I'm not actually sure I accept the premise that "females are better suited to tend to children than males" once you get beyond the breast-feeding stage. If you are are only asking about infants then I would agree that for basic physical reasons women are better able to take care of infants.

I also don't think the term "patriarchy" can be substituted for "socially constructed beliefs about gender roles", but given the caveat above I would say that I don't think there is an obviously correct answer to the question "which gender is best suited to take primary responsibility for child-care" (I would imagine that ideally both parents are involved!), and I think it's in the interest of our modern society -- especially given all the other assumptions we make about gender equality and roles -- to try to make it possible for families to make their own decisions about how to divide responsibilities with some flexibility.

definitely pay attention to a professional



37:16

also scroll back to 7:20 where it lays the foundation as to how this nonsense manifests itself in destructive lunacy at 10:50-20:00 +

you might think it would be absurd for someone to run away from the question about racial disparity in the nba but when you have a completely flawed social construction theory, thats all you can do

I agree with all the other stuff about family needs and splitting up work as much as possible.


As far as you answering a direct question I think you are being dodgy with your answer. There's a reason mother's day is Christmas 2.0 and fathers day is like presidents day . All throughout history and even through the animal kingdom we see a particular bond between offspring and their mothers, yet when it comes to the human Western world specifically, it's a social construct.

Amazing.

It isn't "my" data, like I reached into my couch and pulled it out. They're legitimate polls, many of them, performed by reputable organizations, on a variety of issues. And they exist, right there for everyone to see, so they're obviously not impossible.

Waiting for the olds to die out doesn't, hasn't, and won't eliminate the Republican Party, true. That's an extremist line of thought that I don't subscribe to. However, it does create societal change over time as generations pass and are replaced by new, more socially liberal generations.

In the mid-40's, you had half of America, plus players, managers, and owners themselves, openly and aggressively pushing AGAINST African-Americans being allowed to play Major League Baseball. 15, 20 years later, you couldn't have found a single person taking this position.

Same-sex marriage support went from 22% in 1993 to 60+% today. A huge chunk of this is due to older generation people passing away. Someone born in 1920 taking that poll in '93 would have only voted one way. Now, they're not around to vote against.

If I'd asked a bunch of people in 1975 if, within a bit more than 30 years, there'd be a two-term easily elected Democratic liberal African-American President, every single one of them would've laughed. They died off, and the under-35 crowd put Obama in office.

Also, as far as Dems getting their asses beat, they lost because of where lines are drawn on a map. D's got 2.85 million more votes than R's in the main event. Trump simply happened to win three very tight middle-of-the-country races. If 80K people across MI/WI/PA vote differently, or two of those three go differently plus 60K people swap their vote in FL, Trump is gone forever.

There was some truth to this in the past, for a very simple reason: money. Taxes, the economy, etc, were the only big issues other than war, and once people hit 40 or so, they swapped because they felt the Republican Party was better suited for their wallet. Today, young liberals with college degrees care a lot more about social stuff and are completely turned off by the right's stance on these things. They're not flipping.

Nice condescending closing sentence. By the way, you claimed for years to be one of us guys.

The above is nice, but none of it has anything to do with the links I provided. The polls conducted on these subjects, are they full of liars? Did a bunch of Bible-thumpers lie and claim to be agnostics so that the data would look different in case Wil and 2Outs debated the issue on an Internet forum?

As far as agenda pushing, check out some of the right's statements. Fox example, Trump citing an unemployment rate of "42%", Trump Retweeting a white-supremactist originated meme with fake crime statistics such as "81% of whites murdered are killed by blacks" (actual figure is something like 16%), Trump viewing "thousands of Muslims" on Jersey City rooftops cheering 9/11 …..

I might be wrong but I always thought most women thought motherhood was a blessing. My wife does but that is purely anecdotal.

You've done absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem in your assessment. Let me try it in a very easy way, with simple questions that require simple answers.

1 - has there ever been a generation of voters that came of age in the last half century that you would classify as "liberal"?

2 - are you claiming that voters do not change their political affiliation as they grow older?

If both of your answers to these questions is yes, then how come we have never seen a dramatic change in older demographics (hippies!) and their voting patterns in the last half century?

Yes, I agree. I've said this before but when someone months ago said there was a poster claiming feminism was a threat to all of Western society (or something along those lines) I laughed. I'm not laughing now.

I'm trying to look on the bright side, though. When they put me on the Cleveland cavaliers to fill the Asian quota, I'll be making better money.

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Biggest Obama Lies

C'mon man

Make no mistake, I am not you people. I want nothing to do with you people and I view you and your kind as a danger to our entire way of life. I'm genuinely scared of what will happen if your group takes power again.

I consider myself a classic liberal, but at this point I may just side with conservatives and vote for them just to get rid of you. I plan on voting in the next elections in 2018 and I'm pulling straight GOP if you guys still exist. You guys need to go. It is of the utmost importance.

Absolutely horrifying.

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed neither of you have addressed my claim that your theory is impossible given the data.

And, take notice that 2outs response to my post specifically skipped my "proof" that his claim is wrong in his replies. He literally skipped the part of the post he couldn't answer. Hilarious.

I just showed you changes in political ideology and social stances over the years. And results, like Obama, that weren't possible beforehand. And have a look at the percentage of the popular vote Democrats received in '80 (41%), '84 (40.6%), and '88 (45.6%) versus what they're receiving now, win or lose. Hasn't gone below 48% between 1996-2016, and was 43% in 1992 when a third party candidate ate up 19% of the vote.

Oh, and here - look at the ever narrowing gap:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/co...ad-thread.aspx
From conservatism +26, to +13 in 24yrs.

Since you asked, the current generation 18-35 or 18-40 identifies as liberal. The one behind it clearly will, as well.

I already explained to you the nonsense about people changing their ideology as they grow older. It was barely true years ago, when money was the sole motivating factor. Nowadays, it won't be happening. No one in their 20's now with a Masters Degree is going to suddenly take a sharp turn right when they're 40 and adopt a party whose platform is Jesus, guns, gays having no rights, and porn being a public health crisis.

You're doing very, very badly here. At least bring your C+ game. C'mon.

I would be wiling to bet significant money that you can't even come close to giving a specific, detailed breakdown of what the bolded even means.

You've completely lost your mind. This entire forum is watching you spend days embarrassing yourself like the fool you truly are. It's sad.

Your "proof" was complete rambling incoherency. You also have addressed literally nothing I've said. It's like watching a blind person play Scrabble.

Please make this happen. He's said it like 50+ times already with 0 follow-up.

As Will pointed out why would the human race buck the trend of nearly every other mammal? I was at a family gathering and all my female cousins even the younger ones were naturally drawn towards and wanted to interact my baby niece. The male cousins could not have given less of a ****. I think when nature gives you a body that is intended to bear children your hormones and chemicals in your body are going to be much more suited towards the rearing of children. I dont think it is controversial to say that women are much more meteranal.

I do agree with the bit in bold but would add males onto that. I think there is far more stigma being a stay at home dad than a female who chooses to go to work and employs a nanny.

The wage gap has been debunked countless times and doesnt take into account a bunch of factors. If you only had to pay females 77% of what you pay men then why wouldn't big international companies just employ more women? Is holding up the patriarchy more important that making money for a business? They care about one thing generally and that is profits.

I am deeply suspicious of anyone that cites the wage gap study especially if they are well educated and should know better like Obama. I like Obama on the whole but he was definitely pandering there.

Firstly, I would like to mention that you dodge my point, AGAIN. I even simplified it for you, and yet you doubled down with your data, which I even admitted was troublesome to prove on my side because it seemed correct.

I know it's really hard for you to admit something is wrong with your theory, looking at charts like this :



Now, granted, I will admit that maybe my particular explanation could be off, such as conservatives may be capturing more aging independents, but the trend is absolutely clear. This trend wouldn't be possible if you were correct. Also:



Also, be sure to note that the "Obama effect" was a real thing. Obama was a particularly charismatic president and garnered crazy support during his first run.

Finally, remember the biggest flaw in your data you present - they aren't asking the same voters across time. They are asking voters in each age bucket.

Your data is flawed.

I've forgotten what it's like to argue with you, calling me crazy over and over again and taking it upon yourself to speak for others.

I haven't lost my mind at all, I'm exactly the same as I was years ago. I just refused to move to the left like the rest of you did. It's like gaining weight, you can't see it day to day when you look in the mirror. You don't even realize what you've become. The issue is YOU, not me. I know you'll never admit that, it's only natural.

There is a reason people like Jordan Peterson exist. He literally didn't have a platform 5 years ago.

I didn't post a theory or any support of one: I asked to see your research.

The world would be a much better place if the wife was able to stay home and care for the children, while the man earned the money. This is how myself and many of my friends grew up. These day's kids are left unattended four several hours a day. The result is similar to having a puppy but not giving it the traing it requires. It ends up being disobedient and often times angry and violent. I'm of the opinion that if you choose to pursue a career and you can't have at least one parent at home then don't have kids.

Your flat was in fifties America?

I haven't moved further to the left. I have pretty much the same positions I had a year ago, three years ago, ten years ago. I'm not a radical or an extremist. I doubt anyone else here qualifies as such, either.

Literally everyone here thinks you're an angry nut. I doubt a single person would say as much about me.

I don't have to do much speaking for others. Just look at the comments made on this forum by others to and about you.

The "political typologies" chart above comes from my own link. It proves my point, not yours. Today's 18-29 crowd, and to a lesser extent people in their 30's, won't be changing their ideologies going forward. And the 65+ crowd will spend the next 15-20 years dying off, thus liberalizing the voting pool in an overall sense. Again, see the left/right split, which was 16%/43% in 1992 but now is 24%/37%; from +26 conservative to +13 conservative in a generation.

I mean, I see this everywhere. "Liberals are destroying America!" ….. "The far left is going to destroy this country!" ….. "Liberalism is a mental disorder!"*

These people never elaborate as to specifically how the United States is going to go down in flames due to liberal thinking. It's just hyperbolic drivel.

*This last quote is generally attributed to Michael Savage, who thinks autism is fake and nothing but a cover for misbehaving kids, and feels that same-sex marriage legalization will eventually wipe out the human race.

I see the paranoid lunatic types on the right have moved on to their next hatemonger leader. I'm sure this one will work out so much better than the last .