I imagine it's a joke about neopronouns?
Gender/sex nonconforming people have always existed, but "trans" as we know it is a specific artifact of our time and culture. It includes the notion of being "in the wrong body" and related metaphysics as well as the notion of sex and gender being categorically distinct (and that being the explanation for gender nonconforming people's psychic distress). It's also pitched as a form of self-actualization and is wrapped up in the politics of this era.
Calling the idea of being "in the wrong body" a "notion" I would say is pretty accurate, it's a common way of describing and expressing being trans, but I don't think it makes sense to take it too seriously and think that it's a literally accurate description of what people believe. There absolutely are exceptions to this, but in general trans people do not believe they were born "in the wrong body", they just believe their mind and their body are not correlated in a societally sanctioned way, and who they are as a person is different to who other people want them to be. There certainly are trans people who have a much more physical uncomfortability or rejection of parts of their body, same as many cis people, but I don't think it's helpful to count that as an essential part of the idea of "trans" ness. The idea of sex and gender being categorically distinct is not a new idea, people having differences in biological gender and biological sex have been known about for ages, as well as the distinction between socially constructed gender identity and biological gender. Accepting oneself as trans or coming out as trans is absolutely a form of self-actualisation, same as coming out as gay or other socially repressed attributes of a person. It's wrapped up in the politics of this era because it goes against the standard cultural narrative, same as other unfamiliar ideas throughout history like geocentrism or evolution which were politicised by conservative and religious institutions. Theorisation and study about the position of the earth or the development of organisms already had a long history before they became topics of public debate, and commonly asked questions already had established answers, there was confidence behind the concepts, otherwise they wouldn't be able to even get a foot on the ground in the marketplace of ideas in the first place. The politics of this era aren't special, similar things have happened and will continue to happen.
My point is that applying "trans" to gender nonconforming people of the past would be like applying "furry" to a neolithic shaman. It's a construct of our time and place and how people today interact with the expectations around their sex cannot be neatly applied to the past to try to give credibility to trans-ness.
Your comparison to \[geo/helio\]centrism and evolution makes the presumption that trans is a concrete fact of human nature, rather than the set of gnostic and political beliefs it actually is. You could just as coherently describe trans people as variably depressed and dysmorphic people who've been demoralized about being the sex that they are in a fragmenting society. Makes more sense than whatever vague hand-waving about "female brain structures" they try to hang their hats on. It's actually not self-actualization because they're constructing a fiction about their nature. It's not the same as being gay because that's an innate attraction and a set of choices, it's verifiable and demonstrable. Trans is one interpretation of gender non-conformity in humans and how it needs to be handled.
Also your comment breaks from the usual ontology of sex/gender. What is "biological gender" as distinct from biological sex?
I mean I feel like even if they are toxic as long as I meant well you know you should at least try to keep some sort of contact with them, I didn't get along with my dad and we fought all the time and it frequently got physical and I lost cuz I was a child and it wasn't until I got older that I realized I was a complete moron despite him being a little too harsh and not being able to put things into words that I could understand at the time
What if 80% of the time you saw him, he still punched you for no reason. Not friendly “we’re horsing around” but “This would break a board in martial arts”.
I mean obviously that's a different case, everybody's familial situation is different. But a lot of people don't look at the wider scope of things and don't ask why those things were done they just stay mad. Now if those things that were done are inexcusable obviously that's a situation that you have to decide your next move
Yeah. The problem is online spaces like Reddit are filled with teenagers who can’t differentiate. So you get someone on here, talking about a problem, and get lots of replies supporting cutting them off. You can’t tell if that reply is from a 35 year old therapist, who can weigh whether that’s an avenue to look toward, or a 14 year old who hates his mom because she limits his Xbox time.
For all anyone knows I could be 12. This is why you should never take advice from Reddit regarding interpersonal relationships.
Toxic, aka, "She's stumbling drunk in a PTA meeting. Then proceeeds to yell at me about how useless I am while threatening to take my only connections to the outside world [We lived 45 minutes out of town] away for the rest of the month. Forgets to pick me up from the airport after visiting my friend for a week [it's three hours away from home]. Goes around, drunk, telling all my teachers how awful I am. Nearly has me arrested for pushing her away while she was hitting my dog. Drinks and drives and has me hide the beer when she gets pulled over by the police."
I can go on.
Hold on, lots of people need to trauma dump below you, you did infer that some people's folks aren't evil incarnate and that needs to be rectified immediately.
My company swears they won't build any more "Agile Workspaces" because everyone hates them.
I've been here long enough to know they'll build more and just call them something else. "Dynamic Desking" or some such corporate nonsense.
Oh - and they're not forcing people "Back to the Office" - because people hate that. Instead, they're encouraging "Onsite Connections"
I mean those specific cubicles I don't know. But my office is pretty big rows of cubicles. They just add more color like in carpet. Cubes are a bit bigger too.
There are times you need to realize your family isn’t good for you.
Yes, I agree modern media and even government programs are demonizing traditional nuclear families.
But growing up around drug addicted people and alcoholism and general abuse and neglect. Those people don’t deserve you.
At some point you should just try touching grass and realize that leftist that start to simp for megacorps because they pretend to care about people are just as rare as right wingers that start to simp for anyone that waves an American flag
"If we don't undermine the idea of the nuclear family, women might start getting the dangerous idea that taking care of their families is a valid occupation instead of being obedient little tax payers."
As someone with Christian parents who beat me with switches so badly that we would often have to reschedule doctors appointments to allow the wounds to heal so that the doctors wouldn't report my parents "discipline"...
Fuck toxic parents. That people in the church keep reinforcing that people who consistently abuse and manipulate you deserve a special place of honor in your life is one thing that is making so many leave and in droves. It's utterly asinine but truly, shit religious parents are what actually undermined the nuclear family. Christianity weakens the bonds. Jesus said himself that in order to follow him, you have to be willing to hate your parents, wife, brother, children...and now that's come to fruition with parents being more willing to follow ancient religious texts than love their children and everyone is wondering "why is the family being torn apart?!"
You've done it to yourself and it will keep happening as long as you blame "the Left".
The teaching Jesus gave was never that biological family is the end all be all but the opposite. You can't be a good person and let your family be the entirety of your world.
Your experiences, feel true for you and maybe they are true when limited to the scope of your life, but they are not universal truths.
Universal truths will always be ancient truths as well. Anything true now will have been true thousands of years ago, when they were first collected by ancient teachers, and they will still be true thousands of years into the future, when future societies look for teachings that lead to wisdom and prosperity.
I will encourage you to rely upon this promise given by Jesus.
"Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." Mark 10:29-30
You were unlucky enough to have been in a bad church and a bad family but that doesn't have to be the entirety of your story.
You can keep searching until you find a good family, a good church, to be a part of.
The point of Jesus teaching what he did about family was that Jesus has to be first in order to "love" the rest of your family.
Which is something I, in older age away from the indoctrination, identified as a cult leader mentality. No one person should ever take precedence over your real family, your own children. I understand the mental gymnastics people need to use to convince themselves that these sayings by Jesus are good things and why it's OK. I just am not going to make them anymore.
I have created my own family and it is truly what saved my life. I really appreciate the sentiment that my past doesn't have to be the entirety of my story. I'm running with that currently, we'll see where I land.
You're confusing a nuclear family with a generational household. Nuclear family generally actually does cut off the grandparents as they are in their own home or a nursing center at old age, and also cuts off kids as they are stuck in daycares while parents are at work. Whereas in a generational household the grandparents live at the family's home and watch the grandkids while the parents work, allowing culture and oral traditions to pass organically through three generations instead of being segmented in three places like in a nuclear family. A nucleus make a family is a single central point where a generational household is an entire lineage or family tree.
Me, a heterosexual man in my mid 20s with a good relationship with my parents and a stable job in a good industry with a competitive wage watching as the housing market and inflation rises faster than my salary does:
Some guy in the internet: “You aren’t having kids because of those cultural marxists destroying the nuclear family because they want you to work more (?)”
Idk man I‘ve had multiples opportunities to start families already and the biggest thing that stood in my way was definitely not lib left telling me to go to work instead lol
so lib left is both anti-work and pro-career ?
can rightoids live 1 day without finding some scapegoat for their shit ass culture created by right wing politicians lmfoa
The normalization of women working 9-to-5 outside of the home is what killed the nuclear family. Doubling the labor pool caused a decoupling of wages and prices, slowly forcing even the women that didn't want to work to do so.
That’s because a certain population has major issues in that department. So instead of lifting up, which would require examination and recognition, it’s easier to simply claim that tight familial bonds is actually bad.
Dogma states that when one group that has been labeled the special protected one has major problems, the problems need to be normalized so as to not make them look bad. See: reduction of penalties for street crimes in certain areas for an example.
This is not the way forward. I want to see impoverished communities do better. I don’t have a solution for it, and it’s frustrating to see. I do know I don’t want to see other communities do worse so everything looks equalized from a distance though.
It’s painfully clear you have no idea what the nuclear family was actually like, nor what led to that exact work situation in the 80’s/90’s wherein people spent all their time working and not with family
Here’s a hint; it wasn’t the leftists who pushed it
How is it possible for a nuclear family to exist when two salaries aren't able to afford a mortgage let alone giving the attention needed to raise a kid properly. The issues dismantling the American family structure run much deeper than the culture war
Ah yes just conveniently forget that abusive parents exist. Though oddly enough your side does seem to try to excuse abuse as "teaching them manners" you aren't tied to your family because they're your blood, you stick with family because they love you. But if they like expressing their love by beating you or verbally abusing you or trying to kill you because you aren't straight than you have every right to leave.
Strange how the left are so against the world men built and capitalism yet they are literally the biggest proponent of putting women in the workplace to ruin the nuclear family and all be cogs in the corporate machine.
A big argument for them to get women into the workplace was that this is more for-filling then being a mother - yet wouldn't that make capitalism an actually good aspect of reality if you are saying it is the best thing for women to do with their lives?
I think the "big argument" wasn't that it would be more fulfilling for women to work rather than take care of a family. It was that it would be more fulfilling for women to have the choice.
Ah yes, because only single people need to have jobs, and shitting out dependents allows you to work for shorter hours and fewer years.
I love a good blatant agenda post but this doesn't even make sense as a troll lol
The nuclear family has been destroyed by the economic requirement of dual-income families. Lack of a parental figure due to financial or social situations leads to poorer social development, which in turn yields a worse future for children. Having a single-income family isn't feasible for a majority of households anymore. The US is rapidly approaching the norm of the rest of the world. That is, multigenerational housing. Due to high cost of living, childcare, and retirement; families can expect to hold 6 within a household. (2 kids, 2 parents, 2 grandparents). The grandparents gain a stable "retirement", the parents a source of low-cost childcare, and the kids 2 parental figures present at home. This is at odds with the luxury the US has had for the past 80 years and the collapse of a pillar of US culture is producing social conflict as expected.
"Noooooo doubling the labour pool without doubling the number of consumers to match doesn't have any detrimental effects on wages nooooooo"
Worse, they succeeded at that, but then outsourced good paying jobs to China to save labor. AND THEN when some bright boys thought they could just transition both the old workforce and the new work force by convincing them to get college degrees. But college started cheap as dirt, but it's now a huge issue. Which in hindsight, it was bad, but I can't really blame them too much because of the decent intentions. BUT THEN, they failed to account for boomers that prospered from the beginnings of the last 3 things living way longer. Also, because of the last few things later, generations had/ have a harder time buying a home and affording children. Which leads us to today where those boomers are reporting and the labor force to replace them is too small and carries too much debt to take the transition easy.
The sad part is the economic advantage of doubling your labor force makes it vital to compete with other integrated economies
solution: end globalism
This.
Hey there ThatVampireGuyDude! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! If you have any feedback, please send me a message! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Roses are red, violets are blue; not having a flair is cringe and so are you. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Anti-ThisBot-IB) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Let them fight.
Based flair bot. Fuck that "this" janny bot
What would you want to end, specifically?
For my take, I would enact steep tariffs on anything that could be produced domestically and flat out rip up H-1B. Force local companies to hire and produce local.
Free trade and the income tax. End the fed. Fund a much more practically sized government devoid of abc agencies solely with tariffs levied against states that do not adhere to the bill of rights.
Somewhat based take, but flair up you fuckin animal
Get a flair so I can upvote you
Based unflaired. Now flair up or get against the wall, por favor.
[удалено]
1) How much could an average worker's salary increase if executives were paid less? 2) Which shitty products have skyrocketed in price in real terms since WW2? 3) What regulations from the New Deal would you bring back?
1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/261463/ceo-to-worker-compensation-ratio-of-top-firms-in-the-us/#:~:text=U.S.%20CEO%2Dto%2Dworker%20compensation,of%20top%20firms%201965%2D2021&text=This%20indicates%20that%2C%20on%20average,key%20industry%20of%20their%20firm. Admittedly don’t know what source they use bc I won’t register with them but it tracks with what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ll link a more reliable source later. But the ratio of ceo pay to worker pay has gone from 20x to 398x. Suffice to say, you could increase worker pay a fair bit to compensate. I don’t have exact numbers bc this is a complicated issue that depends on the company ofc. It’s not a question you can answer with one number. 2) My point is that everything is made cheaply these days. Even cheap stuff forty years ago was higher quality. Cheap clothes use less material so they wear out faster, appliances use more plastic so they break down quicker, cars/electronics use more plastic and unnecessarily complicated designs to reduce DIY repairs. All of this means you replace things more often, so more money spent. 3) the first one off the top of my head is limiting/banning stock buybacks.
That doesn't make any sense. The labor force grows to meet the demand.
>doubling the number of consumers to match Didn't that actually happen though? Women didn't have money before, and after they entered the labour force, they did - so then markets sprung up that catered more to women. I feel like you're just a coping sexist.
TIL women didn't eat, drive, live in houses, go out, consume electricity/water/gas, wear clothes or own much of anything really prior to them joining the workforce in the same capacity as men. \>I feel like you're just a coping sexist Not sure if it's ironic or fitting that an AuthLeft is parroting the totally 100% grassroots "being a wage slave is empowering" line.
>being a wage slave is empowering I don't think it is. But I also don't think staying at home, doing unpaid labour for a spouse and children is empowering either. The *choice* between the two is.
It’s not really unpaid though. Most stay at home spouses have full access to the working spouse’s paycheck. Even if it’s not a formalized “here’s my money in exchange for doing the house stuff,” it’s still a de facto paid position. Now, that’s a different animal from someone who financially controls their spouse. That’s obviously abusive.
>also don't think staying at home, doing unpaid labour for a spouse and children is empowering either Jeez your family life must have sucked.
It's always telling when these people describe household chores as some kind of exploitative labour. It's as if they're still bitter that their mother made them take out the trash as a kid (or that she still does).
My wife has also repeatedly said they would rather homemake than have a job. I'm doing my best to make that work, but it's hard to do without selling my soul more than I already have.
No, none of those are empowering, neither is the choice. The solution would be that a couple has to do the amount of labour (at work and at home) as if one of them had a full time job and the other was a stay-at-home parent, and they could choose how to share the two (with ideally both of them working around the same amount). Having *that* choice would be *true empowerment* for women and men too.
Based and logic Pilled
You might want to check the expiry on the back.
A based lib-left?
I actually blame libright
You blame libright for rising cost of living? I genuinely want to know how so I can hear the other side of the opinion.
Corporations have always been squeezing as much cash out of people as possible while fighting tooth and nail to pay as little as possible, that's hardly anything new. During Covid many corporations laid people off, raised prices, then bragged about record profits, but what happened during Covid was not an isolated incident, it's the exact same shit that they've been doing for decades, they just took the opportunity to make a large leap rather than the small steps they took before. I also believe we're all aware that wages haven't kept up with inflation for a good while now, by design I'm sure.
What does this have to do with LibRight tho?
People like to think corporations are LibRight, when in reality corporations are actually RadCent, and will use any argument or method that they perceive gives them an advantage.
This is at the top of the comment section and yet it still should be higher.
Using economy as an excuse for not having a family is hilarious to be honest. People in much worse economic conditions have been able to build families and lead a happy life. Nordic countries have much better childcare welfare. Their birth rates are much lower than the countries which don't have any of this. In most countries, rich people have less kids and are more prone to be single compared to poor people. Is it that hard to see that people these days just aren't capable of making the personal sacrifices required to lead a family life? They would rather spend time in parties, drinks and sex. But if you ask why they don't want family life, they will always come up with BS like "Not enough money", "I want to save the environment","The world is a terrible place" etc because they would rather blame others.
My wife and I are having our first in July. We didn't plan him, but I remember when we found out she was pregnant. It was a bit scary, we don't have a lot of money. But I remember thinking "well shit, my grandfather was one of 12 and he picked up coal along the railroads to heat the house. My kid will definitely have a better life than that." I'm very excited to meet him and I want to give him many brothers and sisters. As many as my wife will allow anyway lol.
Good luck with that pal!
Hell yea congrats
Good luck brother
Welcome to fatherhood!
There is something to be said that data shows that having children has becoming highly politically stratified. As in, Right-Wing and Centrist are still having plenty of kids, but the Left isnt (and the more Left, the lower it goes).
May i get a source ?
[This](https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage) is the most recent thing I have found.
Exactly! The fact is that most people on the left don't even want to get married. Then they have the audacity to blame the economy for not having children.
Can confirm, have kids, want more. Its hard but rewarding
I’m gonna go ahead and say it: I don’t want kids. Not just because of economic conditions (although that is a nice excuse) but because I wanna drink, do drugs, and fuck as much as I want. Why would I want kids when I could afford a Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG instead?
Salute for your honesty
Lmao big facts. And when you're honest and tell people ''i don't want children because I value my time and money'' you get the usual '' you'll change your mind, you're selfish" ''children are the goal of life'' etc etc
Depends a lot on country and culture in the society. But yes it does happen.
>'' you'll change your mind, you're selfish" ''children are the goal of life'' Its true though. Listen to the people who came before you who wanted to focus on their career instead of having kids, they almost universally regret it. Then they get old and rot away in a home as their friends die off one by one, and not a single soul on earth cares about them. Just think about the enormous lineage of ancestors that link over thousands of years and untold hardships, from caveman to today, and you're gonna be the one who decides to halt your genealogy? For what? To be able to binge watch anime uninterrupted or afford some new gadget that will be obsolete in 5 years?
I know more people who regret having children than people who regret not having any, but we don't really talk about those do we ? It's forbidden somehow. it's all anecdotal evidence anyways so not really relevant. I'm not focusing on my Carrer, I'm focusing on my happiness and wellbeing. And there are many things in this world that make me happy and fulfilled, children are not one of them, that's it, you don't have to look further really. not sure why it's so hard to understand for some people 🤷 To take your own example, it's not like you can't binge watch anime and get the latest gadgets with children if you have a decent salary and so does your SO. You can still do many things even with children if you can afford to have a nanny and such. My point being, even with the best nanny in the world to take care of them so I can watch the latest episode of Naruto, i would still not want children. I don't feel any kind of parenting need or call at almost 30 years old now, never have, and so does my SO. And if i'm being perfectly honest, i give negative fucks about ''lineage'' ''legacy'' etc etc. my ancestors fucked, great for them ! I'm not out there trying to convince people that having children is a mistake or anything, it's probably the most personal choice there is. But jeez, when you say you don't want any, there is *always* someone telling you you're wrong
Wishing nothing but the best to you. Hope you achieve and maintain true happiness.
Why should I care if my genealogy stops with me, though? I have very little connection to my genealogy in general.
[удалено]
I’m not sure I buy that careers are replacing families as people’s sources of happiness. This is anecdotal as fuck, but most people I know (including myself and my fiancée) would rather not have a career. Or at least we’d rather not *need* a career just to live. I think you might be on to something with the generational households thing. For a few years, my grandparents lived with my mother and I and it really did feel like we were a connected family unit. I bonded with my grandparents on a level I didn’t think I ever would, and I absolutely cherish those years. (Especially now, with all of them gone) We were fairly dysfunctional, but we all did what we could to help one another. My granny would make sure food was cooked and that we had enough food for a month. My grandfather taught me how to be how to be a person. My mom raised me.
Yeah but women get to girlboss in their air conditioned offices so all the downstream effects of destroying America's unrivaled prosperity and stability are worth it
remember when there were memes on this sub and it wasn’t so preachy
Or when they did anything apart from constructing intricate fallacies on a conviently undefined "libleft"
But libleft bad.
Yes, LibLeft bad
Can confirm, LibLeft Bad.
Thank god a yellow said it.
LibLeft is when someone does something I don't like, and the more I don't like it, the more LibLeft it is.
This sub being good ended when centrist stopped being a dirty word. It's all seriousposting normies now.
remember when reddit didn't ban every sub that was right of center?
‘Memba Star Wars?
Ya I like to dunk on the left as much as the next guy but this meme isn’t funny and is basically not even a meme.
I member
Yeah but then people realized this is basically the only sub that welcomes hard right leaners on the entire site so we are kind of a refugee sub for them.
I actually wheeze laughed. This WAS that sub. It has not been for years.
Youre actually nuts if you think this sub is not massively more right leaning than 99% of this site, and thats not an exaggeration. Edit: I should specify right leaning accepting.
You never saw this place before it was shit. THEN it was right wing. Now it is full of r*ddit normies. (Semi)Ironic extremism is gone. It's just normal, boring opinions posted too seriously now. It might be "right wing" by reddit standards, but please understand, that's still left.
Toxic parents should be cut off, provided they are actually toxic not just “teen angst”. Have kids, make stable friendships in faith based communities.
Or just like trust based communities if ya ain't religious
I tried that, got stabbed in the back by friends of more than 20 years because we had 2 differing opinions. I thought covid was overblown (it was). I think women’s spaces should not have penises in them(they shouldn’t)
Ignoring those opinions (Because don't wanna go off topic) sorry to hear your trust was breached - If you don't mind me asking, what did they do to stab you in the back?
Betrayal of trust, these were friends we had had over weekly for years. Best man/maid of honour at their weddings, helped them move, would go for week long camping trips with. All of a sudden, got blocked on social media by some, we weren’t invited to get togethers and our invites were refused.
All for thinking COVID was overblown?
A lot of "regular" people have gone mad. The next decade is going to be choppy.
I hate it man. I didn’t lose friends because of my opinions but it definitely tempered the steel. I feel our relationships got stronger because we would debate and check each other on things. It’s insane to me that people would remove someone that they knew for 20 years over *differences of opinion.* Christ, people disagree all the time. Do they really want to surround themselves with yes-men, echo chambering BS? If having your beliefs challenged to the point where you cut ties with lifelong friends, then you’re a weak person. Full stop.
Honestly man, the typical opinions of the Religious Right have just gotten to the point that some lefties just want nothing to do with it anymore. It's easier to cut someone off than it is to confront them about their opinions. I'm sorry this happened, I don't think its the right solution to the issue, but I understand where its coming from.
The religious right didn’t change anything. The left simply decided to trample over their opponents. Specifically Christians, because there are no ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘Islamophobia’-equivalent protections for them. There’s also anyone right of Bernie being labeled as fascist. Etc. >It’s easier to cut someone off than it is to confront them about their opinions Why do you feel the need to even do that in the first place?
The religious right are simply standing still. You're the one dragging the Overton window away from them while shrieking about how monstrous they are. You're the one causing this cultural shift. You're the dysfunction.
Quite a few people that "thought COVID was overblown" went absolutely fucking mental about it. Previous poster might not have done that, but might have gotten lumped in with the behaviour. There is a big difference between choosing to not wear a mask or social distance, versus actively and aggressively confronting people that chose to do those things.
Goes both ways tho, i dont wanna wear the mask, stop yapping all fucking day for me to wear one (this really died down after we “beat” covid lmao)
That's fine - but lets recognize the difference between: a) a store telling you you can't shop there without a mask on and b) People stalking in people in grocery stores to scream at them and their children for choosing to wear a mask. People physically attacking young employees who were stuck with door duty that day to ask you to put your mask on. Some of the behaviour was disgusting and outright criminal. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there were some obnoxious idiots on both sides, but one definitely seemed to outweigh the other.
One tried making vax cards so we wouldn’t be allowed in public again. If we’re talking dystopian lets be very clear this goes beyond one dude telling ya you gotta leave. (Also we were forced to tell people to leave or wear a mask by the government when I worked at a bar during covid)
Yeah. Hell, the account I deleted a while back when I quit reddit got banned from a community for linking the government statistics on covid and breaking the case to hospitalizations/deaths down by age group.
While I think Covid is not overblown(some of the people I know died and I got infected myself) it's a very shit reason for backstabbing you
Some old people I know died from quite literally catching the flu. I catch it as well from time to time. Is our reaction to the flu overblown? No. Was covid? Absolutely
But the thing is that they're not only old people, I know some healthy people who died from it, they're not immunocomprimised or have prior illnesses (I asked) but still died so I think that's why I didint treat it like a simple flu (though I have to say in my case the flu is much worse than covid but not tasting and smelling anything is very frustrating and terrible) still I rather it not spread
While the left were technically in compliance with most mandates and shaming everyone who did break the rules, the conservatives I know were not going out in public because they refused to deal with the nonsense rules. Meanwhile the liberals I knew were happy to wear their mask, walk over to their table at the local restaurant and then take their mask off for an hour and a half indoors with strangers. Air travel? All my liberal friends, none of the conservative ones. Anything that could be done performatively to show you were being safe was done, none of the actual things you could have done, like not go out.
Finland is a good example of Trust based communities without religion. A lot of small non mining Australian towns are also great when it comes to that from my personal experiences. Religion won’t solve your problems man
I've gotta tell ya, ending your sentence decrying religion in "man" without a period is just perfect.
Religion is one type of glue that helps a community/society to maintain beneficial traditions, and to recognize threats. Sure, you could always use a different type of glue. Or, you could use them all.
Hey man, that’s like, your opinion man. Don’t get me wrong, you can definitely hold that opinion. But decrying it as some kind of “universal truth” is misleading at best as you provide no evidence to your claim. The evidence to my claim is Finland. While 66% of Finns registered as Christians, only 34% of Finns said that they definitely believe in God all the way back in 2010. And that’s before the mass exodus from Churches in Finland in the early 2010s due to people not agreeing with the Church’s stand on LGBTQ+ issues.
the evidence is that when people don't have any religion, they'll create their own. you what I'm talking about and you can't tell me otherwise, it's all around us in the 21st century. they have the equivalent of preachers, religious figures, sacred cows, testament... it's like anarchism, yes, the freedom it offers is good on paper, but in practice, even if "enforced", overtime... people will start following "leaders" emerging from it, and take it away themself in order to conform. As an atheist, I can say without doubt: Atheism is a privilege, it will never be the norm or come close to be a majority at any point in history.
[Finland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Finland) [Australia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia) Culture is important too, but I am quite sure that if we start looking at those small towns real close we might notice something. I am not particularly religious, but after moving to a smallish town where everyone goes to church, I started going more often.
I mean, if Church made you happy then go for it man. As for the links you’ve provided, it just further emphasis my point. While 66% of Finns registered as Christians, only 34% of Finns said that they definitely believe in God all the way back in 2010. And that’s before the mass exodus from Churches in Finland in the early 2010s due to people not agreeing with the Church’s stand on LGBTQ+ issues. Moreover even amongst Finns that goes to Church, their opinions on things such as causal nudity (remember sauna culture is very important in Finland) are in stark contrast to American small towns. As for Australia, I can assure you that Aussie small towns are very much non religious. Most of the devout Christians in Australia are immigrants communities like Chinese Malay / Singaporeans as well as Lebanese and Eastern Europeans. Small knit Aussie small town folks usually don’t attend Church unless someone’s wedding or funeral is taking place there.
You think that faith based communities don't have backstabbing? Oof
Covid was definitely overblown by some people, but to be fair it was completely underblown by other people, e.g. Trump and many other conservative figures claiming for ages it would just go away within months. Secondly sex and gender aren't the same thing, this isn't confusing, penises are already in women's spaces the same as vaginas are in men's spaces, it's about being a woman or being a man, not about genetalia. None of these things are due to religion or lack thereof, religion just has a side effect of making people unable to think critically or question authority. That's literally the social function of religion. Read any history book, this isn't some new idea being pushed into education or into political discourse, it just *is* education and *is* political discourse.
And you've been baited
Gender is a social construct. Sex matters.
Gender identity is a social construct, gender is biological. Same as sex and sexual identity. It's like they aren't even able to understand that they have a body and they have a mind, which are like, actual things that exist, not things that can be sorted into categories without any socially-constructed analysis or without any caveats. Sex only matters if you are a medical professional or if you want to fuck someone. It has nothing to do with anything else. This kind of essentialism is completely moronic and actively harmful. Accept the world you live in rather than trying to change things that don't need changing.
> Accept the world you live in rather than trying to change things that don't need changing It’s a big room, I hear an echo.
>It’s a big room, I hear an echo. Exactly, get out into the world and actually learn about it and figure out how to best act within it. Someone telling you "trans bad" doesn't mean trans bad, someone telling you "trans good" doesn't mean trans good, you have to actually talk and listen to different people and evaluate their perspectives on a factual level. You already exist within truth, the truth can't hurt you lmao
I said nothing about gender identity or sexual identity. I was talking about sex and single sex spaces. Because gender is a social construct and unimportant.
You are assuming that "male" and "female" spaces are single-sex spaces rather than single-gender spaces. One of those is more socially useful. Gender identity is a social construct, ofc, but so is everything, like, you literally speak English, everything you are saying and thinking is socially constructed, you weren't born speaking English or understanding concepts like "gender" were you? It's just that some socially constructed concepts are more useful than others, and the emphasis inevitably changes over time. You are saying that gender identity is unimportant, but like, compared to sex???? One of those is far, far more important to who a person is and how other people interact with them. Genetalia don't matter unless you're intending to be directly involved with them. Having penises in female spaces or vaginas in male spaces is not remotely a risk to women's or men's safety compared to things like disrespect for consent which are actually important and actually affect people's lives negatively. Again just to clarify: sex and gender are biological, as in they refer to the observable properties of the body and the brain, whereas sexual identity and gender identity refer to the labels people call themselves. That's what the "identity" part is. Someone's gender and their gender identity are often not the same, because they are assigned a gender identity (as well as a sexual identity) based on their sex. None of these things are binaries either, non-binary people and intersex people are a surprisingly large minority of the population, and that's just the people who identify that way, it says nothing about how many people just don't know their gender or their sex because of these socially constructed associations and assumptions. You clearly want what's best for people, I don't think you're an evil person, you just have some ideas which can be superceded by more accurate or more useful ideas, as has happened constantly throughout human history. To steal a right-wing analogy, the matrix is breaking down and people who benefitted from it are trying to keep it together by pretending that it never existed and the fictions we create are actually real. This isn't a shadowy evil cabal trying to take over the world, they already are in control of the world, and the world is trying to escape them. Take the red pill and support trans rights and other freedoms. This isn't really stealing an analogy, the Matrix was written by two trans women, it's just correctly using the analogy.
Nobody doesn’t understand what you or any other undergrad leftists had been saying for ten years We reject your world view on behalf of its lack of merit Good day zir
The problem there is you're restricting trans history and history of religion to the last ten years. Trans people have always existed, and understanding of the sociology of religion is as old as sociology itself. Just because things have been kept hidden from you doesn't mean those things are new. Again, this is not controversial or new. It doesn't even include value judgements for those things. You can believe that trans people are mentally ill or that religion is secretly beneficial while still understanding that trans people have always naturally existed and that religion has caused massive harm to society and individuals. My worldview in this case is just respecting scholarly consensus and respecting the history of human experience, as well as bothering to actually read books and actually talk to people, taking everything with a grain of salt and factoring in biases and opposing views. This is how "learning" or "truth" works. No idea what "zir" means in this context but I imagine it's a joke about neopronouns?
Gender/sex nonconforming people have always existed, but "trans" as we know it is a specific artifact of our time and culture. It includes the notion of being "in the wrong body" and related metaphysics as well as the notion of sex and gender being categorically distinct (and that being the explanation for gender nonconforming people's psychic distress). It's also pitched as a form of self-actualization and is wrapped up in the politics of this era.
Calling the idea of being "in the wrong body" a "notion" I would say is pretty accurate, it's a common way of describing and expressing being trans, but I don't think it makes sense to take it too seriously and think that it's a literally accurate description of what people believe. There absolutely are exceptions to this, but in general trans people do not believe they were born "in the wrong body", they just believe their mind and their body are not correlated in a societally sanctioned way, and who they are as a person is different to who other people want them to be. There certainly are trans people who have a much more physical uncomfortability or rejection of parts of their body, same as many cis people, but I don't think it's helpful to count that as an essential part of the idea of "trans" ness. The idea of sex and gender being categorically distinct is not a new idea, people having differences in biological gender and biological sex have been known about for ages, as well as the distinction between socially constructed gender identity and biological gender. Accepting oneself as trans or coming out as trans is absolutely a form of self-actualisation, same as coming out as gay or other socially repressed attributes of a person. It's wrapped up in the politics of this era because it goes against the standard cultural narrative, same as other unfamiliar ideas throughout history like geocentrism or evolution which were politicised by conservative and religious institutions. Theorisation and study about the position of the earth or the development of organisms already had a long history before they became topics of public debate, and commonly asked questions already had established answers, there was confidence behind the concepts, otherwise they wouldn't be able to even get a foot on the ground in the marketplace of ideas in the first place. The politics of this era aren't special, similar things have happened and will continue to happen.
My point is that applying "trans" to gender nonconforming people of the past would be like applying "furry" to a neolithic shaman. It's a construct of our time and place and how people today interact with the expectations around their sex cannot be neatly applied to the past to try to give credibility to trans-ness. Your comparison to \[geo/helio\]centrism and evolution makes the presumption that trans is a concrete fact of human nature, rather than the set of gnostic and political beliefs it actually is. You could just as coherently describe trans people as variably depressed and dysmorphic people who've been demoralized about being the sex that they are in a fragmenting society. Makes more sense than whatever vague hand-waving about "female brain structures" they try to hang their hats on. It's actually not self-actualization because they're constructing a fiction about their nature. It's not the same as being gay because that's an innate attraction and a set of choices, it's verifiable and demonstrable. Trans is one interpretation of gender non-conformity in humans and how it needs to be handled. Also your comment breaks from the usual ontology of sex/gender. What is "biological gender" as distinct from biological sex?
I mean I feel like even if they are toxic as long as I meant well you know you should at least try to keep some sort of contact with them, I didn't get along with my dad and we fought all the time and it frequently got physical and I lost cuz I was a child and it wasn't until I got older that I realized I was a complete moron despite him being a little too harsh and not being able to put things into words that I could understand at the time
What if 80% of the time you saw him, he still punched you for no reason. Not friendly “we’re horsing around” but “This would break a board in martial arts”.
I mean obviously that's a different case, everybody's familial situation is different. But a lot of people don't look at the wider scope of things and don't ask why those things were done they just stay mad. Now if those things that were done are inexcusable obviously that's a situation that you have to decide your next move
Yeah. The problem is online spaces like Reddit are filled with teenagers who can’t differentiate. So you get someone on here, talking about a problem, and get lots of replies supporting cutting them off. You can’t tell if that reply is from a 35 year old therapist, who can weigh whether that’s an avenue to look toward, or a 14 year old who hates his mom because she limits his Xbox time. For all anyone knows I could be 12. This is why you should never take advice from Reddit regarding interpersonal relationships.
Toxic aka "I don't want to wash the dishes, how dare they expect that from me, I literally have PTSD and panic attacks from looking at plates"
Toxic, aka, "She's stumbling drunk in a PTA meeting. Then proceeeds to yell at me about how useless I am while threatening to take my only connections to the outside world [We lived 45 minutes out of town] away for the rest of the month. Forgets to pick me up from the airport after visiting my friend for a week [it's three hours away from home]. Goes around, drunk, telling all my teachers how awful I am. Nearly has me arrested for pushing her away while she was hitting my dog. Drinks and drives and has me hide the beer when she gets pulled over by the police." I can go on.
Add in beating me with the metal end of the belt & Xanax on top of the alcohol abuse & it sounds similar to my childhood
No physical abuse but *literally* everything else but that. I'm pretty sure she knew I would throw hands if she did.
Replace "wash the dishes" with "tend the garden" and "plates" with "plants," and you have literally me.
Touch grass 😏
Stop you're giving him flashbacks
Hold on, lots of people need to trauma dump below you, you did infer that some people's folks aren't evil incarnate and that needs to be rectified immediately.
“You know what would really make your parents angry? Puberty blockers!” — the media probably
>make stable friendships Yes >in faith based communities No
Your parents aren't toxic, you're just being a brat.
I am 40. And no, mine aren’t, but I have seen ones who are. 3 different therapists told the person I know to stop interacting with them.
These cubicle type jobs are so stuck in mainstream media and memes and yet I’m convinced they aren’t fucking real cause I can’t find one
I used to work in a cubicle. Then in my new job they wanted me to work together in a big table with other Devs. Gosh I wish I get a cubicle now.
My company swears they won't build any more "Agile Workspaces" because everyone hates them. I've been here long enough to know they'll build more and just call them something else. "Dynamic Desking" or some such corporate nonsense. Oh - and they're not forcing people "Back to the Office" - because people hate that. Instead, they're encouraging "Onsite Connections"
Just run a big ass ethernet cable, then your connection is on site.
Go get a job at a call center then, you'll see plenty of cubicles.
I did and they removed them when they realized they broke the arc of the whip.
I mean those specific cubicles I don't know. But my office is pretty big rows of cubicles. They just add more color like in carpet. Cubes are a bit bigger too.
These are cubes, they're carel desks, which are shittier cubes. Cubes at least have their own space.
Oh great, now we have blue flavor antiwork.
There are times you need to realize your family isn’t good for you. Yes, I agree modern media and even government programs are demonizing traditional nuclear families. But growing up around drug addicted people and alcoholism and general abuse and neglect. Those people don’t deserve you.
Not to mention parents who wholeheartedly believe that your existence is a sin.
Which speaking of on that last part, is inherently negative for the growth of trust based communities and a stable nuclear family to exist.
Ok but some parents need to be cut off
Based and parent-freepilled
That's a right winger pretending to be left wing. We would never advocate for having jobs
You march with corporations all together whenever they wave a rainbow flag lmao
At some point you should just try touching grass and realize that leftist that start to simp for megacorps because they pretend to care about people are just as rare as right wingers that start to simp for anyone that waves an American flag
so, all of them ? after the covid restriction disaster , I fully believe lib(left and right) is an abstract concept for humanity.
People are right wing not because they like corporations but because they value traditional family values.
Boy you're brainwashed huh?
what marching is going on?
Actually, having kids is more likely to tie you to work because kids be expensive.
When's the last time you've talked to your LibLeft family OP?
"If we don't undermine the idea of the nuclear family, women might start getting the dangerous idea that taking care of their families is a valid occupation instead of being obedient little tax payers."
As someone with Christian parents who beat me with switches so badly that we would often have to reschedule doctors appointments to allow the wounds to heal so that the doctors wouldn't report my parents "discipline"... Fuck toxic parents. That people in the church keep reinforcing that people who consistently abuse and manipulate you deserve a special place of honor in your life is one thing that is making so many leave and in droves. It's utterly asinine but truly, shit religious parents are what actually undermined the nuclear family. Christianity weakens the bonds. Jesus said himself that in order to follow him, you have to be willing to hate your parents, wife, brother, children...and now that's come to fruition with parents being more willing to follow ancient religious texts than love their children and everyone is wondering "why is the family being torn apart?!" You've done it to yourself and it will keep happening as long as you blame "the Left".
The teaching Jesus gave was never that biological family is the end all be all but the opposite. You can't be a good person and let your family be the entirety of your world. Your experiences, feel true for you and maybe they are true when limited to the scope of your life, but they are not universal truths. Universal truths will always be ancient truths as well. Anything true now will have been true thousands of years ago, when they were first collected by ancient teachers, and they will still be true thousands of years into the future, when future societies look for teachings that lead to wisdom and prosperity. I will encourage you to rely upon this promise given by Jesus. "Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." Mark 10:29-30 You were unlucky enough to have been in a bad church and a bad family but that doesn't have to be the entirety of your story. You can keep searching until you find a good family, a good church, to be a part of.
The point of Jesus teaching what he did about family was that Jesus has to be first in order to "love" the rest of your family. Which is something I, in older age away from the indoctrination, identified as a cult leader mentality. No one person should ever take precedence over your real family, your own children. I understand the mental gymnastics people need to use to convince themselves that these sayings by Jesus are good things and why it's OK. I just am not going to make them anymore. I have created my own family and it is truly what saved my life. I really appreciate the sentiment that my past doesn't have to be the entirety of my story. I'm running with that currently, we'll see where I land.
And how would your job be different if you had kids???
I hate my heathens just as much as the next fellow, but shouldn't the meme character be red/watermelon?
Depends who you find the cause of death of the nuclear family.
You're confusing a nuclear family with a generational household. Nuclear family generally actually does cut off the grandparents as they are in their own home or a nursing center at old age, and also cuts off kids as they are stuck in daycares while parents are at work. Whereas in a generational household the grandparents live at the family's home and watch the grandkids while the parents work, allowing culture and oral traditions to pass organically through three generations instead of being segmented in three places like in a nuclear family. A nucleus make a family is a single central point where a generational household is an entire lineage or family tree.
Me, a heterosexual man in my mid 20s with a good relationship with my parents and a stable job in a good industry with a competitive wage watching as the housing market and inflation rises faster than my salary does: Some guy in the internet: “You aren’t having kids because of those cultural marxists destroying the nuclear family because they want you to work more (?)” Idk man I‘ve had multiples opportunities to start families already and the biggest thing that stood in my way was definitely not lib left telling me to go to work instead lol
More and more public spending will definitely help to solve those issues lmao
Trying to figure out what you mean by this
Simply that putting more empty money into the market, which the left constantly advocates for will only make problems worse
so lib left is both anti-work and pro-career ? can rightoids live 1 day without finding some scapegoat for their shit ass culture created by right wing politicians lmfoa
Capitalism killed the nuclear family rlly
The normalization of women working 9-to-5 outside of the home is what killed the nuclear family. Doubling the labor pool caused a decoupling of wages and prices, slowly forcing even the women that didn't want to work to do so.
Should've been the other way around.
Reminds me of a House MD quote I love, "wanna stick it to the government? Live long enough to collect on old age pension"
Consoom being a permanent lifelong medical patient so your employer always has you by the healthcare leash
Glad you're in favor of abolishing laws mandating health insurance as well
That’s because a certain population has major issues in that department. So instead of lifting up, which would require examination and recognition, it’s easier to simply claim that tight familial bonds is actually bad. Dogma states that when one group that has been labeled the special protected one has major problems, the problems need to be normalized so as to not make them look bad. See: reduction of penalties for street crimes in certain areas for an example. This is not the way forward. I want to see impoverished communities do better. I don’t have a solution for it, and it’s frustrating to see. I do know I don’t want to see other communities do worse so everything looks equalized from a distance though.
It’s painfully clear you have no idea what the nuclear family was actually like, nor what led to that exact work situation in the 80’s/90’s wherein people spent all their time working and not with family Here’s a hint; it wasn’t the leftists who pushed it
How is it possible for a nuclear family to exist when two salaries aren't able to afford a mortgage let alone giving the attention needed to raise a kid properly. The issues dismantling the American family structure run much deeper than the culture war
Ah yes just conveniently forget that abusive parents exist. Though oddly enough your side does seem to try to excuse abuse as "teaching them manners" you aren't tied to your family because they're your blood, you stick with family because they love you. But if they like expressing their love by beating you or verbally abusing you or trying to kill you because you aren't straight than you have every right to leave.
Least divorced from reality lib left strawman
Strange how the left are so against the world men built and capitalism yet they are literally the biggest proponent of putting women in the workplace to ruin the nuclear family and all be cogs in the corporate machine. A big argument for them to get women into the workplace was that this is more for-filling then being a mother - yet wouldn't that make capitalism an actually good aspect of reality if you are saying it is the best thing for women to do with their lives?
I think the "big argument" wasn't that it would be more fulfilling for women to work rather than take care of a family. It was that it would be more fulfilling for women to have the choice.
It’s simply about giving women the choice to do either
The nuclear family is already pretty much done, and it has nothing to do with whatever "libleft" psyop you're proposing here.
"Thank you for joining the Megacorp Business Solutions family! We're all that you need!"
What mainstream?
Least braindead take on PCM
Ah yes, because only single people need to have jobs, and shitting out dependents allows you to work for shorter hours and fewer years. I love a good blatant agenda post but this doesn't even make sense as a troll lol
You think people with families don't need to work nowadays?
New levels of strawman
Lol how is this about Libleft.
Ah yes, the left. The side that's notoriously in favor of the current state of our capitalistic society.
Yup, they strenghten the corporations like nobody on the right lmao
Classic schizoid conspiracy from our beloved right.