全 34 件のコメント

[–]mintdrive20, LTR 4 years 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The state should have no place in any of this. I'd be all for getting rid of the many government institutions that incentivize bad decisions, but more regulations aren't going to help anything. Besides, how can there be virtue with no choice? Let people who are going to make bad decisions make them and suffer the consequences. As for universities, let them choose who they will admit.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wonder what the effects of removing existing regulations, rather than adding more in, might be. Many women would have choice removed without the protections of state enabling her choice. Perhaps less regulations might lead to a more "natural order" of society.

[–]mintdrive20, LTR 4 years 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of the power women have over men today comes from the government, so I do think we'd see more of a natural balance with more liberty.

[–]Sunhappy_DCSparking Water SipQueen 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm African so culture wise this isn't unfamiliar. That said, not everyone's parents are normal or share American values, which is what I have. I enjoy some autonomy in the United states and would want that to remain.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's very interesting Sunhappy. I think that most women today enjoy their autonomy. However, are we the best people to decide whether or not it is good for us, or for society as a whole?

[–]Sunhappy_DCSparking Water SipQueen 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think we should just go back to the golden age of the US Industrial Revolution. I am fine with living in 1900 in terms of patriarchy and women's rights.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair call!

[–]lady_bakerEarly 30s, Married 8 years, together 10 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is the trouble I have with this line of thinking.

If we restored high octane patriarchy tomorrow, I'd be fine. Actually, I would probably be better than fine. Lord knows the more intense the power differential gets, the better I like it. But are those advocating for this considering all angles? How rigorous are they about parsing out what was caused by feminism and how many "rights" would actually need to be taken away in order to restore the family unit? Is it mental masturbation for an alt right TEOTWAWKI, or insightful planning for when we go so far off the liberal deep end that a correction actually happens?

[–]PhantomDream09 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm all for removing the "government as husband" support systems. I also think having a good father is really important for women as well (having stable parents in general is a good idea).

I don't walk alone at night, and in general just feel better when my SO is around. I tend to be very logical, and not very impulsive, but I can get wrapped up and carried away at times. I have always trusted my father's counsel, and now my SO is the first person I go to when I need advice or insight. I think it's beneficial to have someone around that will snap me back to reality when I'm inclined to indulge unnecessarily in something, or that will call me out when my reasoning has been built purely to justify something that I just happen to want for no actual reason.

Throughout history, women were always chaperoned, either by older women, parents, or men when it came to courting. I think the 'I'm a strong woman' is a dangerous mentality for women to have when they go to bars and parties full of strange men that have zero reason to look out for their best interests. I can't tell you how many times female friends promised to 'look out' for each other and create a buddy system, only to abandon that set-up entirely the minute they met a hot guy. Repeated instances of these women waking up the next morning and realizing they had not seen, nor heard from several of their friends that they went out with immediately helped me conclude that I would never party with them. When I did hang out socially at a party, it was always with a smaller group of people (along with my closest male friends). I only drank when I was surrounded by people that had proved to have my best interests at heart, and even then I never actually got drunk. I was frequently horrified by the blind trust my peers put into strange men that they did little more than share a shot and a dirty dance with before disappearing to the man's living quarters who-knows-where. I once asked one woman if she was ever worried about how she'd get home the next morning - to which she replied "I just figured he'd take me to my dorm." These were college athletes, strong by female standards without a doubt. But put them in a tight dress, four inch heels, and after downing who knows how much alcohol - they were playing Russian Roulette not only with their sexual health, but also with their overall safety. Young people have a habit of thinking they are invincible, they take more risks without thinking things through. Most of these women are now married, and some have daughters of their own. I know they are not only ashamed of their wanton history, but they are also terrified that their children will not be as lucky as they were.

Having stable men that are trustworthy in your life isn't a hindrance, it's an advantage and a source of security.

I'll never think that muslim countries are doing things 'right' - but that's an entirely different discussion. Better to have a culture in the US that actually allows for and encourages community via going to church, being accountable, and even social policing in many cases (particularly when it comes to shunning/shaming poor choices). The need to follow certain standards (such as protecting your reputation, holding certain moral values, treasuring family loyalty and decency) and utilizing the standard's of the community to not only keep aberrant behaviors at bay, but also hold individual's accountable for their conduct.

I'd never support more interference in personal lives on the part of the government, but I do think that rebuilding communities, through a shared sense of obligation, responsibility and duty (with a renewed importance of Christianity/the church) would benefit society today. Anyone that made a foolish spectacle of themselves would be promptly ostracized, and a widespread re-adoption of more conservative moral values would put an end to a lot of reckless behaviors.

It's sad to see destructive prole behaviors (out of wedlock childbirth, careless sexuality, the demand that people be applauded simply for existing as opposed to actually accomplishing something) are just a few things I find fairly concerning and overall destructive to the stability of society.

There's so much we no longer value, but the real crime is that we glorify the people that make a mockery of those things that we once did find deserving of guardianship and preservation.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I tend to agree with you. I think the sentiment that Roosh pushes is generally a good one, but that government regulation/interference would simply compound the problem. Men need to be given space from regulation to get society back into a good working order.

[–]mintdrive20, LTR 4 years 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Totally agreed. I'm not even really religious, but communities working together and being influenced by social factors rather than force is a great thing.

[–]PhantomDream09 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not religious either, but the church was always a clear way to establish certain values, and allow people to keep their neighbors in check. Of course it can be abused (no system is perfect), but I think some kind of unified morality would be a vast improvement over this nebulous "you do you" free-for-all that produces all kinds of delinquent behaviors and heartbreaking outcomes.

[–]Suzanne_by_the_River 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Traditional European Christian patriarchy never involved such ridiculous restrictions and governmental overregulation such as this. The genesis of these proposals is extremely Islamic in nature, which incidentally leads to cultures of inbred low IQ warlords constantly striking up stupid fights to kill off men and further consolidate control over the women. RooshV is a typical rapey arab (Iranian background iirc) so of course it's no surprise to see him behaving in a typically stupid muslim manner, while demonstrating absolutely zero understanding of or respect for western ideals and philosophies of life and liberty.

[–]Sunhappy_DCSparking Water SipQueen 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

hahaha!!! I <3 you, you know that right?

Traditional European Christian patriarchy never involved such ridiculous restrictions and governmental overregulation such as this.

This is the only patriarchy that I'd ever support.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree with you re: the

ridiculous restrictions and governmental overregulation

I think it's interesting that you view this as having an Islamic genesis. Do you think that, without the government intervention, the idea of women having a guardian is something that would fit into western ideals?

[–]Suzanne_by_the_River 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a difference between familial chaperones or female companions being culturally proper and expected to a reasonable degree (realistically women have always worked, traveled, and involved themselves in business and trade) vs an absolutely retarded system of random men (hahahaha like that won't be abused) having absolute LEGAL control, with some dystopian morality police regulating the every move of free citizens in good standing. That is completely antithetical to every western value, even in days of yore. It is an extremely muslim and third world mentality, and there's a reason those cultures are embarassing cesspools.

[–]PhantomDream09 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, I completely agree with your comment.

[–]lady_bakerEarly 30s, Married 8 years, together 10 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wonder if Roosh has been reading the epistles of Paul. He was big on restricting women from teaching, and explicitly said that we are more easily misled. There's a thread like that through the entire Bible, in fact.

It is beyond my scope to state whether we are innately less capable. I have no problem with being under my husband's authority, and he is clearly best at being in charge of our household, but we've got a lot of men who were not raised with any of this in mind. How would such a transition work?

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Lady_Baker, the origins of this idea were definitely long before Roosh. The biblical implications are very interesting. Do you think that this "thread" of the Bible is underemphasised in modern religious teaching?

It is beyond my scope to state whether we are innately less capable

I fully agree that this is not a choice women can make, as it is based on women not being capable of good choices! I'm not sure how a transition would work. To my mind, it would involve the disintegration of current society, the loss of many regulations and the protection and guardianship of women being necessary, rather than implemented by government. I feel Roosh may be outlining a "solution" for existing societal structure that truly could not be implemented.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment.

[–]lady_bakerEarly 30s, Married 8 years, together 10 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm remembering a model he (or maybe another author on ROK?) suggested that was modeled on Greek democracy. Each household gets a vote, and yes, it involved guardianship of women.

He is definitely thinking about the potential collapse of what we have now.

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like the emphasis on households rather than individuals. I feel we have lost our strength in losing the cohesiveness of our families.

[–]lady_bakerEarly 30s, Married 8 years, together 10 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you think that this "thread" of the Bible is underemphasized in modern religious teaching?

I missed this on the first pass. The answer is an unequivocal YES. Avowedly egalitarian churches are flat ignoring scripture, and complementarian ones are soft-pedaling it in a big way. They are pandering to their membership. The CBMW has all but put a woman in the pulpit.

[–]am3liiaearly 20s, engaged, 1.5 yrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I see the point he is making - but I don't think this is something that should be regulated by the government. A man can already tell his wife/daughter to be home at a reasonable hour, not get drunk, etc, and she can follow his guidelines for her behavior. I do think women might behave better if there weren't social programs in place and many men willing to tolerate her bad judgements!

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That makes a lot of sense to me. Less regulations rather than more will lead to reasonable behaviour being enforced. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[–]Eterfinifrete 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Is this meant as satire, or is it serious? Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but if this is meant seriously then I guess I've totally misunderstood what this sub is about.

[–]Camille11325 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Roosh is serious, the OP is serious, but that doesn't mean you have to agree. Why not talk about the issues you had with the post and start a discussion with the women here?

[–]Eterfinifrete 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Okay. Where to begin...I think it's bizarre that Roosh mentions the Muslim world as a shining example of how to treach women. Are we meant to be imitating Saudi Arabia, which chiefly exports terrorism? Are we trying to be more like the Muslim Brotherhood? Most of the examples about the allegedly poor choices women make -- voting for handsome idiots and getting expensivr liberal degrees, for example -- well, men make those very same mistakes. Should everyone who studies pottery or votes stupidly be assigned a legal guardian? Also, in my circles at least, plenty of women are very eager to marry and settle down and are not able to find men willing to commit. So it doesn't seem fair to blame women for "choosing" not to have children until late in life. There's more, but that's some of what jumped out at me...

[–]Camille11325 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree 100% on the Islam aspect and /u/Suzanne_by_the_River just submitted an awesome comment that speaks to that very point. Thanks for expanding on your ideas, looking forward to seeing some great discussion!

[–]eliza_schuylerEarly 20s, engaged, 3yrs[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree that the Muslim example is not one to be exemplified. This sentence in your comment jumped out at me:

plenty of women are very eager to marry and settle down and are not able to find men willing to commit.

And I wonder whether giving men more rights over their wives (or rather, taking away the restrictions on their rights) might increase the number of men willing to marry?

[–]Eterfinifrete 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hm.What kinds of rights are you thinking about?

Roosh's jab at women who travel the world in order to "find themselves" made me laugh, since I can think of SO MANY MEN who talk that way about their travels. Whereas the women I know, for years every time they go on a trip fantasize about finding their dream man and settling down...

I

[–]Eterfinifrete -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also -- there's a lot of wonderful men out there, sure. I have a strong wonderful husband. But there's also plenty of awful men out there! So any system where women are going to be automatically under a man's control, well, things aren't going to add up unless you also create a system for getting the lower-value men to shape up.

Ive been told before that this site doesn't talk about how men should behave because we're focusing on women's behavior...but if you're saying women have to be under male guardians then wow, you'd better make sure all men are capable of being guardians!

[–]lady_bakerEarly 30s, Married 8 years, together 10 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It isn't satire, no. There are a number of manosphere thinkers who feel that suffrage was a mistake.

That isn't the point of the sub, at all. But I do enjoy that we can discuss this here without defaulting to the rather shrill, must never suggest more feminism isn't the answer default that you would get anywhere else.