EnricoPallazzo said: What about the data for white people, why does it stop on the 90's? |
Because skin color wasn't enough to separate "us" from everybody else, so more criteria was added.
EnricoPallazzo said: What about the data for white people, why does it stop on the 90's? |
Because skin color wasn't enough to separate "us" from everybody else, so more criteria was added.
the-pi-guy said:
|
"Do you have some examples or do I have to take your word for it?"
uh car insurance? home owners insurance?
"https://foresternetwork.com/msw-management-magazine/ms-waste/ms-waste-collection/women-in-waste/"
can you identify the feminist organisation involved in this? or is the assumption just being made that this is a result of feminist advocacy?
"This didn't become a thing until 1979."
again, i'm talking about 2018 not decades ago
"I never said women don't lie. "
but that would be the obvious conclusion if all claims they make must result in convictions as you have implied by linking an article that states that men should be jailed simply for accusations
"Feminism made articles like these: https://www.nicholls.edu/wrso/sexual-assault/safety-tips/"
and the vast majority of feminists now would call this an example of "victim blaming" because it advocates for the agency of women
but yes this is good
"Really? You think there's precautions that can be made in every situation?"
i'm trying to get a better understanding of the situations you are referring to
"No, my argument is that society has an impact on individuals."
again, this is an existential problem, its never going to be the case that a society will not mold and shape an individual which is why its important for people to balance their socialisation with their individuality
"Eating disorders are a huge example of how society affects how we see ourselves. "
you seem to be referring here to women trying to compete with beauty standards
but the thing is that this is not a gendered problem, men also have an ideals they try to live up to in order to be attractive
this is another persistent problem that always will occur when you live among other people
"There are none that matter. "
it'd be funny if you were a heterosexual or homosexual saying this(and you might be i don't know)
but no you're wrong
the gender pay gap, for example, is caused by the differences between men and women
women obviously take more time off for their pregnancies and family life and beyond that they seek out professions that are lower paying to a higher degree
http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
No, i wouldn't say you are any kind of thinker at all. I don't think you know what fertility even means. Here straight from wikipedia of all sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility "In demographic contexts, fertility refers to the actual production of offspring, rather than the physical capability to produce which is termed fecundity.[1][2] While fertility can be measured, fecundity cannot be." A marriage as the primairy pair bonding strategy provided fertile people with the reasons to have children in the past. Reasons as security or social status. But since marriage is dead and nothing has replaced it, there are far less reasons to have children as is proven by the low birth rate in most countries. The reason that "out of wedlock" is indeed a stigma, is because marriage was the primary pair bonding strategy. With that gone and no replacement, fertility can only fall.
|
A religious nuts telling me I'm not a thinker LOL, but jokes aside you have no idea what a freethinker is. Like I said a while ago, go back to your 19th century and pray for our souls or something.
But a fair warning, all your praying won't change the matter at hand, that marriage is not popular anymore and yet the human race will continue existing with less and less marriage and all your delusions that marriage is some kind of pillar without which, life is not possible or whatever it is you believe in, is just going to crumble a little more with every passing generation, which beyond our little bickering, is all that matters truly.
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
No, i wouldn't say you are any kind of thinker at all. I don't think you know what fertility even means. Here straight from wikipedia of all sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility "In demographic contexts, fertility refers to the actual production of offspring, rather than the physical capability to produce which is termed fecundity.[1][2] While fertility can be measured, fecundity cannot be." A marriage as the primairy pair bonding strategy provided fertile people with the reasons to have children in the past. Reasons as security or social status. But since marriage is dead and nothing has replaced it, there are far less reasons to have children as is proven by the low birth rate in most countries. The reason that "out of wedlock" is indeed a stigma, is because marriage was the primary pair bonding strategy. With that gone and no replacement, fertility can only fall.
|
Stefan.De.Machtige said: A lot of people are saying that marriage doesn't matter for children of general family live. Wel if that's the case, why is fertility way down for most (if not all) countries where the marriage rate tanked...? |
Could you clarify what you mean when you say that marriage is the "chief pair bonding mechanism"? It sounds like what you are saying is that people form bonds through marriage, but that isn't really how the institution of marriage is supposed to work (unless you are talking about arranged marriage, which I don't think you are, and I don't think many here would support). Marriage is a symptom of bonding. It does not create the bond, it just writes about it on a piece of paper.
Theoretically, in a strong, healthy relationship, marriage is meaningless (beyond the tax breaks).
That is why I personally dislike the idea of marriage and I would probably not get married to whomever I plan to spend my life with (assuming they don't care one way or the other). Negative reinforcement is not what healthy relationships should be built on. I don't think that it is in my best interest to stay with someone I don't want to be with just because of how annoying divorce proceedings are.
Marriage as an institution does not build strong relationships, it sloppily holds together weak ones after they've already fallen apart.
Stefan.De.Machtige said: A lot of people are saying that marriage doesn't matter for children of general family live. Wel if that's the case, why is fertility way down for most (if not all) countries where the marriage rate tanked...? |
Ain't it a good thing if fertility goes down in many countries?
The world population has grown from 1.65 billion to 7.6 billion since 1900 and is still growing on a planet with limited resources:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Do we really need more people on the planet?
Conina said:
Ain't it a good thing if fertility goes down in many countries? The world population has grown from 1.65 billion to 7.6 billion since 1900 and is still growing on a planet with limited resources: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ Do we really need more people on the planet? |
with every new person born the chances of bringing the next genius like einstein or tesla into the world increases
you drop the birth rate and the chances of it happening fall drastically
sundin13 said:
Could you clarify what you mean when you say that marriage is the "chief pair bonding mechanism"? It sounds like what you are saying is that people form bonds through marriage, but that isn't really how the institution of marriage is supposed to work (unless you are talking about arranged marriage, which I don't think you are, and I don't think many here would support). Marriage is a symptom of bonding. It does not create the bond, it just writes about it on a piece of paper. Theoretically, in a strong, healthy relationship, marriage is meaningless (beyond the tax breaks). That is why I personally dislike the idea of marriage and I would probably not get married to whomever I plan to spend my life with (assuming they don't care one way or the other). Negative reinforcement is not what healthy relationships should be built on. I don't think that it is in my best interest to stay with someone I don't want to be with just because of how annoying divorce proceedings are. Marriage as an institution does not build strong relationships, it sloppily holds together weak ones after they've already fallen apart. |
Bold: This is (partially) true if you're talking about the 'modern' marriage.
In the past marriage was not really about love. It was a almost unbreakable contract recognized by state/church/class/just important people which would bind two sexes together and see the continuation of the society. For the most part it was simple enough: A man provided resources and authority and the women provided fertility and sex.
When you commited to this contract, it was a very big deal for all parties. It was one of the most important contract you could enter with far-reaching consequences for both sexes which could last untill death. Under that understanding it can build very strong relationships where business, heritage, blood and even love are mixed in a mutual beneficial contract for both. One of the best free trade deals around untill .gov got in on the game .
As a literal contract it means indeed nothing as all social constructs do. But in the context of the past and social cohesion, it did mean a lot. In the current times it's value is almost zero i quess.
I would not marry myself at this point. As a man there is nothing to gain in marriage.
In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.
We need more sex ed and people need to use condoms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo
Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.