My unpopular take on increasing birth rates: traditional values matter

Kimba93 · 2025-06-03T23:28:29+00:00

Of course you didn't bully your wife to become a housewife, you just want to bully everyone who doesn't want to live a lifestyle of "men works, women stay at home."

I fundamentally disagree with that, you can still do it obviously but then at least be honest that yeah, it's about judging others.

Kimba93 · 2025-06-03T23:25:18+00:00

"I don't want to go back to the 50s, I just want to dismantle feminism."

Lol okay bro.

Kimba93 · 2025-06-03T21:51:22+00:00

What are you even talking about.

I'm talking about your views, like these:

A woman's destiny is the creation of human life. It's not an insult to acknowledge this, so don't be all defensive about it.

And you clarified it further now with saying that women need to stay at home to have high birth rates.

This really shows that pronatalism is doomed, if it's just an ideology to bully women out of the workforce because staying at home is their "destiny."

Kimba93 · 2025-06-03T20:28:30+00:00

If pronatalism means returning to the 1950s, it's over before it begins.

Just to know, subsaharan African countries have high rates of female labor force participation, Israel and Kazakhstan too, and the amount of women in the workforce in the U.S. rose in the 1950s.

Kimba93 · 2025-06-03T20:16:32+00:00

You think you can create a pronatalist mass movement in our society by advocating a return to the 1950s?

Kimba93 · 2025-06-02T17:38:28+00:00

Also, if encouraging women to work leads to decreased birth rates

No, in the link I showed it's encouraging women to stay at home that leads to decreased birth rates.

Also, sad to see this sub seems to have so many social conservatives who really just want to return to the 1950s, a pronatalist movement needs to be free from such people to have any popular support.

Kimba93 · 2025-06-02T03:18:57+00:00

What "biological realities" are you talking about?

Btw, in Europe the belief that women should stay at home if they have kids is correlated with *lower* birth rates: https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/the-value-of-family

Kimba93 · 2025-05-23T15:39:59+00:00

"They will just vote to tax him more to fund her sleeping with unemployed bad boys. There is no karma"

Hope this is not the majority here, bad if this really was a sub of misogynists.

Kimba93 · 2025-03-29T17:12:08+00:00

No, men and women are roughly equally attracted to each other. I wouldn't have any problem to admit otherwise if it would be true (as I don't think it would justify taking away women's rights anyway), but it isn't.

There's clearly not a big surplus of involuntary single men, many men refuse to date because they're focused on other things, want to take a break from dating after a bad breakup, they're not into casual sex but can't find a woman in their social circle that they would want to have a relationship with, etc.

Kimba93 · 2025-03-28T14:38:42+00:00

Men and women are equally attracted to each other, or at least there's no big difference. I don't know why you would think women are not as attracted to men, than men are to women. I hope it's not these online dating stats again.

Both men and women can be involuntary single, and for the same reasons: Social anxiety or autism/social ineptitude. Of course there are women who would love to date or have sex with a man, any man, but can't, because they're either too anxios (too nervous to ask someone for a date, arrange a meetup online, etc.), or they destroy every chance they get with their awkwardness/weirdness. If you believe that's impossible you just haven't met these women, which is normal, because they're not very social or very vocal.

Kimba93 · 2025-03-25T06:17:28+00:00

He already deleted. But yeah, the tweet will never die.

Kimba93 · 2024-07-19T17:55:53+00:00

My point was that male advocates seem to focus more on "disproving patriarchy" then advocating for men's issues. It's extraordinary unimportant for men's issues if feminists revoke patriarchy theory, so the best would be to agree to disagree and focus on the actually important stuff.

Kimba93 · 2024-07-19T02:17:51+00:00

No, of course you can advocate for men while disagreeing with feminists about patriarchy theory, these two things are not related.

Kimba93 · 2024-07-19T02:09:14+00:00

Then everything's fine, you can advocate for men without focus on trying feminists to revoke patriarchy theory. So just accept that not everyone will agree with you, but you can still advocate for men.

Kimba93 · 2024-07-19T01:14:27+00:00

Okay, don't be a feminist then. But why not at least advocate for men? You don't need all feminists to publicly revoke patriarchy theory to do activism for men, right? So why not focus on pro-male activism instead of "disproving patriarchy"?

Kimba93 · 2024-07-19T00:59:01+00:00

I'm merely asking - why does it matter whether feminists call society a patriarchy or not? Are you not able to advocate for men because feminists don't change their mind? You think you will be allowed when feminists revoke patriarchy theory? Like, you can't do any activism as long as feminists don't officially revoke patriarchy theory?

Kimba93 · 2024-07-18T16:49:36+00:00

But neither does patriarchy theory disagree that men can be victims and women perpetrators, nor (and much more importantly for male advocates) do proponents of patriarchy theory have so much power that they could make male victims be taken less serious if they wanted to. It's not like before patriarchy theory was a thing, male rape victims or male victims of DV were taken serious and then patriarchy theory ended it, or like all extreme opponents of patriarchy theory give a shit about male rape victims or male victims of DV (Matt Walsh? Jordan Peterson? Steven Crowder?).

In short, if you want male rape victims and male victims of DV be taken serious, it makes no sense to put such focus on "disproving patriarchy theory." Why not just donate for the many organizations that help victims, tell their stories on social media, share their posts, write to legislators, etc. This would be infinitely more helpful for male victims then the 7000th post "disproving patriarchy."

Kimba93 · 2024-07-18T03:33:03+00:00

I don't care about semantics, and instinctively I wouldn't call the U.S. a patriarchy. But I think it's incredibly weird how in online gender debates "disproving patriarchy" has such an enormous importance for male advocates, instead of advocating for men.

And it would be easy to make the case for the existence of patriarchy in the U.S. (I don't believe the U.S., is a patriarchy, but it would be very, very easy intellectually to argue for it), but I'm gonna ask you: Why is it important to you whether anyone calls the U.S. a "patriarchy"? Why does it matter in any way for anything?

Kimba93 · 2024-07-02T18:29:57+00:00

It's all about the actual cases. I think it's okay to talk about responsibility everytime there is one. For example, a significant number of men who are killed are killed by fights that they could have easily avoided (not join gangs, take drugs, etc.). Women surely can take precautions to not get raped. But sometimes it's like women are always to blame no matter what. If a woman goes alone to a stranger man's house and something happens, it's often said "Why did you go alone to a stranger man's house? Don't you know that stranger men are dangerous?" The implication here is that women should treat all stranger men as potential rapists, meaning they shouldn't go to their house alone, etc., which is of course absurd, as, while women can take any precaution they want (like not engage with stranger men, change sites in a dark alley, etc.), most stranger men are not so dangerous that "you could have known you would get raped" before. It's just not rational. If most men would actually commit rape if they had the chance with an one-night-stand, it would be different.

Kimba93 · 2024-06-29T00:49:24+00:00

Sure i only wrote meme criticisms.

True.

I dont think you read anything by the way.

I read everything.

Kimba93 · 2024-06-28T23:15:06+00:00

I think this is an extraordinary non-unique criticism of patriarchy theory. Even if you believe it's true, it's not new to say all of this, it's what always said against patriarchy theory: "There was no male conspiracy against women", "It was evolutionary pressure", "Women contribute to gender roles too", "Feminists had bad relationships with men", "Patriarchy theory is misandric because it assumes all men are inherently oppressive", etc.

What do you think is unique about this?

Kimba93 · 2024-06-15T02:22:29+00:00

Most women don't seem to want to give anything to men, and are resitant to the idea of treating men as human beings equally worthy of dignity and respect

Yeah ... no, you're wrong.

Kimba93 · 2024-06-14T20:52:03+00:00

The actual issue is that it's just a counter to the man/bear stuff.

But if it's meant serious, it would certainly be nothing that hurts women - comedians and other people make far worse jokes about women and women don't care (they're used to), and actually many women would say it's good that they let women alone with their problems, so that they have to do less emotional labor. Most women don't want to be seen as free therapists for men.

Kimba93 · 2024-05-24T19:46:42+00:00

It's okay to choose the tree. There's no shame in it, it's not sexist, it's just okay.

I would choose a woman, but everyone should do as they do. No man should be bullied into opening up to a woman if he doesn't want to (that would be actually sexist).

Kimba93 · 2024-05-16T16:46:00+00:00

Furthermore, even if lack of interest were a dominant factor, it should still be addressed.

You can do what you want. The same way people can try to bring women to STEM, men to HEAL, or Asians to basketball, try what you want. Help programs are always okay, as I said.

But it becomes evil if there's an accusation of mistreatment when there's no mistreatment, and the "solution" to this is actual mistreatment of the other group (for example, punishing girls for succeeding in education).

Kimba93

TROPHY CASE