The 80 20 rule is basically polygamy de facto. But if people arent having kids already, this isnt going to change that. People are idiots and dont really plan their lives out, this is planning their lives out

What about this solution: stop pushing women to seek a career and instead push women to seek a good man to settle down with.

Less competition with men, less masculine energy from women, no time and money wasted in bull**** degrees, etc.

It’s okay if they want to go that route. Just be aware of the consequences of focusing on a career rather than getting a family. Both contradict each other believe it or not.

Your proposed solution would give the federal (or whatever other level of) government carte blanche permission to regulate who was and was not allowed to have kids. Is that really an axiom you think would be feasible in modern clown world society.

Question One: Do you believe trannys are legit? No? Sorry BIGOT no children for you. The government's job is taxation, that's just the fact of the matter. That is the only thing they should be able to regulate.

I do agree that HomeEc and child-rearing should be taught in schools though. Along with a lot more about wise financial management but that's neither here nor there.Well yeah but that's the elephant in the room isn't it? All of these problems people are bringing up can all be tied back to the destruction of the housewife as a viable life decision.

If the mind virus feminism were smothered in the craddle a hundred and some years ago we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place at all.

Your comment about boring time and electronics got me think again. A month or so back we did a family trip to Moab. We had our kids on electronics the whole way. As much for me as them. I love the time driving where I can just talk to my wife and electronics for the kids gets me there so easily. This isn't the first time I've wondered if we're fouling up by just giving them entertainment, but so far I've been too selfish to change.

i agree. but look at the 1950's. srs. everything seems to be going well until the 60's. thats why i feel like birth control is the bigger culprit. 1960 is intro of birth control

this is going to seem random and it kinda is but i was even watching some 1950's baseball stuff. and look at the way everyone conducts themselves



it's crazy how everything seems more professional back then. and again, that's 1959.

feminism was burgeoning in the 1850's.
so 100 years later everything is still professional, but then suddenly in 1960 birth control is introduced and you have the hippy movement and all of that chit

[QUOTE=propreffered7 post_id=1659858813]i agree. but look at the 1950's. srs. everything seems to be going well until the 60's. thats why i feel like birth control is the bigger culprit. 1960 is intro of birth control

this is going to seem random and it kinda is but i was even watching some 1950's baseball stuff. and look at the way everyone conducts themselves

[youtube]HaxrzW3utube]

it's crazy how everything seems more professional back then. and again, that's 1959.

feminism was burgeoning in the 1850's.


so 100 years later everything is still professional, but then suddenly in 1960 birth control is introduced and you have the hippy movement and all of that chit[/QUOTE]But who was exponential decay?

I think there's 0 doubt that feminism is a problem today and has poisoned minds.

Also something tells me if 2 women rented out a huge place and had a huge gathering that they weren't really "sneaking" away from men so my guess is women didn't have it that bad then and then had rights somewhat. Maybe not governmmental or on paper. And I'm sure some women had it rough, just talking in general

But I think tech and birth control are bigger problems

I think if you remove birth control. You'd introduce the normal responsibilities women bear and they'd act more normal

I think their vision would shift long term, instead of short term

Well sure, but tech is a completely seperate conversation that even a world without feminism would have to grapple with. My point is though, I don't think that an androcentric society would melt down to quite the same degree as gynocentric soyciety has upon exposure to social media. 99% of dudes I know/meet think social media is ghey as phuck and wouldn't be caught ded on there if it wasn't another avenue to gain access to holes.

And birth control, well that's clearly a byproduct of feminism.

Anyway, I'm not trying to split hairs or needlessly disagree with you, I'm just saying that once women began to successfully advocate for the franchise, things starting getting worse. The first thing they did upon getting the vote was to overwhelmingly support Prohibition-- a lot of good that did the nation, ushering in the Golden Age of organized crime.

I've put the challenge forward a number of times: name a not-retarded thing (doesn't even have to be good, just not laughably retarded) that the sloot vote has done for society-- and without which (that is, the sloot vote) would have failed miserably.

No one has been able to provide an example. No one has even tried lmfao.

Idk enough about politics much less examples of which sex supported what

I'd have to do research

I just know 1960's are the biggest cultural shift and that feminism had started before that

Yea, this sounds like a 'great' idea. Abandon family units entirely and replace them with sugar baby harems. Totally a good move for society!

Maybe the real solution is to stop demonizing raising a family, particularly telling mothers motherhood is "oppressing" them.
Or to stop dehumanizing the masses at large and convincing them it's righteous to terminate births or raise cats instead of kids.

LOL @ stock photo from Big Love

RIP Bill Paxton

Well you can't really due to feminism, social media, lack of nuclear family etc

It isn't the 50's anymore