Man, i agree with your article, personally, i have a harder stance on this, while i agree with some ideas from the first wave of feminism, such as forbidding (i would say restricting is better) alcohol and forbidding abusive behaviour, most, if not 95% of it was bad, may you disagree perhaps, but, i have thought about this and women having the same political, economical and autonomy rights has been pretty bad everywhere, like i understand banning wife beating (in 95% of the cases unjustified) or giving women a bit of space, but if men want to recover our society then we need to change it, as i said, equal rights have been catasthropic for society, all of this happens because we have thought that equality is in practice and mainly in principle rights, no, they are not, men and women are different, and husbands and fathers need to have far more rights, politically, economically and in regard to other things, that seems the most fair.
This being said, i don't condone abuse or anything, but the way of fighting it is not forbidding men from beign men or eliminating male authority, and while in a few things i am for "equality" (like banning adultery or restriciting sexual immorality , both in men and women), this is only in the few things in which men and women have some likeness, and as such alike treatment makes sense (not to an absolute degree). Bye.
I'm not very impressed with this post. One problem I have is that there seems to be little quality control, huge reliable studies are cited side-by-side with really bad 50 year old social psychology papers. A bigger one is omitted variable bias. A lot of these studies say things like "people who say women should be allowed work have happier marriages, so non-traditional views are good". But people don't randomly say they want women in the kitchen, never have premarital sex, have more kids or do other "trad" things, these all reflect their character which also influences marital satisfaction or anything else you are interested in. The studies linked here are not properly designed (e.g. with a twin control) to get around this problem. Because of this I don't think any of these studies are conclusive but even so very often the best and newest studies actually support the "traditionalist" position, for example about earnings and life satisfaction. A bigger point I agree with though is that functional gender roles don't mean that the woman is chained in the kitchen and only let out for church, it never has been that way and it certainly isn't something people today say they want. I'm afraid that both sides of the political spectrum adopt this parody view of "traditional" roles, for the left it's a paranoid fantasy and for right-wingers it's a way to troll.
Man, i agree with your article, personally, i have a harder stance on this, while i agree with some ideas from the first wave of feminism, such as forbidding (i would say restricting is better) alcohol and forbidding abusive behaviour, most, if not 95% of it was bad, may you disagree perhaps, but, i have thought about this and women having the same political, economical and autonomy rights has been pretty bad everywhere, like i understand banning wife beating (in 95% of the cases unjustified) or giving women a bit of space, but if men want to recover our society then we need to change it, as i said, equal rights have been catasthropic for society, all of this happens because we have thought that equality is in practice and mainly in principle rights, no, they are not, men and women are different, and husbands and fathers need to have far more rights, politically, economically and in regard to other things, that seems the most fair.
This being said, i don't condone abuse or anything, but the way of fighting it is not forbidding men from beign men or eliminating male authority, and while in a few things i am for "equality" (like banning adultery or restriciting sexual immorality , both in men and women), this is only in the few things in which men and women have some likeness, and as such alike treatment makes sense (not to an absolute degree). Bye.
What’s your thoughts on Nullsci’s critical stance on traditional gender roles?
https://open.substack.com/pub/blackfrancis/p/on-traditionalism?r=2h2py7&utm_medium=ios
I'm not very impressed with this post. One problem I have is that there seems to be little quality control, huge reliable studies are cited side-by-side with really bad 50 year old social psychology papers. A bigger one is omitted variable bias. A lot of these studies say things like "people who say women should be allowed work have happier marriages, so non-traditional views are good". But people don't randomly say they want women in the kitchen, never have premarital sex, have more kids or do other "trad" things, these all reflect their character which also influences marital satisfaction or anything else you are interested in. The studies linked here are not properly designed (e.g. with a twin control) to get around this problem. Because of this I don't think any of these studies are conclusive but even so very often the best and newest studies actually support the "traditionalist" position, for example about earnings and life satisfaction. A bigger point I agree with though is that functional gender roles don't mean that the woman is chained in the kitchen and only let out for church, it never has been that way and it certainly isn't something people today say they want. I'm afraid that both sides of the political spectrum adopt this parody view of "traditional" roles, for the left it's a paranoid fantasy and for right-wingers it's a way to troll.
Thanks!