The "Tradwife"

[Shadowferal]

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. 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.

You're really ignorant... At least as bad as libertarians when it comes to pushing bullshit as ideology.

[Endus]

This is from a modern day analysis on what liberalism stands for today, source:

Where's the "six pillars"? You claimed there were "six pillars". I asked you for that source.

Also, I have no reason whatsoever to take this work as definitive, particularly as it isn't even focused on an examination of liberal thinking.

It also fails to hold up your position on your earlier source, which was aimed at a focus on economic efficiency as a negative, and holding up a highly liberal nation as its ideal to boot.

You are free to have your own interpretation of what liberalism means of course, but I find that the chapter which goes over modern day principles and values in liberalism to be a quite valid source on the subject. I quote further:

Okay, cool.

It doesn't support your earlier claims in any way or in any detail. So why are you quoting it?

[unfilteredJW]

Are you suggesting some posters may not be what they claim to be on this anonymous internet forum?! Heaven forfend!

You are talking about someone who got caught lying about their military service, hid for a while, and came back with a name change so they could continue to lie to strangers on the internet.

[Santti]

You are talking about someone who got caught lying about their military service, hid for a while, and came back with a name change so they could continue to lie to strangers on the internet.

I'm not even going to question that. I believe you.

[Milchshake]

Speaking of Tulsi Onlyfans desperate to rebrand themselves!

Tim Pool gets outed as a full on Right Wing nut ... https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-co...-on-the-planet



What Pool kept secret from his younger, overwhelmingly male, decidedly right-leaning audience during this time is that he seemed to have a pretty good idea what might happen on Jan. 6.

“Dude, I’ve had messages from people saying that they’ve already got plans to rush to D.C. as soon as Nov. 3 goes chaotic,” Pool said in early September during a recorded conversation reviewed by The Daily Beast.

A few minutes later, Pool added: “The right-wing militias, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and just the Proud Boys and Trump supporters, they are going to rush full-speed to D.C. They are going to take the White House and do whatever they can and paramilitary.” (Pool made these comments to then-colleagues at the media company he started. The following month, Pool used his YouTube platform to say the Oath Keepers had been unjustly “smeared” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He habitually comes to the defense of the Proud Boys, as well.)

This glaring omission was not out of character for Pool. Far from it. A former digital media journalist who originally built up his name with on-the-ground reporting and livestreaming, including stints at Vice and Fusion, Pool now postures as a rational centrist or “disaffected liberal” who grew to loathe the excesses of the left. If you buy Pool’s branding, he stands in contrast to the bulk of his journalistic peers: “evil” “liars,” he says, who’ve supposedly capitulated to the agendas of Black Lives Matter, antifa, Democrats, Big Tech companies, feminists, and the like.

This self-generated mythology—an anti-authoritarian truth-teller whose successes stemmed from confronting “the machine,” as Pool puts it—bears little resemblance to reality.

No surprise they spawn lamer imitators on random gaming forums.

[Endus]

I've used paint to make it easier for you to understand what is meant with the 'six pillars of modern liberalism':

You don't get "six pillars" by taking three fields of reference and splitting them up into "national" and "international".

That's not what an ideological "pillar" means. You don't even understand the basic terminology.

Also, "economic efficiency" isn't in there anywhere, meaning you're still lying about that first link being against liberalism.

I feel like you either are dishonest here or just do not have enough of a grasp on liberal theory to be able to have an honest or worthwhile opinion about it.

You're arguing against yourself. I haven't even made an argument, just pointed out how your claims contain internal contradictions and how your own source material doesn't back your claims up.

Or you can of course also just disagree with my premises, which are heavily based on the 'theory of the six pillars' of liberalism

1> Not a "theory".
2> You've given no "pillars of liberalism". What you did cite weren't ideological pillars, but just a way of dividing "the entire political landscape" into 6 broad categories. A framework which is in no way unique to liberalism in any way whatsoever; you could apply that to any ideological outlook.

which to me in turn could be because you're unwilling to accept criticism or see the flaws of the ideology you have bound yourself to. Which in turn would be a cultural thing.

Waiting to see a single flaw presented. I can't argue against legitimate criticism or claims of flaws unless you actually make those arguments.

I've studied liberalism for a very long time, there was a phase in my life during which I was captivated with the principles behind the European Union. To this day I still am very strongly pro-european union, but that phase took me on several deep study trips and reading sessions into the foundations and principles behind liberalism. Up to this day I still find the European Union to be one of the modern wonders of the world, considering the amount of effort and deeply principled foundations it has.

What's your point? Saying a bunch of stuff about what you feel your credentials are is meaningless, as we have no way to verify any of it. For example; I have multiple degrees in political theory and analysis focusing on the framing of liberal socialism in particular, from some very fine institutions. Am I lying? Maybe, especially since I slipped a Trumpian "very fine institutions" in there. But you have no way of knowing that. You can't fact-check me. You'd have to rely on your gut, and that alone.

All that matters here is your arguments, and there, you're failing to make a case. You have not pointed to any "pillars of liberalism". You cannot tell me that "national economics" or "international politics" are frickin' "pillars of liberalism". Come the hell on.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of Tulsi Onlyfans desperate to rebrand themselves!

Tim Pool gets outed as a full on Right Wing nut ... https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-co...-on-the-planet



What Pool kept secret from his younger, overwhelmingly male, decidedly right-leaning audience during this time is that he seemed to have a pretty good idea what might happen on Jan. 6.

“Dude, I’ve had messages from people saying that they’ve already got plans to rush to D.C. as soon as Nov. 3 goes chaotic,” Pool said in early September during a recorded conversation reviewed by The Daily Beast.

A few minutes later, Pool added: “The right-wing militias, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and just the Proud Boys and Trump supporters, they are going to rush full-speed to D.C. They are going to take the White House and do whatever they can and paramilitary.” (Pool made these comments to then-colleagues at the media company he started. The following month, Pool used his YouTube platform to say the Oath Keepers had been unjustly “smeared” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He habitually comes to the defense of the Proud Boys, as well.)

This glaring omission was not out of character for Pool. Far from it. A former digital media journalist who originally built up his name with on-the-ground reporting and livestreaming, including stints at Vice and Fusion, Pool now postures as a rational centrist or “disaffected liberal” who grew to loathe the excesses of the left. If you buy Pool’s branding, he stands in contrast to the bulk of his journalistic peers: “evil” “liars,” he says, who’ve supposedly capitulated to the agendas of Black Lives Matter, antifa, Democrats, Big Tech companies, feminists, and the like.

This self-generated mythology—an anti-authoritarian truth-teller whose successes stemmed from confronting “the machine,” as Pool puts it—bears little resemblance to reality.

No surprise they spawn lamer imitators on random gaming forums.

Like, the Proud Boys are officially terrorists. And he supports them. That should be all you need to know.

[beanman12345]

You are talking about someone who got caught lying about their military service, hid for a while, and came back with a name change so they could continue to lie to strangers on the internet.

Yikes, that is a life completely devoid of any meaning. sad

[Easo]

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.



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.

Aside from nature and the fact that we are still animals (just ones who can supress instincts)? Our evolution made it pretty clear, as it did for other primates as well. We can choose not to do that, does not mean it is the best choice. This is not about political or societal beliefs.

You do realize there are other benefits to breastfeeding too? I don't see the point quoting internet, but even in WHO and CDC homepages about the topic they have listed them, like reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancers? It simply is the better option. Yes, not always possible, but should be used instead of baby formula if there is a choice. Read, father feeding the formula is the subpar way.

[Shadowferal]

I've used paint to make it easier for you to understand what is meant with the 'six pillars of modern liberalism':

You're arguing with people on the other side of the Atlantic where "liberal" means something else.
Over here, your perspective says that you're a Hitler loving, Trump supporting, Klansman that wants anarchy in the US.
Is this accurate?

[Endus]

I disagree, but you are welcome to source your claim or opinion on that matter.

What "claim"?

You identified no ideological statements. The 6 categories you listed were simply a wide breadth of legal theory and, when combined, make up all legal theory; there is no ideological argument being made by any of those 6 categories, let alone a core principle foundational to any particular movement.

You are once again arguing without context. Liberalism promotes free markets -because- free markets are considered the most efficient economies.

This is just false on its face. Liberal views favor markets that trend closer to being "free" because they tend to maximize liberty, not for any concept of efficiency.

The most "efficient" market is one where waste is eliminated, and to accomplish that, you pretty much need a command economy. Which liberal views would oppose.

This is so wrong it almost hurts to read it according to me. Sure you can divide any ideology up into 3 fields and national and international level, but "freedom" being applied to each of them is exactly what defines liberalism.

1> Not a single one of your 6 categories was, in any respect, characterized by "freedom".
2> Some particular "freedom" would qualify as one pillar of Liberalism. I wasn't arguing that there weren't pillars to the ideology, I was calling into question your source for a particular claim.
3> You can't claim "freedom" as a pillar of liberalism, because it's meaningless without being tied to something. Freedom to murder and rape? Freedom to kick children in the head? Freedom to silence dissenting voices? "Freedom" can be applied to anything; it doesn't mean anything at all until you do so. What freedoms you protect is critical.

As an example, here's one take on someone's 5 pillars of Liberalism; https://www.thepoliticalabyss.com/th...-of-liberalism
"Freedom of speech" makes the list, but it's the only one mentioning freedoms that directly.

The idea of "pillars" isn't particularly useful, anyway, as different takes on liberal ideals favor different interpretations of the concept, to begin with.

This is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting: "can't hear you!"

You were provided references, source materials, even scientific studies.

I didn't ignore them.

I pointed out that you were lying or misrepresenting every single one.

I've yet to see a single reference given by you for any of your claims or opinions.

When you're deconstructing someone's internal failures of reasoning, there's no need to cite sources to begin with; it's evident because we all (mostly) understand rational thought and reason.

It's like asking me to provide sources to back up my claim that 2+2 equals 4.

Aside from nature and the fact that we are still animals (just ones who can supress instincts)? Our evolution made it pretty clear, as it did for other primates as well. We can choose not to do that, does not mean it is the best choice. This is not about political or societal beliefs.

You do realize there are other benefits to breastfeeding too? I don't see the point quoting internet, but even in WHO and CDC homepages about the topic they have listed them, like reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancers? It simply is the better option. Yes, not always possible, but should be used instead of baby formula if there is a choice. Read, father feeding the formula is the subpar way.

The "nature" argument is a really bad one. By "nature", we should all be hunter-gatherers living in small family groups and without any technology beyond stone knapped tools.

And to repeat; if the mother's in the picture at all, she can use a breast pump. If she isn't, the debate is moot. There is simply no circumstance where a dad caring for an infant is denying it breast milk it would otherwise have.

Part of that pesky "technology somewhat more advanced than flint knapped tools" bit.

- - - Updated - - -

You're arguing with people on the other side of the Atlantic where "liberal" means something else.
Over here, your perspective says that you're a Hitler loving, Trump supporting, Klansman that wants anarchy in the US.
Is this accurate?

I would disagree that it's the EU/NA divide. I'm well aware that Europe still tends to use it to mean "classical liberalism", in a very anarcho-capitalist sense.

There are no "six pillars" in either interpretation that have any broad recognition. What Rochana's been citing as such are not ideological pillars at all; just a way to divide the entire discussion into personal/political/economic at the national/international scales. Which is fine on its own, it just isn't an ideological statement of any kind.

And they attacked "liberalism" for favoring "economic efficiency", which I dispute as a reasonable claim for either interpretation of the word.

[zorkuus]

Women talk about wanting a "traditional man" all the time. What's so wrong about men expressing the same preference?

[Draco-Onis]

Women talk about wanting a "traditional man" all the time. What's so wrong about men expressing the same preference?

Nothing the rub is phrasing it as traditional conservative values after decades of fucking over the traditional family.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Women talk about wanting a "traditional man" all the time. What's so wrong about men expressing the same preference?

A lot of people fancy themselves as "traditional men" when really they're just...

Well...



There's a reason most of the men complaining that all women should be tradwifes are single, and most have always been. Their social awkwardness around women has grown to such massive proportions because rather than facing that awkwardness around women and fixing themselves, they just keep blaming their single-ness on external factors, such as "liberal indoctrination".

[zorkuus]

A lot of people fancy themselves as "traditional men" when really they're just...

Well...

There's a reason most of the men complaining that all women should be tradwifes are single, and most have always been. Their social awkwardness around women has grown to such massive proportions because rather than facing that awkwardness around women and fixing themselves, they just keep blaming their single-ness on external factors, such as "liberal indoctrination".

What the heck? Are you ok in the head? There's plenty of normal people who look for "traditional" values in a marriage, men and women. Lumping all people in to the same basket doesn't make you look any better than those losers you're complaining about. Also your definition of traditional is very narrow so you can justify this extreme counterpoint to what you consider an extreme idea.

[zorkuus]

Tradwife =/= tradition values

Whatever. Not that he addressed my point anyway.

Why is it okay for women to want a traditional man but people lose their minds when a man wants a traditional woman?

Personally I don't give a crap about marriage but I find it hilarious people pretend these double standards don't exist.
Infact, if someone had made a thread like this about the opposite, it would've been closed.

[Levelfive]

Whatever. Not that he addressed my point anyway.

Why is it okay for women to want a traditional man but people lose their minds when a man wants a traditional woman?

Personally I don't give a crap about marriage but I find it hilarious people pretend these double standards don't exist.
Infact, if someone had made a thread like this about the opposite, it would've been closed.

There's no version of tradhusband / tradman that requires trading a career in the public sphere for being restricted to a domestic one--men get to have "have it all" (as they always have) and never be questioned or denigrated about it (and no voluminous literature hand-wringing about how they can possibly juggle it). So, no, I don't think anyone's pretending double standards don't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of people fancy themselves as "traditional men" when really they're just...

Well...



There's a reason most of the men complaining that all women should be tradwifes are single, and most have always been. Their social awkwardness around women has grown to such massive proportions because rather than facing that awkwardness around women and fixing themselves, they just keep blaming their single-ness on external factors, such as "liberal indoctrination".

Yep, this is anxiety around the fact that women with economic independence can choose who they do (and don't) have sex with and/or marry. If only we could go back to the time women had to marry or starve!

[zorkuus]

There's no version of tradhusband / tradman that requires trading a career in the public sphere for being restricted to a domestic one--men get to have "have it all" (as they always have) and never be questioned or denigrated about it (and no voluminous literature hand-wringing about how they can possibly juggle it). So, no, I don't think anyone's pretending double standards don't exist.

Being a workhorse for the whole family is not "having it all". Men didn't work their asses off back in the day because they liked it, but because they had to (someone had to bring food to the table).

Also I'd like to point out that often when women talk about the "traditional man/husband" they have a misconstrued view of it. It's a weird frankenstein of modern man and traditional man.

[Levelfive]

Being a workhorse for the whole family is not "having it all". Men didn't work their asses off back in the day because they liked it, but because they had to (someone had to bring food to the table).

Also I'd like to point out that often when women talk about the "traditional man/husband" they have a misconstrued view of it. It's a weird frankenstein of modern man and traditional man.

Back in the day women also worked their asses off, usually in worse conditions and for less pay. As others have already noted, this whole "tradwife" romanticization was a blip in our history, and unrealistic now because Republican "austerity" politics have made single income households nearly impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not so sure the modern day alternative of "post your nudes on only-fans" or starve is all that better.

If people want to post their nudes for money for any reason, including rather than getting married, that's their business.

[zorkuus]

If people want to post their nudes for money for any reason, including rather than getting married, that's their business.

That's fine. The thing is, a lot of these low quality women also want a "traditional" man. How are they any better with their unrealistic standards than those stupid incels or whatever you want to call them?

[Levelfive]

You are portraying it as a choice. While it might be as much as a choice as getting a job or not.

That's true about any job.