What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Reviving Family Life

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
10. ‘The Two Sexes,’ by Eleanor Maccoby
Defenses of the family begin with biology — the differences between men and women and the dependence of children. Feminists deny that sexual differences are natural and that children need their biological parents to thrive. A cottage industry of books, written by liberal feminists, Christians, and Darwinian evolutionists, catalog the scientific basis for continuing to think that sex differences are ineradicable features of human life.

Maccoby stops short of calling these differences natural but also sheds her early feminist line that differences are socially conditioned. Her accessible review of the scientific literature on sex differences makes this book among the best entrees to confirming the idea that men and women are naturally different. Feminism seeks to change permanent and universal aspects of male and female nature — to the detriment of each.
\

A boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. Where is the evidence that strick adhereance traditional gender roles strengthens the family.? Family relations are strogest when individuals are free to pursue goals and activities that they enjoy and that they are good at without concerns about the spouse being offended. Today, woman are in many roles that were traditionally male and they have added enormous tallentto many fields.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Ten books that help restoration of traditional families:

10 Top Books To Learn How To Rejuvenate American Families
9. ‘Family and Civilization,’ by Carle C. Zimmerman
The dark ages only ended when a new family brand — the public-facing, but domestic nuclear family — arose, although it is difficult to maintain against the atomistic individualism sown into it. As Zimmerman sees it, the public infrastructure of atomism (legalizing divorce, encouraging public schooling, building a welfare state) came to the West in the early 20th century, long before the 1960s.

More bullshit . What is the nuclear family ? A Father head of household, a subserviant woman and 2.5 kids? What is so great about that? Families are strongest when individuals can define and deigh the family that best suits them as well as when they desolve a dysfuctional situation. Many people who havedivorces have gon on to find happiness in new relationships. And what is the problem with publiceducation and the welfare state ?Both support families and the stability of communities
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Ten books that help restoration of traditional families:

10 Top Books To Learn How To Rejuvenate American Families
Sexual integration in the workplace is underway. The dominant framework governing that integration is “sexual harassment,” and Patai has read the training manuals to prove it. The judicial and administrative understanding of sexual harassment is manifest in the “hostile environment” and “reasonable woman” doctrines, among other things.

The problem with the sexual harassment regime is not simply that it compromises due process (although it does) or creates an industry dependent on finding more, hidden sexual harassment (although it does). The deepest problem is that it seeks to redefine the world of sexual relations: it seeks to hamper male initiative and make women skeptical of male intentions. It presumes and makes “heterophobia.” A neglected classic about male and female sexual psychology and how our laws misunderstand and corrupt them.

Hetrophobia? Are they fucking serious? Where is the hetrophobia? Supporting the rights of gays is not hetropobia. Anuone who thinksso is a moron. And this stuff about sexual harassment is a stuupid, and sexist as it gets. The point is that allowing ment to make unwanted advances towards women in the workplace is good for the family? That is nothing less that a non sequitor logical fallacy

The rest of these tittles are just too stupid to deal with. They are written by submissive, selfe loathing women and men who hate and are threatened byy strong womenwho demand being treated as equals. They are probobly "incels" who get kicked to the curb by women because of their oppressive values and attitudes, then blame the women. Are you an incel?
 
Last edited:

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,884
Reaction score
12,775
Points
2,180
....What is the nuclear family ? A Father head of household, a subserviant woman and 2.5 kids? What is so great about that? Families are strongest when individuals can define and deigh the family that best suits them as well as when they desolve a dysfuctional situation. Many people who havedivorces have gon on to find happiness in new relationships. And what is the problem with publiceducation and the welfare state ?Both support families and the stability of communities

:rolleyes:

If anyone ever needed an example of how and why society is deteriorating ^^^^^^^^
 
Last edited:

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
15,746
Reaction score
7,657
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Are you an INCEL? I think that you are.

Projector.gif
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Ten books that help restoration of traditional families:

10 Top Books To Learn How To Rejuvenate American Families

Hey!! Where the fuck did you go? You have the colossal nerve to post this misogynistic, chauvinistic and stupid crap and disappear? Get the fuck back here and defend yourself if you can. Is it possible that you have nothing more intelligent to say beyond accusing me of whining? Do you have any actual, original thoughts of your own? Or are you limited to posting crap written by others that you have little more than a vague understanding of?
None of this crap will revive the family. Indeed, it will serve erode the institution of marriage and the viability of the modern family. What fucking century are you living in? Defend yourself with your own thoughts and words on the subject. Stop being a fucking coward.
Here are my posts again. You can’t drop a stink bomb like this and the go and hide in your basement. Deal with it!!

And one more thing. I asked you if you are and INCEL. Are you ? I think so.

1. The definition of an incel. Incels are men who refer to themselves as being "involuntarily celibate", i.e., unable to attract romantic and/or sexual partners due to a lack of either wealth or genetically inherited good looks. From their perspective, all men can be categorized into one of two groups — "incels" or "Chads."
What It Means To Be An 'Incel', Why Men Using This Label Were Ba…
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mea... are,one of two groups — "incels" or "Chads."

___________________________________________________________
10. ‘The Two Sexes,’ by Eleanor Maccoby
Defenses of the family begin with biology — the differences between men and women and the dependence of children. Feminists deny that sexual differences are natural and that children need their biological parents to thrive. A cottage industry of books, written by liberal feminists, Christians, and Darwinian evolutionists, catalog the scientific basis for continuing to think that sex differences are ineradicable features of human life.

Maccoby stops short of calling these differences natural but also sheds her early feminist line that differences are socially conditioned. Her accessible review of the scientific literature on sex differences makes this book among the best entrees to confirming the idea that men and women are naturally different. Feminism seeks to change permanent and universal aspects of male and female nature — to the detriment of each.
\
A boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. Where is the evidence that strict adherence traditional gender roles strengthens the family.? Family relations are strongest when individuals are free to pursue goals and activities that they enjoy and that they are good at without concerns about the spouse being offended. Today, woman are in many roles that were traditionally male and they have added enormous talent to many fields.
___________________________________________________
9. ‘Family and Civilization,’ by Carle C. Zimmerman
The dark ages only ended when a new family brand — the public-facing, but domestic nuclear family — arose, although it is difficult to maintain against the atomistic individualism sown into it. As Zimmerman sees it, the public infrastructure of atomism (legalizing divorce, encouraging public schooling, building a welfare state) came to the West in the early 20th century, long before the 1960s.
More bullshit. What is the nuclear family? A Father head of household, a subserviant woman and 2.5 kids? What is so great about that? Families are strongest when individuals can define and design the family that best suits them as well as when they desolve a dysfunctional situation. Many people who have divorces have go on to find happiness in new relationships. And what is the problem with public education and the welfare state? Both support families and the stability of communities
___________________________________________________
8. ‘Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism,’ by Daphne Patai
Sexual integration in the workplace is underway. The dominant framework governing that integration is “sexual harassment,” and Patai has read the training manuals to prove it. The judicial and administrative understanding of sexual harassment is manifest in the “hostile environment” and “reasonable woman” doctrines, among other things.

The problem with the sexual harassment regime is not simply that it compromises due process (although it does) or creates an industry dependent on finding more, hidden sexual harassment (although it does). The deepest problem is that it seeks to redefine the world of sexual relations: it seeks to hamper male initiative and make women skeptical of male intentions. It presumes and makes “heterophobia.” A neglected classic about male and female sexual psychology and how our laws misunderstand and corrupt them.
Heterophobia? Are they fucking serious? Where is the heterophobia? Supporting the rights of gays is not heterophobia. Anyone who thinks so is a moron. And this stuff about sexual harassment is a stupid, and sexist as it gets. The point is that allowing meant to make unwanted advances towards women in the workplace is good for the family? That is nothing less that a non sequitur logical fallacy
 
Last edited:
OP
Skull

Skull

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
565
Points
940
Location
California
TheProgressivePatriot:
Is it possible that you have nothing more intelligent to say beyond accusing me of whining?
Skull: Much is possible.

PP: Do you have any actual, original thoughts of your own?
S: No, nothing is really original.

PP: Or are you limited to posting crap written by others that you have little more than a vague understanding of?
S: My limitations are extensive.

PP: Stop being a fucking coward.
S: I am afraid to lose my fear.

PP: Deal with it!!
S: There is nothing there.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
TheProgressivePatriot:
Is it possible that you have nothing more intelligent to say beyond accusing me of whining?
Skull: Much is possible.

PP: Do you have any actual, original thoughts of your own?
S: No, nothing is really original.

PP: Or are you limited to posting crap written by others that you have little more than a vague understanding of?
S: My limitations are extensive.

PP: Stop being a fucking coward.
S: I am afraid to lose my fear.

PP: Deal with it!!
S: There is nothing there.
Brilliant! Just fucking brilliant. Thank you for admitting to each and every point that I madeabout your intelect and your character. You are truely a mess. And an INCEL
 
OP
Skull

Skull

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
565
Points
940
Location
California
Another fine book giving non-religious arguments for traditional marriage of a man & a woman is What is Marriage? by Robert George & others. Here is a snip from the Conclusion:

Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as
marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were born self-sufficient.
In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It is clear that the answer is no.

Our view explains why. If human beings reproduced asexually, organic bodily union would be
impossible; no kind of union would have any special relationship to bearing and rearing children; and the
norms that these two realities require would be at best optional features of any relationship, to be
observed or not according to taste. Thus, the essential features of marriage—those of comprehensive
union—would be missing; there would be no human need that marriage uniquely filled.

The insight that pair bonds make little sense and uniquely answer to no human need apart from mind-body
unions inherently ordered to family life merely underscores the conclusions for which we have
argued: marriage is a kind of union shaped by its comprehensiveness and thus, among other things,
fulfilled by procreation and childrearing. Only this can account for its essential features, which make less
sense in other relationships. Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it
should be regulated for the common good, which can be understood apart from specifically religious
arguments. The needs of those who cannot prudently or who do not marry (even owing to naturally
occurring factors), and whose relationships are thus justifiably regarded as different in kind, can be met in other ways.

The view laid out in this book is thus not a cynical trade-off between the good of a few adults and
everyone else. Nor are there “mere arguments” squaring off against people’s “concrete needs.” We reject
both of these dichotomies. Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband and wife really serves
the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society. When the arguments against
this view fail, the arguments for it succeed, and the arguments against its alternative are decisive, we take
this as evidence of the truth of the conjugal view. For reason is not just a debater’s tool for idly refracting
positions into premises, but a lens for bringing into focus the features of human flourishing.
 
OP
Skull

Skull

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
565
Points
940
Location
California
George and Lee in 2014 wrote Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters:

Here they describe the theme of their arguments:

In this book, we examine these issues from the standpoint of reason unaided by faith; that is, we do not presuppose here any revealed source of truth – we do not presuppose the truth of any sacred writings or the teachings of any authoritative religious body. The arguments we propose are ones that can be accepted by anyone, without regard to religious conviction and commitment. Thus, we will set out philosophical arguments (sometimes called “natural law” arguments) to defend traditional morality on the questions of what marriage is; whether it should be exclusive, permanent, between a man and a woman, and restricted to two persons, not three or more; whether sexual acts outside marriage are morally right; and whether marriage should be defined by the political community as an exclusive union of husband and wife.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,205
Reaction score
3,527
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Another fine book giving non-religious arguments for traditional marriage of a man & a woman is What is Marriage? by Robert George & others. Here is a snip from the Conclusion:

Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as
marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were born self-sufficient.
In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It is clear that the answer is no.

Our view explains why. If human beings reproduced asexually, organic bodily union would be
impossible; no kind of union would have any special relationship to bearing and rearing children; and the
norms that these two realities require would be at best optional features of any relationship, to be
observed or not according to taste. Thus, the essential features of marriage—those of comprehensive
union—would be missing; there would be no human need that marriage uniquely filled.

The insight that pair bonds make little sense and uniquely answer to no human need apart from mind-body
unions inherently ordered to family life merely underscores the conclusions for which we have
argued: marriage is a kind of union shaped by its comprehensiveness and thus, among other things,
fulfilled by procreation and childrearing. Only this can account for its essential features, which make less
sense in other relationships. Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it
should be regulated for the common good, which can be understood apart from specifically religious
arguments. The needs of those who cannot prudently or who do not marry (even owing to naturally
occurring factors), and whose relationships are thus justifiably regarded as different in kind, can be met in other ways.

The view laid out in this book is thus not a cynical trade-off between the good of a few adults and
everyone else. Nor are there “mere arguments” squaring off against people’s “concrete needs.” We reject
both of these dichotomies. Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband and wife really serves
the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society. When the arguments against
this view fail, the arguments for it succeed, and the arguments against its alternative are decisive, we take
this as evidence of the truth of the conjugal view. For reason is not just a debater’s tool for idly refracting
positions into premises, but a lens for bringing into focus the features of human flourishing.
More mindless cut and past bullshit that in no way defends or supports your crap about reviving family life. Marriage is all about childen? Give me a fucking break! If you want to restore and preservethe family, we must be flexible about what a family is and what the purpose of marriage is inorder to be more inclusive
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top