Post: #1

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relatio...74ef154b16

As it's on a Murdork site, be warned this article was probably clickbait for trigger-happy feminists and mildly-interested men. I have therefore reproduced it in full below. The author is your bog-standard female typist who doesn't understand gender roles.

Quote:“I WANT to be a dad and a partner [in an accounting firm], so I need to marry someone who’ll look after the kids. I’m all for feminism and that but it doesn’t change what I want for me, like, personally. I shouldn’t have to feel bad about that,” explains Ben.

Ben is sandy haired, quiet and thoughtful. He pauses briefly, considering his next line of argument the same way I imagine he might have done during high school debating a few years earlier. One of his loudmouth mates seizes the opportunity that his silence brings.

“None of us is looking at babies and getting all clucky and s**t. Why is everyone so scared of saying girls and guys are different? We just are. We want different things,” says Adam.

Adam has the kind of cocky confidence that comes with being utterly secure of one’s place in the world. Chewing gum with a wide-open mouth, he wiggles his eyebrows at me. Adam is looking for a rise.

“Yeah, girls are f**king crazy,” adds Daniel, the clown and the only non-Caucasian of the group. The table erupts with appreciative laughter. They all agree with that.
I’m sitting outdoors at a Melbourne bar with a group of undergraduate university students; they’re all men. They’ve agreed to chat to me about gender roles but on a series of strict conditions. (1) I can’t say which university they’re from or where they went to school. (2) I cannot use their real names. (3) I’m not allowed to embarrass them. I’ve made a solemn promise on the first two counts.

I’m talking to them because research from the Council on Contemporary Families has revealed quite the puzzle in how young American men approach work and family. The council has been tracking people’s answers to the same question about gender roles over time and the latest results are startling.

Back in 1977, 55 per cent of men aged between 18-25 agreed the ideal family arrangement was a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. By 1994, that figure fell to just 18 per cent, only a marginally different result than what was recorded among women of the same age.

But when the survey was conducted again in 2014, the trend towards egalitarianism had reversed. 45 per cent of young American men now favour a family arrangement where they go to work and their female partner doesn’t.

I want to know if the same is true in Australia. And if it is, I want to understand why.

How is it possible that millennial men have such backward attitudes about gender roles?

Most of them would have grown up with mums that worked outside the home in some capacity. They belong to a generation among whom there is widespread acceptance of gender being non-binary. They don’t have particularly traditional views on other issues; for example they overwhelmingly support same sex marriage. What has made them more conservative about the roles women and men play than their parents were?

Professor Dan Cassino thinks this shift in attitudes might be “a powerful way for young men to assert their masculinity … in a world in which the dominant economic role of men is no longer a given”.

There is another suggestion that this is the generation of young men who saw their dads lose jobs in the global financial crisis. Perhaps their more traditional views are a reaction to seeing their own fathers struggle with notions of masculinity and being a “provider”.

These theories are plausible but here in Australia we didn’t experience the same economic downturn they did in the United States. There weren’t mass redundancies on the same scale and we didn’t experience the same fear and uncertainty.

Australia also doesn’t have the same longitudinal data to make a comparison between today’s young men and those of 20 or 40 years ago. So my best bet for gaining a little insight into what’s going on here — is the young blokes I’m sharing a beer with.

We talk for over an hour about their plans and desires for the future and how gender affects that. While we disagree on most points and their language leaves a lot to be desired, I’m taken aback by how insightful some of their comments are. I get the impression that these young men have given these issues a lot of thought.
Clint shares Ben’s ambitions for a family and a high-flying career. He tells me that the kind of work he wants to do means giving his job everything. “Everything,” he repeats, seriously and meaningfully. When Clint talks about assignments and exams, he looks as if he has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He puts lots of pressure on himself.

Both of Clint’s parents worked in big jobs when he was growing up and he harbours resentment about time he feels like he missed out on. He says kids need a parent around fulltime and so he needs a wife who understands that will have to be her. One fact follows the other in Clint’s mind. I ask him what he’ll do if he falls in love with a woman who wants to have children and a career.
“I won’t,” he answers, deadpan.

Eddie lives with his girlfriend and they both study law. I ask, if they end up together, how Eddie expects they’ll share the responsibilities of work and family life. Eddie says they haven’t really talked about it but that “these things have a way of working themselves out”. I suggest that the way things work out usually involve the woman putting her career to one side. Eddie agrees, “usually”.

Gum-chewing Adam is getting worked up again. “Why does it have to be us who sacrifice?” he asks.

“At my college every position you run for [in student elections] is all, ‘at least 50 per cent of whom must be women’ — so girls win even when they weren’t the best and nobody wanted them to do the job. I know girls used to be discriminated against and that being home with kids and cleaning and s**t probably sucks. But why should I have to do the sucky stuff to compensate them? Why should I be discriminated against? It sucks for me too.”

Daniel, the funny one who thinks girls are crazy, doesn’t add much substance to the conversation. On the single occasion he isn’t joking around, he tells me that he doesn’t like babies. “That’s something girls are into.”

You have babies to keep girls happy seems to be Paul’s view of the world too. He doesn’t want a family but would consider it for “a really hot wife”. He isn’t too fussed about what he does for work either — so long as he’s rich.

At the end of our chat, I’m left with the sense that most of these young men feel hard done by. They feel trapped between mostly-parental pressure to achieve professionally and an alleged societal pressure that they should step aside and make way for more women to flourish. They take the first kind of pressure as a given and they really, really resent the second.

The perception of the group is that they will have fewer opportunities than the young men who went before them and their fathers before that. They don’t see equality between women and men as a correction but an interruption to their own intended success.

It’s not that they’re against gender equality. For the most part they think it makes sense but they do worry about how it will affect them as individuals.

I’m struck by the fact none of these young guys sees the benefits of equality for men. Their focus is on the greater competition for jobs, for advancement and for wealth that more women in the workforce might mean. Their focus is on what they might have to give up so that women can be equal players.

They see only what they will lose and not what they will gain: The privilege of one day being fathers in the fullest sense of the word, of living balanced and meaningful life beyond paid work … and the freedom of living in a more equal and inclusive world.

I won't go through and highlight all the Red Pill in this story, it more or less stands on its own legs despite being an attempt at a hatchet job by a feminist. It certainly shows a generation gap between fat thirtysomethings like the author and the new millennials coming through. Maybe these guys were picked specifically for this, maybe they weren't, but their awareness of how their views are anti-institutional is telling and their rationales are very clear: they've seen what the two-income family does to a family, does to a man, and they don't want much part of it at all.

The comments on the article are pretty much brain dead, all screaming that "reality means you need 2 incomes to survive", yeah, um, the reason that exists is because of feminism. Me, the most recent comment is the best:

Q: Why are wedding dresses white?
A: Same reason all other kitchen appliances are.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #2

Q: why did man invent electricity?
A: So women could clean in the dark

H/T GT

Post: #3

It's still amazing to me, after all this time, that entire professions, theories, and job sectors have been created for studying the human race and behavior to have such difficulty in finding an answer for this while I can easily understand and say "what we've done since time immemorial up until the invention of feminism is the best and most natural way of conducting life as humans".

How many people out there and working jobs and earning income trying to understand "why? why do men think this? why are women so unhappy? we need a five hundred million dollar research grant!" while I can answer it in five seconds.

Nice to see some rational people in good ol' Australia. Maybe the new generation of adults coming out will save us after all...a global trend in the west of traditional thinking teens? Maybe still time for me to snag a quality 18yo before she's ruined by feminism. And if they come out red pilled maybe she'll be immune anyway.

Post: #4

My God, what a condescending, self righteous & cowardly typist this is. Not surprising though.

I bet she got a fucking from at least one of them lads. Probably Adam.

Post: #5

I find the fake names she came up with for these millenials very unusual. Every Adam, Daniel, Ben, Clint, and Eddie I know are over 30.
I wonder if this was calculated for some reason or if she's just showing her age and they're the names of the boys who ignored her in high school?
If I was writing an article about a group of millenial girls I wouldn't call them Doreen, Betty, Doris, Gloria, and Mabel.

Edit, obligatory:

What's the first thing a woman does when she gets back from the battered women's clinic?

The damned dishes if she knows what's good for her.

Post: #6

"Equality" doesn't exist

Post: #7

(04-12-2017 12:57 AM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  My God, what a condescending, self righteous & cowardly typist this is. Not surprising though.

I bet she got a fucking from at least one of them lads. Probably Adam.

So from 55% to 18% in 1994, then back up into the 40% range for men that want a stay at home wife and mother. She thinks these men are backwards, but a swing that large normally suggests that something is wrong and worth further analysis.

She knows that feminism has no legs to stand on. If it ever did, you would never see a swing like that in public opinion. A swing like that suggests that something with awfully wrong, lets go back to the previous method.

Instead of being an objective journalist willing to investigate further and looking at the data itself, she has to inject her shitty opinions and self denial into the piece as if these men are dark ages backward apes.

Keep it up you cheeky cunt. Pretty soon, your type will be a relic because none of you reproduce and the numbers will catch up to you and overtake your kind.

Post: #8

Yep the jig is up, these kids grew up in homes with 2 working parents and saw the misery it created for all concerned. Common sense is making a comeback at long last

Post: #9

Women bang on about 'equality' as if it's a religion. Simple question, ladies: what does 'equality' look like? If it's having the same rights, you have them.

If it's equality of social conventions, you're winning there because men are seen as donkeys by society, fit only to earn, pay taxes and die.

Are you talking about equality of outcomes, because you cannot ensure that without making everyone live in poverty, living in state-owned cubicles with state-administered resources, i.e. the shittiest side of communism. Does dragging everyone down to the same level benefit women, or the state?

Where does the quest for 'equality' end? Better looking people have a societal advantage over less attractive people resulting in inequality of outcomes, so what do we do? Disfigure them? Clever people have an advantage over stupid people, so do we tax them extra so they don't earn a single penny more? Or do we just populate the earth with clones?

We accept sexual dimorphism as a biological reality in animals but gender is a social construct in humans - how does that work, scientifically?

I'd love to hear an answer, but I have yet to receive one to any of these questions. That confirms my belief that 'equality' is a societal delusion we are obligated to unquestioningly engage in. Thus, feminism is a cult.

Edit: Since this is an Aussie thread: fuck ya bunch a' bogan cunts

Post: #10

(04-12-2017 08:02 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  Yep the jig is up, these kids grew up in homes with 2 working parents and saw the misery it created for all concerned. Common sense is making a comeback at long last

Or worse, divorced parents.

Women think children will always 100% side with their version of the story, because they are momma.

Bullshit. If you raise smart kids, they will eventually figure out which parent is fraud. They may not say it to their faces, but they will know.

Post: #11

(04-12-2017 07:37 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 12:57 AM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  My God, what a condescending, self righteous & cowardly typist this is. Not surprising though.

I bet she got a fucking from at least one of them lads. Probably Adam.

So from 55% to 18% in 1994, then back up into the 40% range for men that want a stay at home wife and mother. She thinks these men are backwards, but a swing that large normally suggests that something is wrong and worth further analysis.

She knows that feminism has no legs to stand on. If it ever did, you would never see a swing like that in public opinion. A swing like that suggests that something with awfully wrong, lets go back to the previous method.

Instead of being an objective journalist willing to investigate further and looking at the data itself, she has to inject her shitty opinions and self denial into the piece as if these men are dark ages backward apes.

Keep it up you cheeky cunt. Pretty soon, your type will be a relic because none of you reproduce and the numbers will catch up to you and overtake your kind.

Gender norms come roaring back even when society is slightly in danger. I remember how after 9/11 there was a push and desire for normal conventional heroes and masculinity again. The girl-powerism was silent for a while.

I am always amazed when I see portrayals in post-apocalyptic movies like Mad Maxine and The Walking Dead, where women play an even greater warrior-leader-egalitarian role as if patriarchy had died with the old society. In reality those women would all cower behind men and not do a peep.

Gender norms can never be broken for long. But they will certainly give it their best to rape the biological reality as long as possible.

Post: #12

I'm red-pilling my boys, and I wouldn't be surprised if these young lads are the spearhead of a movement that will come to be mainstream in the next ten years.

Part of it is a spectacular backfiring of the nature worship we've been forced to endure for the last 30 or more years.

It's pretty hard to argue with a guy that says "explain why the male wolves aren't the ones staying in the den to take care of the pups? A lack of feminist theory in wolf school?"

Post: #13

I dispute the statistics in the article about 18% of men in 1994 preferring male breadwinner households. I knew many 18-25 year olds of that era - if anything they were more traditional than current generation.

Can confirm the new push back in current young GUYS.. I would say most think similar to guys in this articles (hipsters and freaks excluded). Couldn’t be a more clear example of a conservative counter culture.

Unfortunately the young girls of current generation are crazier than ever. Prime example: the pro gay marriage campaign in the recent vote was carried by girls 18-30 (don’t think they gave statistics for that demographic). The number of them I spoke to who would push it so hard was ridiculous. Some guys I know who voted yes said it was because of the lunchroom soap boxing from young chicks.

Not sure how this will play out as this generation will start to have families

Post: #14

Notice all the guys were Uni people.How about she interview guys doing trades.

Post: #15

(12-02-2017 11:17 PM)Green-On-GO Wrote:  Notice all the guys were Uni people.How about she interview guys doing trades.

It's hard to get men to talk when they have a real job to do. Talking doesn't get shit done. Getting shit done requires not talking to females (& many of the males too these days, I'm afraid).

Post: #16

This part jumped out at me:

Quote: I suggest that the way things work out usually involve the woman putting her career to one side. Eddie agrees, “usually”.

Why the hell should men listen to her suggestion or advice? Isn't Australia cucked enough already?

Post: #17

(12-03-2017 12:30 AM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 11:17 PM)Green-On-GO Wrote:  Notice all the guys were Uni people.How about she interview guys doing trades.

It's hard to get men to talk when they have a real job to do. Talking doesn't get shit done. Getting shit done requires not talking to females (& many of the males too these days, I'm afraid).

Perhaps the little snowflake is utterly terrified by the prospect of being verbally objectified if it wiggles its business-skirted-ass anywhere near a building site.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #18

(04-12-2017 09:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm red-pilling my boys, and I wouldn't be surprised if these young lads are the spearhead of a movement that will come to be mainstream in the next ten years.

Part of it is a spectacular backfiring of the nature worship we've been forced to endure for the last 30 or more years.

It's pretty hard to argue with a guy that says "explain why the male wolves aren't the ones staying in the den to take care of the pups? A lack of feminist theory in wolf school?"

Hey Leonard. if you get the time, I'd love to read a "How I Am Red Pilling My Boys by Leonard D Neubache" Datasheet/Thread in the Family subforum. It would be very cool to learn of your approach to this.

Post: #19

I'm actually a little surprised by this, but pleasantly so.

I grew up in a traditional nuclear family where my mum was the carer and my dad the bread winner. Mum was always there to drop us off at the school bus and pick us up when we got home. Always there to talk to and listen about our day.

Seeing my friends who didn't have this, who came home to empty houses or just hung out on the street, and how it affected them really drove home to me how lucky I was and how important it was to have that support there when I came home.
It is something I want for my own kids and I would not be prepared to marry a girl who would not agree to this.
However I am an island on this amongst my friendship group.

Lastly I will say that, while these guys are expressing these views now, it will be interesting to see if they hold to them when faced with either A) the financial reality of a one income household competing with double income households or B) a girl who wants both a career and kids.

Post: #20

(12-05-2017 01:04 AM)Roardog Wrote:  Lastly I will say that, while these guys are expressing these views now, it will be interesting to see if they hold to them when faced with either A) the financial reality of a one income household competing with double income households or B) a girl who wants both a career and kids.

That's going to depend on whether they want to chase the cool crowd in the urban wasteland or go somewhere to actually carve out a life for themselves.

Any university-educated man who wants to stay put in a southeastern Australian city and isn't going into a silk-stockinged world of finance, commerce, or banking is generally going to have to pick from an array of temporarily-attractive feminists for a wife.

Don't be surprised if your wife has a third eye if where you got her was an irradiated swamp. If the woman is brought up in the city she's going to expect everything a city can bring her, and that requires her to work or prostitute herself. Eddie in particular, with a law degree and a girlfriend, is fucked royally unless he has major family connections that will bring him serious money. Guys like these are probably not going to want to slum it or go back to a small city or a country area, they're going to want to chase the Scene, and therefore are doomed.

The West coast is not markedly better, unless you are a FIFO worker with cash to splash. And there are no FIFO workers with cash to splash in WA anymore; the mining boom killed them all.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #21

Most of them will end up staying in the city. It is the only place they can have the high flying careers that they all express a desire for.
The best they can hope for is to meet a nice country girl who has moved to the city or FOB girl from a more conservative country.

Hell I'm in the same boat, it's one of the reasons I moved to Asia.

Post: #22

(12-04-2017 06:31 PM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 09:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm red-pilling my boys, and I wouldn't be surprised if these young lads are the spearhead of a movement that will come to be mainstream in the next ten years.

Part of it is a spectacular backfiring of the nature worship we've been forced to endure for the last 30 or more years.

It's pretty hard to argue with a guy that says "explain why the male wolves aren't the ones staying in the den to take care of the pups? A lack of feminist theory in wolf school?"

Hey Leonard. if you get the time, I'd love to read a "How I Am Red Pilling My Boys by Leonard D Neubache" Datasheet/Thread in the Family subforum. It would be very cool to learn of your approach to this.

I just realised how my quote sounded. When I wrote "I wouldn't be surprised if these young lads are the spearhead of a movement that will come to be mainstream in the next ten years" I wasn't referring to my own sons.

But I do my best. Honestly the process is not even worthy of a lengthy post. It's actually incredible the lengths the progressive scum have go to in order to indoctrinate the youth against the natural order of things, and the current meme warfare against the progressive-religious-police means that all you have to do is instil your kids with a sense of rebelliousness and much of your work is done for you.

My boys get a similar approach to the one I give my wife. I make blunt and honest observations about the world around them or make jokes that cut at progressive bullshit. But this is just filling in the gaps of what's plain and obvious if you don't have a legion of dickheads papering hundreds of layers of prog bullshit over it.

My oldest boy is already making Hitler memes and calling me a feminist when we rib each other, and none of that came from me specifically.

You know what they say. Boys will be boys (unless you spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to make them girls).

Post: #23

OK. So I'm doing it right then. I'll check back in if I don't see the Hitler memes by age 9.

Post: #24

A thought that's struck me recently - think about how hard it is for a man in Australia to express socially conservative values - to be anti-gay marriage, to say that men should be the breadwinner, etc. Think about how in urban Australia others will come down on him like a ton of bricks. A guy in an office in Melbourne or Sydney CANNOT say those things if he wants to keep his job and not be a pariah.

If he's white. If he's brown and Muslim and expresses those ideas? Those same critics won't say shit.

If you start wondering why, that is the red pill.

Post: #25

^ & that is why he sticks it to his psychopathic office boss & sycophantic office co-workers who drink soy & menstruate, & he packs it in for the jobsite.

...

Where he gets lectured on how to wear gloves & plastic eyeglasses to keep him safe & healthy, how not to beat up on the wife infront of the children he is providing for, oh & also, how much the union is protecting his lack of work ethic from capitalists.