15
MedicineOxytocin. "Motherly love" bottled and sold as party drug and cure for addiction
Oxytocin is the "love" hormone. It is responsible for the onset of labor and lactation. Its opposite is cortisol.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183515/
Here are some videos about it.
The "love hormone": https://youtu.be/z1CqFWBV4B8
Bottled "motherly love": https://youtu.be/kBlKq5i3p_Y
"Rewiring the brain" and the "oxytocin reward system": https://youtu.be/_DXOpMCITw0
2-minute easy breakdown of oxytocin: https://youtu.be/tLc9fQd58bg
Ted Ed talk on morality, trust and oxytocin: https://youtu.be/UdkueC7KzkM
Oxytocin is the everything cure: https://youtu.be/L5auH-Ev4jQ
Fascinating that something responsible for bringing all of us into this world can be purchased for all your ailments.
Thoughts?
Edit to add link
I don't know, but I'm starting think the underlying point is less capitalism and more "Men won't improve themselves, so we have to drag women down to a lower level."
That's easy. The people pushing it are men.
Multiple reasons: Keeps women preoccupied, creates new army fodder/prison inmates, and makes men feel more powerful by numbers.
One thing they don't do that would encourage women to have babies is to create better conditions for raising children and more support, both financial and community for child raising, more help for pregnant and breastfeeding women.
I always wonder, if having babies is so instinctive to all women and so good for women, why do they have to push women to do it?
They don't create goof conditions for child raising on purpose tho. Because kids raised in poverty have smaller chances to get good education. Poorly educated citizens unaware of their rights are excellent war fodder and they will believe propaganda.
Capitalism?
It's built on perpetual growth, that means a constant supply of ever more slaves is needed.
If women.do not produce a constant amount of workers and soldiers to protect the property class, we are clearly the enemy.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme/ MLM, it collapses without growing human input.
If AI takes hold and people lose jobs because of it, where do they think people will have money to buy things?
They don't think beyond the next quarter and believe the bitcoin and other money printing quacks are 100% disconnected from actual materialism and reality. Rich people are the picture beside an article on the dunning -kriger effect. They believe(!) that you can actual barter in stocks that have non existent values, the moment people are out of money. That's why, at the moment the basics for living are so high, they try to squeeze the last drop of blood out of us, because we aren't spending enough anymore.
Dunning Kruger is right. These assholes think they're going to live on another planet when this one craps out.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme/ MLM, it collapses without growing human input.
Socialism is the same. You need a steady supply of young workers to pay for the social programs that older, disabled, etc folks need to survive.
This is part of the reason for the baby panic. Most Western countries have a large population of people getting old and retiring. But not enough young people to provide them care and pay into the social safety net
Both capitalism and socialism rely on unfettered growth to fuel the engine of the economy. Socialism attempts to distribute the profits in terms of goods and services more equitably. The underlying dynamics are the same. We need to be putting this problem out to smart economists and social and civil engineers.
yet at the same time everything is getting automated taking away jobs from the young
I was looking for this answer. All this, plus if we have a larger population of older and retired people who need more care, get pensions etc than we have of younger working people paying taxes into the system, then governments might have to start taxing the wealthy and corporations more to pay for it. Or raise retirement age/lower senior's benefits.
Babies are used as a ball and chain to lock women into servitude and abusive marriages, because men think women are designed for 2 things, fucking and being a slave to them.
they obviously can't say this out loud so they use babies as an excuse to insult women and attempt to guilt trip them over the fact.........the human race has only increased by 7 fold in the last 200 years and apparently having more humans on the planet right now then there has ever been in history is not enough.
they also see children as a statues symbol, they won't care for them at all but they see their bit of DNA as their legacy even if that child has no recollection of the father or hates them, its like dogs like mark every tree in an area, men like to bang up as many women as they can, they have no care about the family or how they are thought of by their wife and children, only their statues amongst other men matters to them.
Personally, I think the over 8 billion humans we currently have is more than enough.>
Thank you! I’ve said to people “Didn’t I wake up on a planet with over 8 billion people? It’s not like there’s a shortage.” The idiocy and shortsightedness really gets me. What we need to be doing is figuring out an economy based on conservation and a way to manage the attrition as we lower our population to sustainable levels. Instead we’re literally lemmings. Apologies for the cliche.
I’ve been seeing this a lot recently too, and agree with a lot of what the commenters say. But I’ve been wondering a lot specifically after watching the recent triggernometry podcast where Louise Perry is pushing natalism with everything she has.
The podcast discusses all the usual things like the declining population and how the beginning of the end of empires always starts with a steep population decline, and, historically, they’ve never managed to recover from the decline, and end up collapsing. She predicts as our population and society starts to break down over hundreds of years, we’ll start losing technology and start living lower quality lives. Which is an all a fair enough concern.
But also there’s just this undercurrent of “women are happiest when they have babies and you just can’t understand the joys until you have one!!” she’s a exuding that, I can’t lie, gives me an ick.
Not entirely relevant to your question, but what always drives me mad is that women are blamed for this population decline solely. When actually Louise Perry, who is the first to even lightly brush this part of the conversation, so I’ll give her that, mentions that a lot of women in their thirties that she knows actually do want kids, they just haven’t found the right man yet. And then she moves on! I’m like ugh can we dig into this better?
A lot of women DO want kids. I don’t think there’s some massive organized strike we as a class are managing to do at this scale. There’s just one common factor globally: Men just haven’t improved for decades!! Women were granted rights and we’ve surpassed men in education and a million other things. And men don’t keep up! Yet they think they’re prizes and every woman should want to sleep with them and feminism is so fucked up cause now women who would’ve had to pick from the slop pile of men to survive don’t have to.
The solution to them is never improve themselves and their behavior so they’re more appealing to women. It’s always let’s bring women back down to our shitty level. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MAKE YOURSELVES ATTRACTIVE. Tons of women want relationships and babies. But you can’t even spot the problem cause you’re such women haters that nothing could ever be MEN’S fault.
Sorry for the off topic, but that’s the aspect of this all that’s been driving me absolutely bonkers recently.
The podcast discusses all the usual things like the declining population and how the beginning of the end of empires always starts with a steep population decline, and, historically, they’ve never managed to recover from the decline, and end up collapsing. She predicts as our population and society starts to break down over hundreds of years, we’ll start losing technology and start living lower quality lives.
She should read Peter Turchin. There are people systematically analyzing history to try and figure out how certain things lead to other things. They’re calling it Cliodynamics. Population declines happen frequently in agricultural civilizations, and they can be good. There are all these people yelling that population declines have never happened before, and that they’re cataclysmic, and they’re very wrong.
The cliodynamics people split populations into elites and everyone else. Their populations actually often increase and decrease separately because they are under different pressures. When the population of commoners /workers grows beyond the available work/land and (in the past, the food supply), it’s very bad to be a commoner. Wages decline gradually because there is so much competition, and an increased percentage of generated wealth goes to the elite class that rents out the land. Peasant revolts increase. But the elites benefit from a “wealth pump” when commoners are overpopulated, and they’re always able to put down genuine peasant revolts. People move around to cities and diseases break out and are spread. Starvation and disease often took out commoners. When the population of commoners declined, wages and working conditions improved to match, there was less disease, and times were said to be good.
When elites are overpopulated, there aren’t enough elite positions for the number of elite-class people. There isn’t enough land to split between children, there aren’t enough government, religious even academic positions for everyone. But these people are educated and have powerful networks, so they start competing with each other. One of the ways to deal with this is to start a war, conquer, and set up your spare elites as rulers in a foreign land. But if you can’t send these aspiring elites off to compete with outside elites, then there is serious internal conflict. If the commoners are also going through hard times, then aspiring elites who are on the outs will whip up a revolt/revolution with the peasants. (This was a saddening realization for me as a former idealist who dreamed of revolutionary means to a better world – “successful” revolutions are always lead by elite class people, which is why they never “actually work.” The math just doesn’t work for the working class to overthrow the owning class and then oversee a redistribution of wealth.) If war isn’t an option and the commoners are happy then you can have little elite class battles breaking out (duels, shit that looks like gang wars). With all the economic competition as well, a lot of elite class people can’t keep up and willingly or unwillingly become commoners. Others get killed in conflicts or get exported until their population declines out of crisis, and then things stabilize and people cling to stability as best they can for a generation, making for “good times.”
A lot goes into the decline of empires (War and Peace and War is a book that gets really into it) but population decline is not the cause. Empires went through several cycles of population increase and decline. There are a lot of reasons why eventually they cannot remain united through hard times – especially that eventually the ruling class across the empire doesn’t have a sense of unity and cultural identity together, and a rift is created/manufactured which causes division and the ruling class splits.
The grassroots 4B movement in the west is starting to catch fire and the men are getting scared. They wouldn't post about how important it is to have kids unless they thought women weren't having kids. Now that it's affecting the "average joe" of lower & middle class men, they're scared. Being told no, their "home" or "money" or "social standing" or whatever it is they think they can give isn't actually what women want and isn't otherwise good enough to convince us, they're having a hissy fit.
All of the below, you are all correct. Started by the right wing including but not limited to American, Asian, Eastern European (a big dose of astroturfing from Eastern Europe)...
Just wait until the big dementia wave kicks in, who cares for them? These men? Seriously...
I celebrate the reduction in population growth, we need to ensure it continues in very high population parts of the planet (while looking in the mirror at our own highly consumerist cultures, it's not Africans that are burning down the planet). That comes with the increased education of women, a trend that conservative men hate. (Which is why while we can wail about universities, the way forward for women is MORE education, not less.)
In the U.S. we have 70 million baby boomers retiring and getting old. People living into their late 80s and 90s with dementia will be a nightmare. Only 2% of doctors are geriatric doctors. I can't imagine what life will be like in 10 or 15 years for baby boomers.
Does it have to be an organised campaign? The birth rate has been declining rapidly in many developed countries, if not all of them. To this there is only one solution: women having more babies. However, whether the falling birth-rate is a problem that requires a solution depends entirely on your point of view. I don't think it is, myself.
yeah, if anything the response to the falling birth rates should be to see how we can adapt to a smaller population again. Literally everything is made worse by more people on the planet. I understand the problem with not enough young people to take care of the old, but people should have thought of that earlier. The solution is not to throw more babies at the problem
Modern medicine has pushed more and more people to live to be in their 90s. That is a new phenomenon. It was only recently that people lived more than five years after 65. My grandparent's generation (born in the 1890s) mostly only lived to around 70 to 75. Dementia rarely hits people before 80.
I think this is the right answer. We’ve known this was coming for awhile, and we didn’t have the foresight or the fortitude to make the switch from ever-growing capitalism to another model, even though other models exist.
I think we need a universal 1 child policy if a man fathers a child he gets his tubes tied so he can't do it again, the world population will be less then half of what it is today in 1 generation, better for the environment, climate change and the people.
look at all the poor sods living in cages in Hong Kong, the micro apartments in Japan and so on.
it always stuck me (and Maxx said it too) that capitalism is suicidal, it pushes endless growth which is impossible, it tries to create as much profit as it can for the few by pushing down the wages and living standards of the many.
that man in a micro apartment can not partake of consumerism past his basic needs for food and clothing as he has not got the money or the space for all the shit consumerism tells us to buy, so the system starves itself, I think we are seeing that with the increased automation and self service but those are jobs that no longer exist meaning more poor people not buying all the rubbish capitalism demands because they can't.
The 1 child policy didn't work for China. They preferred boys and aborted girls. When we start to run out of fossil fuels which will happen in the latter part of this century, the population can't feed more than about 1 billion. Oil fuels big Ag. The population will come down significantly.
Sorry I've not been on here for weeks, I just want to say when the oil runs out the population will drop massively because the middle east will be at war with everyone including themselves, they have nothing but oil revenue.
The Middle East is slowly running out which is why they are pushing tourism and trying to get into other fields. More and more water is coming out of those oil fields. There will be a massive drop in population though. People have forgotten how to live without it. A lot of resource wars. I hate to think what will happen to women then.
Spot on. I like your idea of one man, one child. I do understand that the desire for children is, for many people, including some men, a deep, deep, primal urge, but if we're not going to eat this planet out of house and home, we have to overcome that.
I'm right in the fattest wedge of the population bulge, where we'll have "way too many" old people lying around all decrepit uselessly consuming resources, and "not enough" young people to do all the work... But as one of the last of the baby boomers I've also benefitted hugely from things like skyrocketing house prices, so for me it's swings and roundabouts, lucky and unlucky. If there isn't going to be anybody to look after me in my old age, that's just how it's going to be. I'll take care of myself as long as I can, and then shuffle off.
I don't know - it just seems to be a constant talking point with the right-wing mouthpieces - Elon, Matt Walsh, speakers at Conservative Political Action Conferences in Europe, etc etc
Open & proud sexism is ramping up. Hence more influencers telling women to shut up & be mothers (they do not respect mothers).
It depends on where you're talking about. I know its a thing in China now because generations of female infanticide from the One Child Policy is finally biting them in the ass. And now most young Chinese women are too overworked from jobs and caring for their elderly to even think about marriage/babies even if they wanted to. So China has an epidemic of incel men to deal with
You need a large amount of bodies for labour under a capitalistic society. The way we consume things has reached beyond anything we could imagine. It is definitely males seeking to control women, as the pendulum always seems to swing back and forth with our rights. If we get too far ahead, they simply swing us back and we start from the beginning again. But I think it's also just the insidious nature of corporations and governments.
They need bodies and the only way for them to be provided is by women. If we have less kids, they have less profit. How is a company like Amazon supposed to thrive without tona of exploitation of workers. What about cheap and slave labour for textiles, plastic crap and anything else made for cents and sold for big bucks here. There's a reason child labour laws are under constant attack and that even in the US they found them using 11 yr olds for labour.
And of course this mindset is at the hands of men who only see women as a means to an end. Another resource to exploit.
Tinfoil hat theory, maybe in part when people in power finally noticed the incel problem and figured pushing women at them, as was tradition, is probably the easiest and cheapest way to absorb all of these malevolent losers back into society in some semblance. Including people in power looking at their NEET sons who can't/won't pull themselves together and tell themselves a woman would straighten him out.
That's not tinfoil hat, that is absolutely a real thing. Especially in China and India where there are millions of excess males with no war to take care of them, the real traditional means of dealing with them.
Also a solid point. We have a massive surplus at this point.
I swore it couldn't happen and yet, more and more and more I see the crumbs of The Handmaid's Tale
While I do agree that it's mostly about capitalism, I think for the US and China it's very much about the prospect of war as well. I think they're scared about what the aftermath of a large scale conflict would look like. As time passes we will see more and more of this pushing, some more covert and some more open, like what happened with Roe v. Wade
Here in the U.S. immigrants add to the labor pool which is greatly needed in a capitalist society, but it takes a couple of generations for them to be paying as much in taxes as the native born population.
Countries need cheap labor (construction, fast food, etc.) and educated labor, and the "labor" that is crossing at the southern border is generally not well educated.
Furthermore, countries like Japan and South Korea are very ethnocentric, and don't want to bring in foreigners, not even other asians.
They need women to make their own little flavor of humans.
If not this, then it alws seems to be some infinitely more wacko thing in the other direction, like reducing the global population to 500 million. 🤷🏽♀️
The one hazard of low birthrates that I'm concretely aware of (in developed countries) is that a threshold will eventually be reached where there will be more retirees than the shrinking tax base is able to support—causing public pension systems, like U.S. Social Security, to become unsustainable without slashing payments, ratcheting up the retirement age, or both.
The other solution would be to tax wealthier people beyond the $168,600 wage base limit. It's very doable.
Yup. And would also fix the kafkaesque situation in which self-employed people—who pony up the FICA/Social Security tax themselves as part of "self-employment tax"—actually pay a higher marginal tax rate between $'x' and $168.6k (where the specific value of 'x' depends on filing status, spouse's income, and state tax brackets) than at any other stratum of income all the way up to infinity.
Non self-employed people are also subject to increases in tax rates, without all the business deductions.
Trump and Republicans destroyed what few deductions we had. I have never paid such high taxes.
The degree that they will have to increase taxes across the board and decrease spending to cover social security is actually really shocking. They will have to take a significant chunk of the GDP - more than the GDP grows each year. It seems alarming to me, not exactly “very doable.” I don’t expect my husband and I to get shit from social security, but we’re going to be taxed to shit for it and that eats in to how much we can independently invest. Right now capital gains taxes are criminally low (like half of income tax rates), so fucking jolly for people who are retired now, but the debt is increasing while we’re undertaxing that. I expect that to be fixed, and in a way that seems like another way that the cost burden is getting transferred to the younger. I’m not feeling optimistic about these things.
I am so thankful that I am an old boomer. I will be able to shuffle off of life before it gets too bad. Not in good health so probably only have 3 to 5 years left. A lot of people in my generation are saying they will not be getting surgeries and other life-saving procedures after they turn 75. After 80 people start getting frail and chronically ill not to mention dementia. There is a great program called Living OLd . It is a PBS doc and very good. You can get it on YouTube or PBS online.
Yeah i heard that argument too, im not that convinced it will be such a dilemma. In my country, many aged care workers are recent migrants. It works well because they have a pathway to full-time professional employment, and educational opportunities for their children, and are paying tax on their earnings. Exactly the type of immigrants we want and need.
I’m not sure it’s entirely ethical to be sucking all the nurses and doctors (and engineers and more) that developing countries trained out of those countries. I understand why they want to immigrate and I’m not against them doing what’s best for themselves. But it also seems like we’re creating a global economy that permanently fucks the countries that these people are leaving.
No, it is not ethical, in an ideal world they would be able to stay if they wanted. I guess a benefit is that with the wages they are earning here, they are paying for the education and future opportunities of their younger family members back home.
in the UK they will not be paying tax on their earnings as care work is minimum wage they often have to claim universal credit to top up their wage, so they can live and their wages are below the bottom tax threshold. (£12,570 or less a year).
Sure, but elder-care workers won't be able to cover the shortfall of working-age people all by themselves...?
In terms of immigration compensating for lower birthrates among native-born populations, things aren't necessarily looking great.
Social Security is on the brink, even though the U.S. has a younger population and more robust population growth (thanks to both immigration and births) than any other rich country except Canada.
And Brazil, too—another country with greater population growth than any of the developed countries in Europe or Asia—recently jacked up its pension ages (in such a way as to bring the Women's and men's retirement ages closer together, too; they're only 3 years apart now, as opposed to the 5-year difference that persisted from the 1980s until last year).
If the public pension systems of the U.S. and Brazil are in enough trouble to be forecasting depletion within 10-20 years (U.S.) or to be ratcheting up retirement ages (Brazil), then I can only imagine that things must be far worse in Japan, South Korea, and Western European nations, where population growth is stagnant or even slightly negative.
The only one of those countries where I know anything about the pension system is Italy—home to the world's second-oldest population after Japan (fully 11 percent of Italians are over 80)—where the retirement ages have been jacked up by several years recently, too.
Of course, immigrants would be able to work in a multitude of professions.
I think there is a correlation with humans generally living longer and governments realizing that they will be paying out on pensions a lot longer. Interestingly though, there is less focus on tax reform and making multinationals and billionaires pay taxes, or getting serious about money laundering, and illegal offshoring of wealth into places like Panama.
True that.
The U.S. has stood for some decades now as the only country in the world to tax its citizens' worldwide income (with reconciliation provisions for income earned abroad, to ensure that nobody ends up paying more in total than the higher of the two countries' individual assessments)—but rlly that's what EVERY country in the world should be doing, in order to prevent the flight of capital to overseas tax havens as You mention.
One way in the USA would be to lift the cap on how much is taxed by social security. The maximum amount of income that can be taxed for social security is about $160,000. Anything higher doesn't.
It has been estimated that if it were lifted to a higher amount, even though it would then be giving higher payments to those paying more, when they collected their social security, it would prevent the social security shortfall for everyone. It would fund it fully for the next 75 years or so. And the taxable cap has been increased before.
There are those who want to "means test" it. They say if people in the higher income pay more, & thus receive more at retirement, they should not get that higher payment. However, that takes it from an insurance that people have worked for & makes it an entitlement, or benefit, like welfare or charity. That would make it politically easier to cut it. But if people have contributed to it, & they were promised a certain return, they would challenge any cuts as robbing them. This protects the younger generations also, as honoring that commitment means they can count on it being there for them.
In ancient times, I expect.
No idea who is specifically pushing it now. I daresay it differs from country to country too. Generally conservatives.
From my understanding, the "(Great) Replacement Theory" plays a large role and is heavily pushed by far-right conservative groups and white nationalists.
This is a huge factor in why women's rights are being rolled back so hard in the West. Obvious racist overtones as well.
Which seems like a pretty crazy strategy since (according to a search engine AI-generated response), "In 2019, the abortion rate for black women was 33.9%, compared to 12.0% for white women, 17.4% for Hispanic women, 20.8% for Asian women, and 18.4% for American Indian/Alaskan Native women."
Seems like if you're a racist restricting abortion is the last thing you want to do.
I was going to post this as a standalone post but honestly OP I think you should click on this link and read the comments, the men are being very free in showing what they really think of women red flags everywhere, this is what men think of women.
Oh yeah I know every toxic incel crawls out the gutter to comment on this topic. They are seriously frightened by intelligent discerning women.
I guess my question why the “ baby drought” is being pushed as a hot topic in Western politics at the moment.
I think if any man wants to know why women are shunning marriage and kids, they need look no further then the internet. it isn't increasing womens rights thats done it, its the full unfettered access to what men think of us thats done it. honestly I'd never heard men speak such disgusting misogynistic, gynephobic toxic bile until I could read it all day long all over the internet from millions of the bastards.
Sometime around the turn of the century, 1900. Industrialization, compulsory education, and the decline of the middle class affording domestic help. Women shirked off the role, before the home was also a manufacturing hub with cottage industry, and children were assets.
In the homogenous nations like Korea and Japan that have little immigration to level out the falling birth rate it's a huge and constant topic. It's an actual problem for those countries that need more young people in the workforce and have too many older people needing care and such. Rural villages are becoming depopulated.
I think it partly comes from that and perhaps Elon Musk is a big part of why it's a hot topic rn, he has a huge following and constantly doom posts about it.
I can't help thinking that those countries fear being ethnically replaced if they increase immigration. The conservatives in those countries would rather pressure homegrown women than, Goddess forbid, the wrong type of demographic start increasing. Like the dudes in Western countries fearmongering about the "white race" going extinct.
I mean I don’t give a f*** about an immigrant’s race, but I really, really care about the cultural values they’re bringing with them.
There is a liberal argument for being choosy with immigration, kind of like the paradox of tolerance.
I don’t think every culture is compatible with western values, and I think we should absolutely be limiting immigration from certain places.
It sucks to paint with a broad brush, and ideally immigrants would be judged on their individual merits, but so many millions (billions?) want to come to the West that I think we do need to be more careful about accepting immigrants and making sure we are able to successfully integrate them.
And that is coming from a leftist person who doesn’t want women’s rights to slide even further backwards due to changing demographics.
Western countries should have enforced secularism in all public institutions including schools. But that means Christian religions having to give up ground as well, which they're unfortunately not prepared to do.
Yes, I fully agree with targeted immigration, there are a lot of good people sitting on long waiting lists while corrupt human traffickers use bribes, dishonestly, and smuggling to facilitate some truly awful people entering who will always work to exploit liberalized, over-tolerant societies. Governments need to be a hell of a tougher on putting criminals straight back on a plane, no appeals, no negotiation or sob stories, once they break laws or start preaching evil shit like the oppression of women.
The problem is poor nations are disproportionately the more sexist and homophobic ones, and are also the ones with people to spare. A massive influx will cause cultural shifts. We should be working extra hard on integrating people that come.
Sure, a rapist is a rapist, but there are some things that might be hard for someone to understand like the nuances of hook up culture, what is OK and what isn’t.
a thing that many people don't like hearing is that many immigrants are not actually interested in integration and just end up living in parallel societies.
Put them through the programs Anyways.
There are motivated people who don’t need programs, there are people who will never integrate, and there are people who want to but are too lazy and need to be spoonfed or are just kinda clueless and don’t know how
For sure. I just get tired of this narrative I see often (here, anyway) that failed integration is always to blame solely on the native people and racism.
Not racism, just lack of awareness on the part of the immigrants, which local governments should help rectify
What programs?
In the US there used to be a culture of civic participation and local groups which used to be hubs of socializing people into liberal values (more in the north than the south). But that is basically over.
The programs that we aren't bothering to put people through to acclimate people to the host country's culture. It should include information dating and hook-up norms, information on subcultures, gay rights, forms of politeness and etiquette, even stupid shit like what to bring to a dinner party that can be the difference between people thinking you are an asshole or not.
I don’t know how such classes could possibly go right. Stuff like etiquette differs tremendously between classes and areas. It sounds expensive and like people would eventually exploit the curriculum to propagandize their pet issues. You can’t really socialize people through a class. Educating people about laws and certain norms, sure. But that’s shallow stuff.
I don't think our western values are very much different than other peoples. Really. People act like foreign men are more sexist, they're just more open about it and less fearful of punishment
sure, on the abstract level both cultures are sexist, but in reality there's kind of a big difference between everyday sexism vs. gang raping women and setting them on fire.
When I lived in the Middle East, the "default rape" was a gang rape.
In the UK and Australia, where I've also lived, it's usually single perpetrator.
and obviously both are terrible. But if you ask any woman if she'd rather be walking alone at night in, let's say, Norway or in India, I'm pretty sure I know what most would pick. We shouldn't have to pretend like some corners of the world aren't objectively worse for women than others.
I think her point was that men in the west would be equally bad if they knew they could get away with it. She's probably not wrong.
some definitely would, but I'd like to believe that better views have been at least somewhat genuinely been trained into many at this point, but maybe that's me being naive
Considering how common rape and domestic abuse is, I think they are just being less public about it.
Yes this is a factor, many western men are just better practiced at pretending. Although in workplaces,schools, universities, financial institutions and businesses in many western societies it has been legislated for at long time that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. Definitely not perfect but it puts women freedoms ahead and society operates like those freedoms are the natural order.
islam is not compatible with the west and we need to take heed from history before its too late.
Islam is not compatible with human rights, period. (And before someone comes at me, yes most other religions are incompatible with them as well and I don't approve of them either.) We're just not supposed to oppose it because most people who follow it aren't white and somehow that makes it less evil I guess.
Most other religions don't take their books so seriously, as someone on GBNews I think it was pointed out Islam is a very young religion its still in its militant stage, Christianity and Judaism where in that stage too once but are much older religions and have mellowed over time.
it will be hundreds of years before islam mellows.
yes that, and also i dont think it was ever like, a core tenet of any other (modern big) religion that you have to kill any unbeliever. And like, there's lots of bad stuff in the bible too obviously, but at least Jesus wasn't proudly displayed as a pedophile.
Groups, nations, tribes, countries etc. have always preferred higher fertility. For many reasons.
Small groups are weaker than larger groups, & thus vulnerable to being enslaved, conquered, killed off.
And other groups wanted to ensure that their numbers outnumbered those groups they felt threatened by; even in terms of whose values & culture dominated.
High infant mortality & lack of effective treatment for many illnesses, even for adults, meant you needed to have more kids to insure some survived.
Before machinery, we relied on human & animal powered energy. You needed a lot to get things done. And at the family level, especially on farms or other family based businesses/trades/crafts-more kids were needed for their labor.
How many man-hours is a barrel of oil worth? One barrel of oil has the same amount of energy of up to 25,000 hours of hard human labor, which is 12.5 years of work. At $20 per hour, this is $500,000 of labor per barrel. The average American consumes over twenty-five barrels per year.
Patriarchy and capitalism are interconnected. Subjugation of women is crucial for bourgeoisie because only women can birth new victims of capitalism.
Don't you think its not about babies at all but rather bait and switch? Women are graduating more from college than men, competing for more and more limited jobs (in the age of global industrialization and now the rise of AI)? Don't you think it is really about keeping women down, financially dependent on men, and out of the workplace? COVID proved it is women most impacted by childcare, etc., even to the point of leaving the workplace in droves--2 million in fact: https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/how-have-women-workforce-fared-three-years-pandemic#:~:text=Image%3A Eric Sucar)-,Exact%20numbers%20for%20how%20many%20women%20left%20the%20workforce%20during,the%20total%20may%20be%20lower.
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-equity-diversity/nearly-2-million-fewer-women-labor-force
I don't think it is about babies at all. I think it is about exploited women's labor and keeping them down and out.
Interesting point, the same cohort complains about girls getting better grades and boys being "left behind." They are scared of something.
I believe it's about both. Woman driven out of the workplace and forced to care of a child must rely on her abuser (her husband) to bring money.
This is exactly what it is!