The "Tradwife"

[Draco-Onis]

That is literally the same as telling women that they should pursue careers instead of having families, which a lot of feminists these days do. My whole thing is that people should do what they want, and everyone else should just shut up about it and stop trying to police others lives.

And I'm fine with the concept of traditional relationships being the norm, that isn't even a conservative talking point, it's just logical. Unless of course you want to keep growing the population entirely through immigration rather than through improving birth rates, a certain percentage of the population has to keep reproducing.

American society does not support one income families period. It's not feminist telling people to get careers, it's ironically conservatives with their bootstrap policies killing the middle class. People are not having kids because they can't afford them and there is no safety net to help them.

[Rennadrel]

American society does not support one income families period. It's not feminist telling people to get careers, it's ironically conservatives with their bootstrap policies killing the middle class. People are not having kids because they can't afford them and there is no safety net to help them.

Then the goal should be bringing back the middle class. Wage stagnation is a huge issue and a lot of people don't have job security or benefits, especially in America. Unionization and federally regulated medical care coverage would certainly be a start, but also eliminating the wage austerity issues by setting wage standards are good starting points. There's lots of jobs in China, especially in industrial manufacturing that could be done in America without any profit loss.

[Draco-Onis]

Then the goal should be bringing back the middle class. Wage stagnation is a huge issue and a lot of people don't have job security or benefits, especially in America. Unionization and federally regulated medical care coverage would certainly be a start, but also eliminating the wage austerity issues by setting wage standards are good starting points. There's lots of jobs in China, especially in industrial manufacturing that could be done in America without any profit loss.

Except the right wing of this country the very ones spouting about tradwife are opposed to all of it. They only care about children pre birth and when they can join the Army.

[Levelfive]

Then the goal should be bringing back the middle class. Wage stagnation is a huge issue and a lot of people don't have job security or benefits, especially in America. Unionization and federally regulated medical care coverage would certainly be a start, but also eliminating the wage austerity issues by setting wage standards are good starting points. There's lots of jobs in China, especially in industrial manufacturing that could be done in America without any profit loss.

Welcome to the Resistance and such.

[Zython]

I think a lot of the tradwives just have a breeding fetish.

[kamuimac]

At that point it would still be none of our god-damned business what women choose to do with their bodies. This shouldn't be hard.

they can even donate them to science if they want

what others want is for "figthing feminists" to undestand and value traditonal conservaties values too.

there is nothing wrong with traditional model of family .

[Draco-Onis]

they can even donate them to science if they want

what others want is for "figthing feminists" to undestand and value traditonal conservaties values too.

there is nothing wrong with traditional model of family .

What's there to understand beyond a google search? the whole traditional conservatives values is complete and utter bullshit because nothing has done more to destroy it than conservative policies. That's not even going into how so called traditional family conservatives back a guy who cheats on his wife by banging porn stars.

[s_bushido]

there is nothing wrong with traditional model of family .

There is when those who believe in it want to enforce it on the rest of society.

You'll notice that the evil feminists stress the idea of choice, rather than "behave how we tell you or you'll cause the collapse of The West!!!"

If a woman wants to devote her life to being a wife, mother, and homemaker, that should be her right. Unfortunately, the society that has resulted from our constant fellating of Traditional Conservative Values™ isn't particularly conducive to homes where only one person is able to work to provide for the family.

[Endus]

Uh, there is no lack of cultural pressure or other forms of pressure being enforced on conservative values. It requires excessive amounts of energy to keep such values in place. And culture rarely ever is a matter of choice. Even liberal culture tends to be copied by children with not much critical thought and when people do question liberal culture or are critical of it, it is usually slapped down by society at large with increasing aggressiveness. Liberalism considers itself the same ultimate and unquestionable ideology like every other one does.

The only thing Liberalism "forces" is letting other people enjoy their civil liberties and human rights.

If you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with the idea of civil liberties and human rights.

If you want to try and make that ideological case, feel free. But stop pretending like attacking "liberalism" is in any way not taking that position. Which is why you spend all your time attacking "liberalism", since you know how indefensible your own ideological view would be, were you to present it honestly.

[Orby]

As long as society isn't forcing them into those roles (despite that society still is in most cases around the world) they can do what they want. I mean we got a fetish where men like to dress up as babies and have women change them... I mean we are living a truly strange life right now. Maybe there are those people that kind of like life as a white suburban housewife from the stepford wives :P

You can come off just as misogynistic by telling them they cannot do that. :P

[Endus]

Liberalism forces the matter of choice and freedom, while also claiming that freedom is the ultimate value or highest virtue.

A premise predicated upon a direct internal hypocrisy. Your point of view can't seriously be this silly.

It also is intollerant of being criticized. Or of freedom being questioned.

Demanding validity to criticism is not the same thing as being intolerant to criticism.

So yes. We seem to be saying the same thing with different words.

What? No, we aren't. Your position contradicts itself immediately. You can't "force" the idea of "freedom of choice and action".

Is freedom an unquestionable goal or virtue though? And if so based on what and why? The freedom to wear a mouth mask or not does not seem so grand to me...

It's not "unquestionable", and this is you trying to avoid an honest discussion. In particular, you're trying to avoid actually criticising liberalism on any particular ideological position it holds by trying to claim, falsely, that liberalism is "intolerant" of criticism, somehow, when the simple reality is that maybe your "criticisms" are invalid nonsense that nobody should take seriously, and we can determine that by their lack of internal validity, not by comparison to any external metric.

Like your claim that "freedom" is "forced", which you opened this post with. That's just "war is peace, ignorance is knowledge" type doublespeak, that exists to annihilate any semblance of meaning within the words you're using.

[s_bushido]

Liberalism considers itself the same ultimate and unquestionable ideology like every other one does.

That's nice, dear.

If you think people's right to choose their own path in life should be questioned, that's your prerogative. The rest of us, who actually value freedom, can just safely tell you to get bent. But I'm sure you'll come along with some spectacular nonsense like "but what if they choose to kill a whole bunch of people?!"

[Endus]

I literally just quoted you:

You may have noted the quotes around "forced", because it's a ludicrous word to use in that context, and I was only using it in the first place to demonstrate how nonsensical your own stance was.

You literally missed the entire point.

That last line in particular is somewhat interesting to me, because I'm certain I've seen an ISIS imam in an interview claim the exact same thing about criticism towards their particular ideology. It is seemingly the ultimate excuse every ideology hides behind. On top of that it is also something that heavily relies on an established culture protecting it or giving it the status of "no criticism -can- be valid".

"YER LIKE ISIS" is just ridiculous nonsense, and demonstrates yet again how completely unwilling you are to engage honestly.

You still haven't made a single actual criticism of liberalism as an ideology.

[Edge-]

The freedom to what?

Cosplay a leftist in on anonymous internet forums.

[starlord]

not sure why everyones so obsessed with a lifestyle that was only briefly possible (excepting the wealthy) for a short time during the past ~100 years or so.
it was, and remains, status symbol.
hardly "traditional".

[Easo]

But the idea that it should be preferred by women in general? Fuck that misogynistic nugget-dicked noise.



Populations are due to shrink, and that's not in any way whatsoever a problem. There's billions of us.

I would say that mother is best suited for the nursing/childraising role regardless, at least initially, just that nowadays they don't need to be dedicated only to that anymore as we have progressed. Yes, ideally one parent working should be enough to provide for family, but sadly that often is not the case anymore.


There is difference between there are billions of us as in humans and shrinking elderly populations of the Western world. Which, mind you, is not seen as something positive.

just go buy baby formula lol

Pretty sure breastfeeding is still the preferred way for at least the first half a year after birth.

[Endus]

The freedom to what? To exploit your employees, to carry or own fire-arms, the freedom to not create or be involved with products that go against your own cultural values?

Where did you ever get the idea that the only flavor of "liberalism" is extremist in nature?

Congratulations, you've discovered that extreme fringe variants of an ideology have extreme fringe interpretations of that ideology. And literally nothing else.

This is what I mean by not having a single valid criticism.

One recent scientific criticism against liberalism is that "it creates a world or global society which is increasingly more and more vulnerable to grand society-destroying calamities."

A link that . . . doesn't even mention "liberal" once, and which references a highly liberal society as the "best place to be" in the event of the catastrophe it's talking about.

Which is one predicated on environmental harms, not "liberalism".

Also, I took a glance at the study itself. Also not one single reference to "liberal" anything, or "liberalism" in any way.

That study contradicts your claim, directly. You aren't even reading the shit you're linking.

[Endus]

I would say that mother is best suited for the nursing/childraising role regardless, at least initially, just that nowadays they don't need to be dedicated only to that anymore as we have progressed. Yes, ideally one parent working should be enough to provide for family, but sadly that often is not the case anymore.

There's essentially no evidence to support that claim. Single parents in general struggle with the demands, but there's no evidence that single fathers fare any worse than single mothers. And that's where you'd see the discrepancy, if one were to exist.

Pretty sure breastfeeding is still the preferred way for at least the first half a year after birth.

If the mother's around, breast pumps exist. It isn't "breastfeeding" that's beneficial, it's breast milk, and largely for things like antibodies which formula can't provide.

If the mother isn't, then breast milk's not an option in the first place, and it's a pointless question.

[Endus]

That is a very disconnected or context-less interpretation.

The problem as described is: "globalised society that prizes economic efficiency". The root cause of which is liberalism.

Nope.

That's a bullshit claim, pulled out of the depths of your own ass, and which has no basis in science or reason. There is nothing about "liberalism" that "prizes economic efficiency". It doesn't even automatically "support globalisation", though it generally wouldn't have much reason to put up barriers.

But globalisation wasn't even the boogeyman, there. It was the "economic efficiency". Which has no connection to liberalism whatsoever.

Free trade and free migration are two of the six central pillars of liberalism, and according to liberal theory: are inevitable if you have one of the other six freedoms which define a liberal society.

See, this is where you just openly lie.

A quick Google search for "six pillars of liberalism" only brings up one source, which speaks specifically about "classical liberalism", which isn't what any modern audience means when they say "liberalism", and hasn't since basically World War II or so. Probably earlier, actually.

On that page, "free migration" isn't even listed as a principle. And "free trade" only with some significant interpretation.

You're making shit up. Cite your sources. Try picking one that doesn't directly contradict you this time.

[Edge-]

Summing up the book as a whole, one has often had to point out how surprisingly little he seems to have read on quite a number of essential topics. It would be fair to say that whenever his facts are broadly correct they are not new, and whenever he tries to strike out on his own he often gets things wrong, sometimes seriously. So we should not judge Sapiens as a serious contribution to knowledge but as 'infotainment', a publishing event to titillate its readers by a wild intellectual ride across the landscape of history, dotted with sensational displays of speculation, and ending with blood-curdling predictions about human destiny. By these criteria it is a most successful book.

Sounds like a banger, have you actually read it?

According to the French legislators, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus—a new company was formed

Because it sounds like homeboy genuinely thinks that companies are "magicked" into existence and are about as real as ghost stories told around campfires which...is more than a bit of a bold assertion.