Should policies be created that encourage traditional family structures?

This sounds good, but what does people being free to be what they want to be, mean? Does their freedom know no bounds?

Do you not feel members of the US don't already have the same opportunities?

Let's go with the common dictionary definition of traditional.

Mental health decline, birth rates decline, single parenthood and divorce increases (which lead to worse outcomes), academic decline, etc. The things we've been talking about.

How much of this was influenced by immigration rates?

Actually, that is a commonly cited ingredient of the success of two parent households. It's not the only ingredient though. However, no amount of education will offset the work it takes and therefore the importance of two people. This will always be a factor because competing two parent families can also be educated and would always have the advantage. Additionally, there's no reason society should pay for the childcare of a parent who is choosing to be a single parent and choosing not to have both biological parents in the home. That is incentivizing and enabling choices that are harmful to children. Why would society want to pay for that arrangement?

What is love? How do you know if the couples are no longer partners? Are these situations that are irreparable and how would you know when something is irreparable?

Indeed. So your argument is that since children will have consequences for our decisions (be it positive or negative), that it shouldn't matter what choices parents make? That parents should just be trusted to do their best without looking at ways to avoid incentizing poor decisions and instead encourage positive ones?

Is it possible for someone to be both religious and logical at the same time and for their religion to enhance their logic? Is a government who's members are majority religious by default less logical or less secular?

At least we can agree that many of the values associated with religion (in a positive way) and with traditional values, have improved the strength of the nation.

 

From what I've heard, they are leaving it up to the parents to decide

 

So de-incentivizing single parenthood and incentivizing intact families, is not forcing anything. It's encouraging. The two words have importantly district differences. It changed everything about what you're arguing.

Again, your choice of the word forced, makes this argument null and void

Good, common ground

I actually think that if the parents who are breaking up their families are feeling shame for doing so, that would be a good thing. I don't think society should intentionally shame, but instead teach about the harm of breaking up intact families.

 

What does whether men need anything from women or women need anything from men have to do with this argument?

How am I singling out women's sexual behavior? I'm aware it takes two. Do you mean from an evolutionary perspective? If so, women are the gatekeepers.

Actually, you were trying to imply that women have it worse and I was countering that argument

Biology occurs first and the culture reacts to biology. Studies show men and women experience emotions differently.

Pedolhilia and rape is illegal and punished by law

Culture is downstream from biology

How is the current administration related to this argument?

Who said superior? Just different

Different and valuable for their differences. Sometimes separate, sometimes not

Life teaches everyone eventually. If our eyes are open, we all come to know the truth. Regardless of how much parents try to reverse roles or suppress reality, the fundamental dynamics of life and human nature eventually reveal themselves. Regardless of how much feminizing mothers do of their sons and how much masculinizing they do of their daughters, the truth comes out eventually and in the interim, society pays the price via confusion and illogical policy.

Incorrect. Name one way this is true?

I've spent enough time around women and couples to know you're being hyperbolic and these issues have nothing to do with women needing a small amount of awareness from men. If you can't admit women are more emotional and therefore more difficult to deal with, that's just the type of rejection of reality that is harming us.

Again, show proof

I've seen so so many women emotional both in public and behind doors and rarely ever men being that emotional regardless of the setting. Facts. And here are some supporting studies (as if they were needed)

Study acknowledges that "Neuroimaging studies suggest that males more efficiently regulate emotion than females"

"We found sex differences in the subjective experience of negative and positive emotions. Self-reported ratings of emotional intensity indicated a valence by sex interaction. Females reported that they felt more intensely for negative emotion than positive emotion, but this pattern was not observed in males."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10415482/

The differences in structure and functioning of the man and women's brain are well known and rather than do the research for you, I'll let you type this into Google so you can learn about them. There is a biological basis for our differences:

1. how do men and women's brain structure and activity differ

From both experience and research, it's clear: women tend to be more emotional and express they want more emotional engagement, which naturally makes relationships with them more complex. That doesn’t make them inferior, just more work emotionally. And if we’re honest, most men (and many women if they will admit it) know this firsthand.

Why do we ever get involved in other people's lives when their actions hurt other?

Actually, society supports women more in divorce

These are common knowledge, but here's some:

Grandparents support their daughter's children more than their son's:

https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/42/3/435/1819102

Women have favorable outcomes and more support post divorce:

80% of the time get custody

https://earthweb.com/blog/child-custody-statistics/

Despite 40% of households having female breadwinners, only 3% of men get post divorce support from alimony from women

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/

Dad's represent 85% of child support providers

https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/da...upport-providers-pay-more-than-female-payers/

Just to list a few ways

Which is true

Saying only women can give birth and therefore that's an important part of their role, doesn't mean they are cattle, just like saying men are stronger and therefore protecting is an important part of their role, doesn't mean I'm calling men slaves

Finally, common ground

Who ever said that?

Good, more common ground

Me too

This actually doesn't do what you think it does, but what does this have to do with our argument?

Define toxicity

So womansplaining is the reverse? Interesting only mansplaining is listed in Merriam-Webster... Sexist don't you think?

So according to your definition, one would have to know the sexes of each person to determine whether mansplaining is occuring? Is that the case in this circumstance?

If you're saying that either I or other people are arguing the argument I'm making thinking that we are right and that you are wrong and you think this is condescending or that I/we have more knowledge than the other side, then you're right. It fits that part of the definition of mansplaining. However, not everyone that arguesy argument are men.

We already have to do this. There are laws in our society. However, I'm not proposing more of these forceful laws as much as encouraging and incentivizing.

You're arguing for exceptions and extreme cases, I'm arguing for sticking things out when things get tough

But again, you're viewing things from the worst case scenarios

I'm actually arguing in order to bring out all the facts and help others see the facts so they can improve their views of the world and the needed changes

Women are the most likely to initiate divorce. Those are the facts. This doesn't mean the conflict or discomfort in the marriage doesn't find fault with each party, just to point out an important fact that hints at dynamics and sex differences. It's interesting that women are increasingly becoming more and more progressive as well, looking for many other ways to act immorally, like aborting children, sexual promiscuity, family separation, men in women's sports, mutilating or castrating children, etc. Women are loosing their morality and also more likely to be in college, which is increasingly more progressive and promoting mind virus thinking.

This sounds like cultural relativism and statistic/scientific denialism. There's no harm in advocating for a better society by encouraging better ethics or simply sharing the statistics and reasons certain ways of living are more beneficial

How are these things related to our current argument?

Men have a lot of strengths and abilities just like women have their own strengths and abilities. Are you not aware of them? Or are you just being obtuse?

Who is: you all?

Actually, I've heard they've found a sweet spot. Too old and too many romantic partners and it's difficult to find the right partner. They've also found divorce unless common when your only partner is your spouse. So this idea of finding yourself isn't exactly true. It's more likely that society is brainwashing women to despise their natural biology and associated roles, that societies railing against natural tendencies is leading to more conflicts in marriage, as well as increased immoral thinking creating those same issues. An epidemic of single parenthood is increasing men's inability to have role models and reducing the models of how to work through issues. Not good.

 

As long as there are extra credits reserved for original bioparents that stay together

 

How would the proposed policy fixes create more problems for women and children?

 

I agree and too many nowadays want to deny biology

 

I am not denying that there are some bad men out there. I also know that many men just don't want to deal with the relationship after the breakup, because a family breakup is not good for anyone involved, especially for reasons outside of abuse, infidelity etc. For as many anecdotal statements from people with experiences like yours, there are just as many lawyers and judges that see things the way I do. Also, how does men initiating violence more than woman argue against the case I made in my OP?

 

Just because courts ought to do something, doesn't mean they will. Humans are human after all.

How does this go against the idea of looking to encourage more healthy and long lasting two parent households?

We need to start building a stronger society so we have fewer of these cases where there is problematic behavior like substance use, abuse, etc.

 

infidelity is abuse in my book

 

I'm going to go with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." As long as someone is not hurting anyone else, they should be able to do, whatever they want to do.
I have a suspicion you are thinking I just trapped myself, because the argument can be made that having a divorce will harm the children, however, while the studies show correlation, they do not show causation. Also, even if there is causation, it needs to be shown that the damage to the child is more than the damage to everyone involved, if the parents stay together.

Not all members of our society have the same opportunities.

Which one are you referring to:

1. an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)
2. a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
3. the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
4. cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
5. characteristic manner, method, or style

I totally agree that mental health and academic decline are worrisome for any society, but these are declining at the same rate, regardless of parental marriage status.

Almost all of it. This is how societies with low birthrates continue to thrive

You are assuming that single parenting is a choice. Sometimes it is, but many times it is not. Unless you are willing to force people to get married against their will, it's going to stay like that. There is another option however, increased access to birth control and abortion.

Love is a subjective emotion and as such, cannot be proven that someone feels it or not. You know if couples are no longer partners, if they tell you they are not. Whether they are irreparable or not is moot. You cannot force people to be in a situation that they don't want to be in.

Is it the government's job to tell parents how to raise their kids?

It is possible to be religious and logical at the same time,. but I do not believe that religion enhances logic in any way. What individual members of the government believe is not the issue, it is the separation of church and state.

I do not agree with that statement in the least. Religion has a tendency to take away people's rights when it conflicts with the religion's commandments. The Christian push back against LGBTQ+ rights or the right to abortion are great examples of this.

 

Infidelity may be but does not always constitute abuse particularlily if it is done on consent or is never detected. It does of course in many cases. The point is we need to look at each case. The problem is courts try do that but some people want one size fits all politiclal, religious or moral doctrine imposed on all Judges to apply on all situations when interpreting different fact situations. Thatr is when problems arise.

 

if done without the partner knowing, it puts them at risks for disease against their will

Adultery should be a crime

 

I do not understand your first two sentences. Sorry. Too vague for me to comment on.

In regards to your this sentence/question it is no the role of the courts to encourage healthy relaationships-that is the goal of family, relationship or marriage counseling. Judges have no mandate to do that. Their role is to balance competing legal rights and assure the best interests of minors, children and the incapacitated are met.

In regards to the statement "we need to start building a stronger society" with due respect that is what is called a feel good statement. Sure we all agree so saying that is simplistic and meaningless with due respect. It states the obvioius. It is like saying if we do not drink water we dehyrdate and die. The issue is not the end result you state, its how to achieve it and unfortunaytely everyone is a critic and states what you do but they have no clue how to achieve it. What specific procedures, policies, can you suggest? Simply stating what you want won't cut it.

Now, in regards to the statements I make they are based on working in the courts as a prosecutor, family mediator, children's lawyer and working with teachers, social workers, police, nurses. clergy., doctors, health care workers, parents, children, victims of crime, survivors.

I can say all the people I listed all are sharing insights and trying to help us all understand how to improve the social systems we have and often their suffering, struggles, hard work are never seen leading to positive outcomes and helping others.

What I can say is there is never going to be a perfect system and never a system where certain people are not victimized, hurt, abused. I think that might get to your point as to humans being humans?

You can see from my words a reliuctance to simply let open ended non specific comments pass whether they be obvious and feel good or negative and not because I wish to insult you please..I just mean to discuss along with you and me and others...I am challenging me and you and others all the same way-you do force me though to be specific because if I chalenge us all to be more specific then I better as well and I think that is one of your points to me so I will try....here are some specific policues I have seen be of tremendous help to remedy broken relationships and families:

1-restorative justice programs-i.e., identifying first time offenders, persons with mental illness and drug addiction (first timers, sometimes second or repeat offenders if non violent and only hurting themselves) and sending them to specialty courts where they are sent for in and out patient treatment, put in half way homes, sent for counseling/probation-approaches where they are not put in jail but their problem is directly treated while they are monitored;

2-aboriginal alternative programs-in aboriginal communities, healing circles have helped tremendously identify and deal with specific people as problems for not just themselves but their society and members of the society take place in the encounter to decide how, what and where to treat such a person;

3-supervised custody-neutral third party sites where a parent can visit their child in a supervised and safe setting;

4-complusory family mediation prior to divorce (violent parents are dealt with in seperate rooms);

5-cross cultural, psychotherapeutic, gender sensitive training for anyone working in this area;

6-ankle bracelettes and strict supervision of pedophiles;

7-mandatory jail time for any crime of violence;

8-easy access and confidential counseling to all professionals who work this field;

9-psychotherapeutic techniques during counseling.

The above are observations. Are they all panaceas, no.

I can say in regards to 1-7, police, clergy, all the professionals I listed all know about them and subscribe to them but there is also no substitute for the street smarts or work experience of any of the people I mentioned nlearned from doing the job and learning the practical limits.

I can tell you the most common reasons for the breakdowns in families or relationships I saw were brought on by:

1-finances-unemployment, under-employment;
2-financial dishinesty-often linked to addictions from gambling, drugs, alcohol;
3-domestic violence flowing from 1 and or 2;
4-blended family parenting issues;;
5-infidelity.


I also strongly suggest you want a family to stay healthy, look at their community. The more people in the community involved in keeping that neighbourhood clean, safe, tolerant with community centres, parks, communal events, the more likely families flourish.

I am a strong believer in walking cops, that means police officers on the beat connected to the community and involved in playing sports at the community centres with the youth and working with them on projects like landscaping, gardening, wall murals.

Non profit community projects and clubs help single parents and cut down on crime. Welll it communities with lots of green are a huge help. Want to cut down on drugs-that is a tough one-fentanyl is cheap as hell and so accessible and it turns people into zombies who literally rot slowly to death and refuse any care. They are a huge challenge.

Cutting the supply is crucial yes. The problem isthe supply is there because the networks of supply chain are people making a lot of money and far removed from the hell they create.

To get to them bank laundering laws would have to be changed and you are talking now about threatening some ery powerful politicians, business people. They have the power to stop reform. So to deal with them they have to feel an immediate threat to their lifestyle and wealth and to do that means taxing the crap out of them and giving them huge fines if they do not disclose certain financial info.

Easier said than done.

Hope that adds to the discussion. Excuse any tone of know it allness.

 

In regards to your second sentence with due respecty that is not realistic. While I appreciate your moral concerns and dismay over the behaviour its too common to put people in jail for from a practical perspective.

If the adultery is part of a fraudulent activity or a sexual assault or speads a disease that can tigger criminal charges and/or civil law suits.

I am not condoning adultery. I am just saying there are other ways to deal with it.

 

people used to think physical abuse was ok too, it wasn't... even though many did it

I think if adultry was illegal, there would be less physical abuse by partners, as one could just call the cops to do the abusing legally

 

You're the one positing that women should endure <whatever> to keep a family intact.

You posted about women's sexual experiences and did not comment on men's sexual experiences. That's what "singling out" means.

I didn't imply that. I stated that. Women ARE second class citizens everywhere around the world.

That doesn't negate the fact that males have the same emotions as women.

No, it's not. In the USA, a rapist can choose the mother\s of his kid\s.

The current administration is responsible for stacking the court to overturn Roe v. Wade in a big to get more white babies. Destroying the Department of Education is just to keep people uneducated\undereducated and Republicans generally do not believe that girls have any purpose other than sex objects and breeders.

Women are 2nd class citizens which automatically means men are not.

Point to where non-white, non-male people are valued?

 

This doesn't make your argument valid as the entire system is based on gender roles. Personally, I'm happily unattached and I've lost count how many times others have told me that I need to remarry. I've lost platonic friends solely because their partners are not comfortable with me not pursuing another relationship. This is not about me. It's about the way that society wants to choose what is best for other people. Even prior to that, strangers chastised me because I was married and didn't have children.

Marjorie Taylor Greene stated that adoptive parents aren't "real parents" because they did not give birth to their child\ren.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-taylor-greene-mother-weingarten/11755144002/

I will give you 10.
Of Power, Privilege, and Gender: Men need to Reflect on their Unearned Advantages in the Society
https://onpolicy.org/of-power-privi...-on-their-unearned-advantages-in-the-society/

Equal Treatment for Men and Women
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/12/11/chapter-2-equal-treatment-for-men-and-women/

160+ Examples of Male Privilege in All Areas of Life
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/160-examples-of-male-privilege/

Women Are Still Under-Represented in Medical Research. Here’s Where the Gender Gap Is Most Pronounced
https://time.com/7171341/gender-gap-medical-research/

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)
https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

Armed MAGAs staked our polling places, drop boxes and went door-to-door confronting people about their vote.
https://www.newsweek.com/how-maga-election-watchers-scare-away-voters-1756082
https://indivisible.org/resource/magas-push-political-violence

Gender pay gap in U.S. has narrowed slightly over 2 decades
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...p-in-us-has-narrowed-slightly-over-2-decades/

A study supported by the Salvation Army evaluated the financial standing of over 100 single divorced women from the baby boomer era and concluded that there was a high potential for these women to enter poverty or even become homeless.
https://www.jglaw.law/resources/articles/study-shows-poverty-homelessness-a-potential-after-divorce/

The history of erasing women's history
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-history-of-erasing-womens-history/
https://www.toughconvos.com/post/sa...-women-from-ancient-queens-to-modern-politics
https://thestoryexchange.org/the-trump-administrations-ongoing-effort-to-literally-erase-women/

Employers Cannot Ask About Pregnancy During Job Interviews
https://shegerianlaw.com/blog/should-i-tell-employers-im-pregnant-during-job-interviews

 

How emotion is expressed may be different among genders but that doesn't negate the fact that all humans have emotions.

See above or do you want more evidence?

How emotion is expressed may be different among genders but that doesn't negate the fact that all humans have emotions.

What do you perceive as "wrong" with this?

 

So, you believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of justice" as long as people are doing what you want them to do?

False.

Mothers and children suffer the most in family breakups, research suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ren-family-breakdown-divorce-living-standards

Generally, women suffer more financially than do men from divorce.
https://www.centralbank.net/learnin...anding-the-financial-implications-of-divorce/

How Women Are Financially Affected by Divorce
https://creativeplanning.com/insigh...ow-women-are-financially-affected-by-divorce/

The Gender Gap in Post-Divorce Satisfaction—Are women happier than men after divorce?
https://www.sflg.com/the-gender-gap...tion-are-women-happier-than-men-after-divorce

Why Women STILL Come Out Worse Off From Divorce
https://www.divorcehub.com.au/women-worse-off-from-divorce/

Divorce Poverty and Food Insecurity: An Invisible Hardship
https://www.utahfoodbank.org/2025/03/17/divorce-poverty-and-food-insecurity-an-invisible-hardship/

High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/2004_1/p2.html

Impact of Divorce on the Finances of Men, Women, and Children
https://www.aacfl.org/impact-of-divorce-on-the-finances-of-men-women-and-children

How Does Divorce Affect Women?
https://merelfamilylaw.com/blog/how-does-divorce-affect-women/

The hard life of poorly educated women with children after a divorce
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-hard-life-poorly-women-children.html#google_vignette

Financial Impact of Divorce on Women
https://womenwhomoney.com/financial-impact-divorce-women/

Women’s probability of being in poverty more than doubles after separation
https://theconversation.com/womens-...rty-more-than-doubles-after-separation-181345

Guest commentary: Bearing the brunt of the breakup: Divorce’s unequal toll on women
https://fearlessbr.com/guest-commen...f-the-breakup-divorces-unequal-toll-on-women/

Mothers and children suffer the most in family breakups, research suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ren-family-breakdown-divorce-living-standards

Society dictates that women are helpless and need more help.
"A daughter is a daughter for all of her life
A son is a son until he takes a wife"

Women have favorable outcomes and more support post divorce:

80% of the time get custody

https://earthweb.com/blog/child-custody-statistics/[/quote]
Most men do NOT want custody of their children.

Fathers fight for custody in court in less than 4% of divorces.
https://zawn.substack.com/p/family-courts-and-child-custody-are

 

https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/palimony

See above.

It absolutely means they are chattel when all other avenues are stacked against them.

Republicans

J. D. Vance and the Right’s Call to Have More Babies
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/j-d-vance-and-the-rights-call-to-have-more-babies

Florida Republican Byron Donalds said IVF helps people 'breed great families' which the 'country desperately needs'
https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-byron-donalds-ivf-comments-breed-families-trump-2024-2

Republicans Want to Bring Women Back to the 1950s
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/republicans-abortion-trump-women-2024

You can't speak to what I think. Clearly, silencing women's votes means only men have a voice in our government although their votes impact everybody.

I'll post it here since I'm aware that many Republican Governors are banning dictionaries.

tox·ic·i·ty
/täkˈsisədē/

noun
1. the quality of being toxic or poisonous.
"the toxicity of a drug depends on its dosage"

2. the quality of being very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way.
"she went public with allegations of workplace toxicity and sexism"

Why is it okay to differentiate people based on made-up criteria but those marginalized demographics are not permitted to note that?

No. Men can be feminists.
Ethnic minorities can be white supremacists.
Women can be misogynists.
Childless people can be birthing coaches.
Etc.

 

I never stated otherwise.

Once again, you don't get to decide what other people should be doing.

Laws only work on honest people.

Once again, you don't get to decide what other people should be doing.

Women are the volition behind almost all actions.

Why is any of this your business? Why aren't men judged on any of those behaviors?

Higher education just means that women have more options. Men clearly aren't interested in making themselves better people if the only solution is to create laws where rape is acceptable and girls are deprived of opportunities to be independent.

Once again, you don't get to decide what other people should be doing. "Better" is subjective.

It's a statement on the fact that nobody cares about other people's overall life experiences.

I'm not aware of any strengths men have. What are you claiming that is?

People that don't give a damn about women and children.

Once again, you don't get to decide what other people should be doing.

 

Glad to see we agree that divorce can harm children. That's an important foundation.

What if studies showed that most couples who stay together through rough patches end up happier long-term? Would that shift your view on the presumed need for divorce in many cases?

Can you clarify what you mean by unequal opportunities. Ae you referring to wealth, family support, geography, education or something else?

#1

Haven't both been declining together?

And you're satisfied with this solution? You don't see any potential issues with it?

Around how often do you think it isn't a choice? Even when single parenthood isn’t actively chosen, aren’t many of the decisions leading to it (like premarital sex without commitment or having kids in unstable relationships) still choices? Where should accountability begin?

So tax incentives, monetary incentives, lack of incentives for single parenthood, cultural change and education aimed at teaching ways to improve outcomes, wouldn't improve this? Would anything improve this?

How does this improve marriage rates and decrease divorce rates?

Also, if the state should help people avoid unwanted kids through abortion and birth control, then why can’t it also support traditional norms that prevent broken homes? You can’t have it both ways: either the state helps shape society or it doesn’t.

That makes an abstract concept and feeling such as love, a problematic basis for major life decisions like marriage and childbearing. Maybe we should be focusing more on duty, compatibility, and shared values... things with more stability than fleeting emotions.

Nobody’s talking about forced marriage. But if we removed financial rewards for single parenting and increased the cultural value of stable, two-parent homes, wouldn’t we see better outcomes over time?

It's certainly societies job to share important outcomes results that help citizens make decisions... Do you disagree? Do you disagree society has an interest in incentivizing better outcomes?

If we’re already using government to fund childcare, school curriculums and food assistance, then we are influencing family life. The question isn't whether we influence... it's how. Should we keep subsidizing unstable arrangements or should we promote those that research shows benefit children most?

It's not just Christian's that push back on gay marriage and child mutilation. There are non religious reasons to do those things as well.

Let’s not forget a lot of the ways religions have helped. However, for a more thorough discussion on this, I'll refer you to the following post (see below) in order to stay more on topic for this post

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-decline-of-western-civilization.624774/

 

That’s a mischaracterization. I’m not suggesting anyone endure actual abuse. I’m arguing that in many cases, perseverance through hardship results in stronger families and better outcomes, especially for children.

As far as I'm aware, I've been talking about marriage which takes both a man and a woman. In which comment specifically, was I singling women out?

That may be true in some regions, but in Western societies, women have full legal rights and increasing institutional advantages. I'm not arguing about other regions. I'm arguing for the US.

Yes, men and women feel emotions, but that doesn’t mean they experience and express them the same way. Cultural roles often emerge because of those biological and emotional differences and things continue from there. In other words, from there, there is often ongoing interplay between biology and culture.

How so? Are you saying there are states in the US that don't have rape exceptions? Even if this were the case, they could order an abortion pill and abort it or drive out of state, therefore ending the racpist's child's life. This is not to say that this would be an easy process, but that there are still options with the way things currently are.

Are you saying there are no consequences for rapists?

I agree that a rapist could choose which mother he wants to rape and then the result might be a child, but I'm not sure what you're proposing be done to remedy this beyond what's already done?

In other words, rapists exist and until we know how to eradicate them, society does it's best to address the issue with safety strategies and punishments for rapists.

Therefore, what does your assertion that rape is terrible have to do with the argument we are having?

Let's try to stay on topic and start a new debate topic to discuss that, because I don't agree, but to discuss it further I think we need a new debate thread started. I'm still not seeing how this is related to encouraging traditional family structures though.

But you have to prove women are second class citizens

There are more laws, legal traditions, policies and services protecting non whites and non-males than there are whites and males, such as DEI, affirmative action, divorce and family court, welfare, abuse shelters, genetic paternity law and policy and so on.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here

I'm not sure how your choices are relevant to the debate we are having

You dropped a wall of links and personal grievances, but that doesn’t make your point more valid... it makes it evasive.

You posted Marjorie Taylor Greene’s irrelevant quote and a dump of links that mostly recycle feminist talking points from a decade ago.

Let’s clarify:

Male privilege?
Citing Everyday Feminism and opinion pieces from activist sites isn’t proof—it’s ideological reinforcement. You want to talk “unearned advantage”? Men are the vast majority of workplace deaths, suicide victims, homeless populations, and war casualties. But sure, let’s focus on boardroom diversity.

The Pew link on equal treatment shows that most Americans believe men and women should be treated equally—and increasingly are. It doesn’t actually prove systemic oppression of women today. You just assumed it did.

Gender pay gap?
Already debunked countless times—it doesn’t account for job choice, hours worked, risk taken, or experience. It's not a measure of discrimination; it’s a measure of lifestyle differences and choices.

Underrepresentation in medical research?
That's a valid concern—and ironically one that results from overly protective ethics policies for female participants historically. It’s not “patriarchy,” it’s institutional caution.

NSVRC statistics?
Yes, sexual violence is real and horrific—for both genders. But oddly, when male victims of domestic abuse or false accusations speak up, they’re often mocked or ignored. Where’s your outrage then?

Poverty among divorced women?
Consequences exist for everyone. Divorce also leaves many men financially ruined and alienated from their children, often by biased family courts. You mention the fallout for women—why not acknowledge the devastation for men?

"Erasing women’s history" is an ideological stretch. History has always favored the powerful—regardless of gender. Modern education, however, is saturated with women’s studies, DEI policies and an intentional push to elevate female narratives. So who’s erasing whom?

MAGA intimidation and political violence?
A complete red herring. Irrelevant to gender, and an obvious attempt to emotionally derail a gender-based debate with partisan fearmongering.

Flooding a thread with grievance links doesn’t make your point more valid. It just shows you’d rather overwhelm than engage. Want a real debate? Stick to one point at a time and let’s dig in. Otherwise, you’re just regurgitating ideology and calling it truth.

I will finally ask how any of this is related to the argument about whether or not we should encourage traditional family structures?