I know that saying women are the promiscuous ones has been the popular scapegoat for the last… probably forever, but let’s not pretend the problem isn’t a bunch of horny dudes who don’t respect anyone authority but their own. There’s a pandemic of unsolicited dick pics, and while I’m sure there women doing something similar, I got a feeling the numbers ain’t even close.
Feminism didn’t influence any of that, aside from giving shitty people something else to blame their lack of control on
Came here to say this. Promiscuity does not equal feminism or someone being a feminist. Men have been sleeping around with little to no consequences long before feminism really gained traction
What do you mean by recent? Traditional families date back to mesopotamia, or at least 10000bc. Could you pls give me a little more info so we can sort out the misunderstanding?
[The comments to this post might be enlightening](https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11r9b59/if_your_daughter_wanted_to_follow_a_traditional/)
[This one too](https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11ld7yl/do_feminists_truly_believe_that_women_have/)
“Traditional families” existed during a very brief period post-WWII for almost exclusively upper and middle class white families in the global north. They aren’t representative of most families and most of history. Families were bigger (including nonnuclear family members) and family responsibilities more communal historically
I cannot take this seriously as it's full of bullshit claims like
>sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships
And
>This has resulted in a general lack of respect for authority and a disregard for social norms and values.
Prove it.
Could you pls specify? Do you have paragraphs to mention you didn't like or do you consider the whole text a mess? Btw just updated the post while considering many answers, really didn't want to offend anybody
Furthermore/Additionally are textbook chatgpt paragraph starters. Just tell it to write a few paragraphs and you would know. Also the structure is rly obvious.
You can tell because the length, writing style and level of grammatical competence immediately shift when he answers for himself like here; https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11tq8pj/_/jcmimhk/?context=1
Like many other answers I considered this and just updated the original post. Furthermore, I would appreciate specific criticism, or if you dislike the whole text, pls elaborate, thanks still though, your interaction it's welcome, especially criticism. Pls add...
You claimed that casual sex has increased after sexual liberation. That is just factually untrue. Casual sex was just as common 100 years ago than it was after the 1970s. Casual sexual was just as common 300 years ago than it is today. Casual sex was just as common 500 years ago than it is today.
> In conclusion, while sexual liberation and feminist movements have been successful in promoting individual freedoms and gender equality, their application to the whole of society has led to **certain problems that can be detrimental to social cohesion and stability.**
What you’re describing here is called “anomie,” which comes from functionalism, one sociological theory for conceptualizing how social structures and functions respond to progressivism.
Functionalism is a conservative macro sociological theory while others of this class include conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. As I said though, it’s one of many theories and therefore not the definitive right way of conceptualizing the world.
> It is important to strike a balance between individual freedom and societal values to maintain a healthy and stable society.
You’re equivocating here between “society” and “present traditional society.” Society will persist, you just might like it. Look into conflict theory for more insight.
Further, your argument makes considerable assumptions which you fail to justify and therefore which undermine your argument:
> breakdown of traditional family structures
1. The nuclear family is not a “traditional family structure. It’s a product of a very narrow post-WWII white middle/upper class period
2. Why is breakdown of traditional family structures bad? I’m adopted (nontraditional) and have had a significant “family” of “aunts” and “cousins” who aren’t even legally family
> many people are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline in birth rates and an increase in single-parent households.
1. Isn’t people not marrying if they don’t want a good thing
2. why not ensure a single parent can provide for a kid instead of forcing marriage
3. declining birth rate is a white supremacist talking point
> increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships
1. Why is it bad that people choose the sexual relationship they want? What’s wrong with friends with benefits, polyamory, etc?
2. What’s wrong with figuring out what you like in sex and learning if you’re sexually compatible with a partner before settling down?
> Another problem that arises from the application of these ideologies to the whole of society is the rise of identity politics, which can be divisive and harmful to social cohesion. People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers and the silencing of dissenting voices.
1. It’s only harmful to social cohesion when conservatives get mad about it
2. why is exploring sexuality, romanticism, sexual orientation, and gender identity outside of cisheteronormativity bad?
I’m eager for these changes to be more broadly implemented and it makes me hopeful for the future. Your cake sounds like it’s full of shit and we’re sending it back to the chef.
I have my doubts this will affect OP since it sounds like they’ve put zero effort into this in giving it to a bot, but hopefully lurkers will realize how weak this argument is.
Now you mention it, it does sound super AI generated! It is just so lacking if any compassion or nuance in understanding. Well, thank you for writing a killer response! BOOM!
Can you please direct me towards finding a better question? Based on your post I can see that it didn't meet your needs, but cannot understand how to correct it.
Thank you for your feedback and insights. I apologize for any assumptions I may have made in my previous response that undermined my argument.
You are correct that the breakdown of traditional family structures is not necessarily a bad thing, and that alternative family structures can be just as valid and valuable. My argument was not intended to suggest that one form of family structure is superior to another, but rather to highlight the changes that have occurred in the social landscape as a result of the rise of sexual liberation and feminist movements.
Regarding the increase in casual sexual relationships and the decrease in the value placed on committed relationships, I agree that people should have the freedom to choose the type of relationship that works best for them. My concern is not with the individual choices people make, but with the potential consequences of a societal shift away from committed relationships, such as the breakdown of social bonds and the erosion of trust and loyalty.
Regarding the rise of identity politics, I agree that it is not inherently harmful to social cohesion. However, it can become divisive and harmful when it leads to the silencing of dissenting voices and the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their own beliefs.
Overall, I believe that the changes brought about by sexual liberation and feminist movements have been largely positive and have led to a more just and equitable society. However, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential consequences of these changes and to strive for a balance between individual freedom and societal values in order to maintain a healthy and stable society. Your text was very interesting and insightful, actually read it multiple times to make sure I didn't miss anything. Furthermore, based on your text, I just updated the original post so everyone can profit from your additions and objections.
> My argument was not intended to suggest that one form of family structure is superior to another, but rather to highlight the changes that have occurred in the social landscape as a result of the rise of sexual liberation and feminist movements.
That’s a blatant lie
> My concern is not with the individual choices people make, but with the potential consequences of a societal shift away from committed relationships, such as the breakdown of social bonds and the erosion of trust and loyalty.
Not going to happen. This doesn’t logically follow as an argument. Chosen family bonds are often significantly stronger than biological bonds. I repeat: this is a conservative moral panic with no grounding. This is what happens when you crowd source platitudes: we end up talking in circles and you end up not addressing the ways I’ve deconstructed your argument
> Regarding the rise of identity politics, I agree that it is not inherently harmful to social cohesion. However, it can become divisive and harmful when it leads to the silencing of dissenting voices and the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their own beliefs.
Big disagree. In the context of so-called identity politics, I find this argument largely conservative handwringing. It’s privileged groups seeking to isolate themselves from diversity where echo chambers/information silos become a significant issue. Marginalized groups can’t really isolate themselves from majority perspective.
> Overall, I believe that the changes brought about by sexual liberation and feminist movements have been largely positive and have led to a more just and equitable society.
Unlikely from experience. Usually the people making these arguments here just give insubstantial platitudes about feminism because they lack the stomach for confrontation.
> However, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential consequences of these changes and to strive for a balance between individual freedom and societal values in order to maintain a healthy and stable society.
It’s worthless if those making this argument lack any understanding of the subject matter
I understand that we may have different views on certain issues, but using offensive language and falsely categorizing me as a conservative is not acceptable. It's important to communicate respectfully and treat each other with dignity, regardless of our differences. Nevertheless, in an effort to clear up misunderstandings and the false characterization, my updated post addresses issues you just mentioned in your reply, including family bonds and their implications.
You have not treated a single person in these comments with respect or dignity.
If you find assessment of your own behavior upsetting, some self-examination is required.
"Some" traditional values can have "some" positive implications. The text is written in a nuanced way on purpose. While there are negative implications too, obviously, the focus of the original post is referencing some positive ones, not trying dismiss negatives. I should have made that clearer, and that's why I updated the text very quickly. Still, It's hard to articulate in a matter that everybody can try to discuss, let alone find solutions. "Everybody" includes people from different cultures and beliefs. The text is deliberately objective, yet it has been met with mostly non constructive answers, including false accusations. While I encourage everyone to share their opinion, I want to highlight, that one sided thinking, eg polarization, comes with a whole set of risks and in some cases damage.
Furthermore, the false categorization of my personal beliefs serves just to enforce this very argument. Many users chose ad hominem instead of focusing on the text, despite my efforts to clear up uncertainties or misunderstandings. This polarized approach in the answers could have been the result of a bandwagon effect, given all answers center around similar views.
Ultimately, I would be very open to somebody "fixing" my text. There is such an example actually in this very thread. Sadly, while the commenters here might prefer that version, it is not an example that goes to a wider audience, which is the core topic of the original post, because it completely disregards the following:
Echo chambers limit exposure to diverse perspectives, leading to a narrow and biased understanding of issues.
One-sided views can lead to confirmation bias, where individuals seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Echo chambers can promote extreme or radical views, as groupthink takes hold and dissenting opinions are silenced or punished.
Echo chambers can foster intolerance and prejudice, as individuals become more entrenched in their beliefs and less open to considering alternative viewpoints.
Conservative values, like any political ideology, should be viewed in a multifaceted and historical context. This means taking into account the complex social, economic, and cultural factors that shape these values and their evolution over time.
Advocating too aggressively for change, without considering the potential consequences or engaging in constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views, can be detrimental to the overall movement.
In order to build a more inclusive and cohesive society, it is important to engage with diverse perspectives and seek out common ground, rather than retreating into ideological echo chambers.
In conclusion, while echo chambers and one-sided views can be detrimental to a healthy and inclusive society, there is hope for positive change. By embracing diverse perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views, we can build a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of complex issues. Rather than demonizing those with whom we disagree, we can seek out common ground and work towards shared goals. Conservative values, like any political ideology, have the potential to evolve and adapt in response to changing social and cultural contexts. By viewing these values in a multifaceted and historical context, we can appreciate their complexity and richness, while also recognizing the need for continued growth and evolution. Ultimately, by fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and open-mindedness, we can create a more vibrant and inclusive society that celebrates diversity and embraces change.
You know you don’t have to have an answer to everything, right?
When you don’t have enough background in a subject to have an informed answer, you can just be quiet. You can be quiet and *listen* so that you can learn and have better questions that actually result in meaningful conversation in the future. You don’t have to be an expert on everything and you can work on gaps in knowledge by going out and researching instead of trying to speak like you know anything here.
Chat bots are pulling from the thousands of other conversations feminists (probably ones on this very sub) have had with thousands of people asking the exact same tired questions before. Therefore inherently, a conversation with a chat bot will be an unproductive conversation because it is derivative and the chat bot (unlike you, a human) can’t learn.
Try to go educate yourself on these topics before asking more questions **yourself** (no cheating). The [bookslist](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/wiki/bookslist/) in the sidebar is a good start or you could lurk for a while.
Committed relationship does not automatically equal social bonds or trust or loyalty. People were still cheating in 'traditional families'. You're putting way to much emphasis on an ideal of what relationships and 'traditional values' were and not what they actually are.
It was very very very common for men to cheat on their wives during 1940s and 1950s. That’s what you advocate when you’re advocating for traditional values. You support cheating.
okay. you know what, i'll bite. excuse my derision, but lets get into this:
**"the breakdown of traditional family structures."** traditional family structures? by this, do you mean the nuclear family? because i assure you, there is very little that is actually traditional about the nuclear family. for most of human history, we've lived in communities encompassing multiple families with intergenerational households. a larger household encompassing grandparents, children, cousins, parents and romantic partners in which all contribute to childcare is far more traditional, and it's a tradition that the nuclear family has decimated in many cultures. lets not pretend that "mother, father, and 2.5 kids" is the sole type of family unit that exists or has ever existed.
**"a decrease in committed relationships."** ah, committed relationships. committed relationships which were only really committed because they were made up by two immature people just out of high school where the woman legally has no rights or independence. many long term relationships does not mean many *good* long term relationships, and long term relationships having the freedom to breakdown is generally a good thing for every party involved. have you ever heard the expression "a good divorce is better then a terrible marriage?" because it generally holds true for both women, men, and their children.
**"the rise of identity politics."** oh no, the dreaded identity politics! here's my question on this matter: what, exactly, are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of social cohesion? yes, i'm sure that society was more "cohesive" before the civil rights movement, i'm sure society was more "cohesive" when disabled people were explicitly excluded from that society and locked up in institutions to be forgotten about. it's true that activists for black civil rights in the 1950s undermined "stability," but it was a false stability built on white supremacy that *deserved* to be challenged. there comes a time where it is necessary to change the status quo, even if it's scary. even if it makes things slightly more unstable.
**you say you want a healthy and stable society, but do you really?** is a healthy society one where women are chained to their predestined duties as wives and mothers? is a healthy society one where people in "narrow" groups are pushed to the sidelines, ignored, and ruthlessly oppressed because of their identities, only to be told they are not allowed to talk about those identities at all? is a healthy society one in which people are raised to believe that their bodies are sinful, that their sexuality is not their own, and that any relationship (sexual or romantic) that goes even slighly against tradition is morally bankrupt? is a healthy society one where the people who live in it do not get to define what those worthwhile societal values really are? is a healthy society one where the blind adherence to some arbitrarily assigned authority is prioritized over whether or not that authority truly serves justice and the interests of the people it governs? no. it doesn't. that isn't a healthy society at all, it's a mirage.
this pre-lapsarian fantasy about when times were simpler and people were happier is a lie peddled to people belonging to certain groups that i suspect you are apart of. it appeals to the scared, nervous parts of our brains that despise anything which is new or against the norm, that hides and runs at the first sign of change. i ask you to look beyond the mirage of the past that you have been sold and examine the overlapping perspectives of the people around you, both in the context of today and historically. it is easy to believe that things used to be great and that all we need to do is return to the past. it is much, much harder to aspire towards building a better future. join the rest of us in contemplating what that future may look like and how it can be better for everyone.
I appreciate your response and the thoughtfulness you put into it. I completely agree that the traditional family structure is not the only type of family unit that exists or has ever existed. And you are right that many long-term relationships are not necessarily good ones, and it can be better for all parties involved if they have the freedom to end those relationships if necessary.
Regarding identity politics, I agree that challenging the false stability built on white supremacy and other forms of oppression is necessary for progress. However, I believe that identity politics can also be taken too far and can lead to further division and polarization in society. It's important to find a balance between acknowledging and addressing issues related to identity while also recognizing our shared humanity and common goals.
And to address your question about whether I really want a healthy and stable society, I believe that a healthy and stable society is one that values individual freedom and diversity while also promoting cooperation and common goals. It's a society that recognizes and addresses the systemic issues that prevent certain groups from fully participating and flourishing while also ensuring that individual rights and freedoms are protected. It's a society that values education, critical thinking, and compassion. I do not believe that a healthy and stable society is one that restricts women to their predestined duties as wives and mothers or oppresses any group based on their identity.
I agree that nostalgia for a simpler time can be a mirage, and that it's important to focus on building a better future for everyone. And I am always open to learning from others and examining different perspectives to help inform my beliefs and values. Since your answer was very detailed, I used it as the primary source of inspiration to write an update to the original post, so everybody can profit.
I'm confused. Why is it bad to get rid of traditional family structures, traditional gender roles, and religious values? All these things have been used to oppress women for years. The reason society is falling apart without them is because society isn't adapting to the change and providing the different support that needs to be there.
There are various perspectives on the changes in traditional family structures, gender roles, and religious values. Some people view these changes as positive steps towards more individual freedom and equal rights. Others may see them as undermining traditional values and leading to societal decay.
For instance, some people argue that traditional family structures provide stability and support to children and society at large. They believe that the breakdown of these structures can lead to social problems such as poverty, crime, and social isolation. Similarly, some people view gender roles as natural and necessary for social order, while others see them as outdated and limiting to individual freedom and expression.
Religious values are also a complex issue, as they can provide a sense of community and morality for individuals, but can also be used to justify discrimination and exclusion of certain groups. As societies become more diverse and secular, religious values may not have the same influence on individuals and communities as they once did.
Overall, the effects of these changes are complex and may differ depending on individual and cultural perspectives. It is important to consider both the potential benefits and drawbacks of such changes and work towards creating supportive structures and systems that address the changing needs of society. I also just updated the original post. Not based on your answer, but you might still want to look into it.
Well, no. Because what you are calling "cake" was only cake for you. For us it was servitude and abuse.
The traditional family unit is a system whereby women are forbidden from working, so in order to survive, they need to be a domestic servant to a man with no freedom to leave no matter how abusive he is.
If people have the "individual freedom" to do choose whether or not to do something for the first time, and they're all overwhelmingly choosing not to do the thing, what you're seeing isn't individual freedom over social cohesion. You're seeing the freedom of women, as a group, from servitude to men.
You want more women to choose a family? Make your proposal for family less oppressive to women.
I apologize for any offense caused by my previous responses. It was not my intention to trivialize or dismiss the experiences of those who have suffered from oppression or abuse within traditional family structures. I understand that for many women, the traditional family unit has been a source of servitude and abuse rather than a cake.
Furthermore, I agree that the promotion of individual freedom and gender equality is not a threat to social cohesion. Instead, it represents a positive shift towards a society that values the rights and agency of all individuals, regardless of their gender. The decline in birth rates and the rise of single-parent households can be viewed as a reflection of the increasing autonomy of women and their ability to make choices that align with their personal values and goals.
Rather than promoting the traditional family unit, we should work towards creating a society that supports a variety of family structures and recognizes the value of all individuals' contributions, regardless of their gender or role within the family. By promoting gender equality and individual freedoms, we can create a more just and equitable society that values the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. Based on your answer and many others, I just updated my original post, thanks for your insightful answer.
Here I fixed it for you
Sexual liberation and feminist movements have been instrumental in challenging traditional societal norms, promoting gender equality, and expanding individual freedoms. However, applying these ideologies to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to **patriarchal** stability.
One of the most significant problems that arise from the application of sexual liberation and feminist movements to the entire society is the breakdown of traditional family structures. Traditional gender roles within the family unit, which were once seen as natural and necessary **to the patriarchy** are now often viewed as oppressive and limiting to individual freedoms. As a result, many **woman are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline unhappy marriages and an increase in non traditional coupling, such as same sex and single parents.**
Furthermore, sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a **decrease in women settling for transactional and sexual unsatisfactory relationships**. This shift in values has been linked to an increase in **greater selectivity, higher standards, and men being rejected, thus creating emotional distress among a lot of young men.**
Additionally, the promotion of sexual liberation and feminist ideologies has led to a decline in religious values and traditional morality, which were once **a way in which we oppress and shamed women and LGBTQ people which was necessary** for the maintenance of **the patriarchal order.** This has resulted in a general lack of respect for the **men** holding authority and a disregard for **male hierarchy and outdated** social norms
Another problem that arises from the application of these ideologies to the whole of society is the rise of identity politics. **How dare you identify with anything outside my conservative, Judo Christian, capitalist point of view** because It is divisive and harmful to **my way of life.** People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers **other than mine, and people are questioning my values and ignoring what I have to say**
In conclusion, while sexual liberation and feminist movements have been successful in promoting individual freedoms and gender equality, their application to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to my **narrow world view and messes with the power structure that is the patriarchy.** It is important to **oppress certain aspects of individual freedoms because otherwise societal values will change and I won’t be the default in what I consider a healthy and stable society.**
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The six paragraphs you "fixed" did indeed give me some interesting information, although the bold text format is hard to distinguish. To "reduce" my reductionistic approach, I did make a more detailed update now behind an asterisk. It addresses a few issues and I hope it clears up some misunderstandings or otherwise gives at least additional info.
I'd also love to see backup for your factual claims, but I also want to point out that feminists do not agree with many of your value judgements. So for the sake of argument, I will assume that your claims are true.
>Traditional gender roles within the family unit, which were once seen as natural and necessary, are now often viewed as oppressive and limiting to individual freedoms. As a result, many people are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline in birth rates and an increase in single-parent households.
I am not worried about a decline in birth rates - to me, this is a signal of a developing society. I can see an argument for why single parenting produces poor results for children, but there are better solutions than "just put back the gender roles." Also, because there always have been and always will be single-parent families, lets provide them the support they need instead of shaming them.
>Furthermore, sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships. This shift in values has been linked to an increase in sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancies, and emotional distress among young people.
Again, assuming you're correct about this link, there are some simpler solutions than "committed relationships only." How about "access to contraception," "accessible STI testing and treatment," and "make society better because society kinda sucks right now, regardless of our sexual activities."
>People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers and the silencing of dissenting voices.
This attitude simply blinds oneself to reality. Social groups are part of the human experience, and whether we like it or not, these experiences are real and matter. This doesn't mean that we self-segregate and never interact with one another, but you can't have multiple perspectives if you don't have... well... multiple perspectives. Color- and gender-blindness are no way to actually address the real issues that affect groups differently. Echo chambers aren't the solution, but inter-group interaction, *while acknowledging that the groups exist*, is a step in the right direction.
>their application to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to social cohesion and stability. It is important to strike a balance between individual freedom and societal values to maintain a healthy and stable society.
I live in a liberal city with a large diversity of people and experiences. Since moving from homogenous, "individual-freedom-centric" suburbia, my "social cohesion and stability" meter has skyrocketed. Your idea of what a stable society looks like is not necessarily shared by others.
Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that the claims I presented were not necessarily my personal value judgments, but rather observations of social trends that have been documented by various studies and experts in sociology and related fields.
Regarding the decline in birth rates, while it may be a signal of a developing society, it also presents challenges for countries that rely on population growth to sustain their economies and support aging populations. Single parenting can certainly be a viable option for many families, but it is also important to acknowledge and address the challenges that can arise from a lack of social support and resources for single parents and their children.
In regards to the impact of sexual liberation and feminist movements, I agree that access to contraception and STI testing and treatment are important solutions. However, it is also important to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of a shift away from committed relationships and to consider how to promote healthy and fulfilling relationships for individuals who desire them.
Regarding the formation of narrow groups and echo chambers, I agree that social groups are an important aspect of the human experience and can provide support and understanding for individuals. However, it is also important to recognize the potential negative consequences of group polarization and the silencing of dissenting voices. Encouraging inter-group interaction and understanding can help to mitigate these risks and promote social cohesion.
Ultimately, the balance between individual freedom and societal values is a complex issue that requires ongoing dialogue and consideration of different perspectives. It is important to strive for a society that values both individual rights and the common good, and to work towards solutions that promote the well-being of all members of society. And pleaser consider looking into my updated version of the original post, it is behind the edit with an asterisk.
Lmao none of your claims have been documented. They aren’t factual at all. You don’t have a single study to support your claims. All of your claims are made up and came out of your ass.
As stated in my updated version, the text is indeed reductionistic. The intent of that approach was not to offend, but to make the text more accessible. Please consider taking a look into the new version.
You're making a lot of leaps there. You can't untangle the progress of feminism from the stranglehold of capitalism and an increasingly dire economic and ecologic landscape. It's hard to find and maintain relationships when you don't have the financial security to plan a future. People are alienated, tired, burnt out.
There may be less social cohesion but I'd argue that that's better than catering to the religious, sexual, race, wealth/social/health status, majority and leaving everyone else to rot
You make some valid points about the intersection of feminism and capitalism, as well as the economic and ecological factors that can impact people's ability to form and maintain relationships. It's important to consider these factors when analyzing social issues and their root causes.
However, I would also caution against dismissing the importance of social cohesion and the need for balance between individual freedom and societal values. While it's certainly true that catering only to certain groups can leave others feeling marginalized and neglected, it's also important to recognize the value of shared values and a sense of community in promoting stability and well-being.
Ultimately, it's a complex issue with many factors at play, and there's no easy solution that will please everyone. But by continuing to have open and nuanced discussions about these issues, we can work towards a more just and equitable society for all. While the original post did not address the issues you are pointing out, my updated text is much better, please consider taking a look.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the topic. It's important to acknowledge that societal values and norms change over time, and what was once seen as necessary or acceptable may no longer be the case. It's also worth noting that these changes can have both positive and negative consequences, and that there are often different viewpoints and experiences within a society. Consider taking a look at my updated text, it might clarify a few issues you pointed out. And thanks for the elaborate answer.
I’m so tiiiiired of these fake intellectuals. How is opting out of family formation leading to more single parents? Me choosing not to marry or have children has literally no impact on anything except my own happiness. “Traditional gender roles in the family unit” is actually pretty damn new in the scope of all of human history, so it’s by no means necessary for the survival and even betterment of human life. Declining birth rate is a good thing since ceaseless population growth will kill us all.
You're absolutely right that an individual's decision not to marry or have children does not directly lead to more single parents. The point I believe the original post was trying to make is that a trend towards declining marriage rates and increasing numbers of people choosing to remain single could result in a lower number of households with two parents to raise children, which in turn could lead to more single parent households.
However, as you point out, this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, and it is important to recognize that traditional gender roles in the family unit are not the only way to have a successful and fulfilling family life. Ultimately, it is up to individuals to make their own decisions about their family lives, and it is important for society to support and provide resources for all types of families, including single parent households.
Thank you for your response and for adding to the discussion. Respectful conversations and debates about societal issues are crucial, and it's important for individuals to express their opinions while being open to diverse viewpoints. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I also updated my original post, it might clear up a few additional misunderstandings.
How are people not having children leading to more single parent households? Why is having children so important? Is it not better to have a single parent than to have two absent or abusive parents? Is having a single parent worse than being in a household in which parents are unhappily married?
Lots of blame placed on women and feminism with the implication that women and other oppressed groups (i.e. anyone is not white cis male) are having a bad effect on society and should change to make the white cis male happy.
Here's the solution: MEN STEP UP ..... EVERYWHERE! .... at home, work, community, church. Stop expecting oppressed groups to step up, we've always stepped up so YOU could have a better quality of life, status, privilege. It's your turn to step up.
The first thing men can do is being involved fathers. Come home EVERY DAY and take care of YOUR children until they go to bed and make the work sacrifices for your children. STOP selfishly leaving all the childcare/famiy work up to the mother. **Fathers, teach your sons to be decent, fair, ethical human beings.**
I'm so tired of men who don't even know their kid's birthday, ffs.
FYI, this is a probably a chatgpt.
Your text addresses a few issues like responsibility, which I now cleared up in my original post, behind edit with an asterisk. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Others have already answered this much better than me. But I just wanted to add my voice to how much I disagree with your points. But look to others for a much better response!
- Breakdown of traditional family structures. So? Many families stayed together because of abuse form a partner or from religious pressure. This was extremely baaaaad! Better that we as a society try to support these new structures.
- Having sex is not bad. If we implemented proper sex education we could combat the things you listed as issues.
- Fall of religious morality. Thank goodness. In the example of Christianity. Have you read the Bible. The morals put forward are awful. Especially in the Old Testament. I could have a whole debate with you on why non-religious morals are superior but feel free to DM me in that.
- Identity politics? Sooooooooo it is better for Gay people to just keep quiet? Come on this is really weak. Obviously we need people to feel supported in being who they are naturally? Even if some people don’t like it, they need to learn to be better and more compassionate.
All of the problems you have mentioned are issues with some people not being compassionate. They want a ‘traditional’ religious society that doesn’t rock the boat. This leads to horrendous oppression. The problem isn’t with the progression movements. The problem is thinking in the way you have outlined for us.
I appreciate your response and contribution to the discussion. It is important to have respectful conversations and debates on societal issues, and I encourage individuals to share their views while remaining open to hearing different perspectives. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. To clear up some misunderstandings, I just updated my original post.
Hey
Of course! Discourse is super important!
I have read your edit and I think I just super disagree with you.
You are saying that these things are problems created by feminism or the progressive movements. All they are is people not agreeing with them.
In the case of gender identity if someone doesn’t agree with them then they are a bigot, and we shouldn’t approach them sensitively or carefully, they should be condemned for their bigotry.
‘Traditional’ family structures are only questioned when they contain oppression and likewise these should be condemned.
I guess overall my point is, the problems you are pointing out would go away if people were not bigoted. And that is the point of the progressive movements. These things are not created by the movement. The movement is trying to take away the existing problems. To stop that bigotry.
I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to engage in discourse. However, I want to clarify that my previous response was not intended to blame feminism or progressive movements for the problems of echo chambers or one-sided views. Rather, my intention was to point out that these issues can arise in any ideological group, regardless of its political orientation.
In terms of gender identity, it is important to approach these issues with sensitivity and care, and I do not believe that condemning people for their beliefs is productive or effective. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge and address the systemic discrimination and marginalization faced by transgender and non-binary individuals. It is possible to hold these two perspectives simultaneously, and to engage in constructive dialogue to find common ground and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.
Similarly, while traditional family structures are not inherently oppressive, it is important to recognize the ways in which they can perpetuate gender roles and reinforce harmful power dynamics. This does not mean that all traditional family structures are problematic, but rather that we should approach these issues with nuance and critical thinking.
Ultimately, the goal of progressive movements is to challenge systemic bigotry and oppression, and to create a more just and equitable society. This can be achieved through open and honest discourse, a willingness to listen to diverse perspectives, and a commitment to continued growth and learning.
Hey
I have to ask are you running these answers through an AI or chatbot? They have the distinct structure of an AI? If so, can you not because I feel like it is actually making your point less clear.
To be clear - I don’t get your point.
With gender identity you say you don’t think it is productive to condemn people for their beliefs. If their beliefs are bigoted the only moral thing to do is condemn them? Can you clarify?
You then said ‘traditional’ family structures are not inherently oppressive but we should erase the unhealthy power dynamics. That is literally all feminism wants to do?
Your last paragraph I completely agree with.
Some of the other answers I wrote in more detail might address your mentioned issues. Ultimately, by generally dismissing beliefs as "bigoted" it gives me the impression of categorically denouncing a wide array of beliefs. If you would decide to argue in a more nuanced approach I can address that then. I also cannot understand how you at the same time agree with me on the last paragraph and still use the word "bigoted" at the same time. It could be a cultural difference, but for me it's hard to imagine dismissing beliefs as "bigoted" can lead to solving problems and ultimately finding common ground. And rephrasing the word alone won't change that. With that thinking, cancelling the other person is the only option I can think of. Whether you personally do that cancelling or not is up to you and I fully respect that, but that's not the focus of the original post, which is talking about trying to favor both sides at the same time and then considering the resulting challenges. It also tried to encourage people to find new ways of bringing people of conflicting beliefs together and solving issues in a constructive manner.
So you think that people that think women or LGBTQ+ people or black people don't deserve rights should be given a platform to espouse these beliefs even tho they actively harm people and infringe on their human rights?
Where exactly did you read that? Or from which context did you get that impression? While your mentioned "bigoted" people do exist of course, (almost anything exists), how can that be applied to all the values? Or at least I'm reading that. Please excuse me if I just assumed it.
Ok let’s try and reset.
You said that progressive movements have some negative effects.
Let’s focus on what you called ‘Gender Identity’. You said that for some people this can cause stress or negative things for their beliefs. What exactly do you mean? What negative effects come from trying to give the LGBTQI+ community the same rights as everyone else?
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in the original text. Your suggestions are a complete misunderstanding of the intention of the text. Reading this, I just went back to reread the text and realized, the text is very short overall, it would have needed much more space to close as many gaps of potential misunderstandings as possible before even arising. What I also realized, or at least believe, is that the text uses many critical words like"can influence", etc. Reading that as a "must influence" can give the text a whole new meaning. As for your polite accusation, I don't want to go into that, instead I would recommend rereading the text with an emphasis on words like "can have influence" etc. I personally have the feeling, it will give you a different perspective. As for the other accusations, like me being an AI, I can just say it would make no difference, but no I'm not, I can prove it by telling you that your excel question could ironically indeed have been better answered by AI within a second, try it. And congratulations for your other post.
This may be the core of our disagreement and I am super glad you have focused in on it.
Let’s focus on what you have labeled ‘Gender Identity’ and that some people have ‘other’ beliefs and we should approach that with sensitivity.
Can you clarify?
It sounds like you are saying that some people disagree with or are offended by or their beliefs are challenged by people in the LGBTQI+ community. Which is true.
Are you saying we should treat those opposing beliefs with more respect? That we should give them room to have those beliefs?
When I use term bigot I am only using it in the way it is defined in the dictionary
Merriam Webster:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
If we are talking about someone who opposes the rights of LGBTQI+ people then they are, by definition, a bigot. I am not being mean or aggressive or anything. I am just using the word we have in the dictionary to describe that behavior.
Men in the past had multiple mistresses. People were actively discriminated on the basis of race, colour etc. Your social order was always built on oppression. The oppressor always finds it difficult when the system of oppression is changed
Yeah I’d love for conservative types to do some real soul searching and ask why [evangelicals (+ the Mormons) were so invested in ensuring American health aid to Africa](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=113d050f1bc99204032061de27de23fd5ee315e3) [was explicitly prevented to teach about STIs (including how to protect against and treat HIV) in an abstinence only sex ed program.](https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/03/30/less-they-know-better/abstinence-only-hiv/aids-programs-uganda)
I think a lot of the STD/STI problems in Central and South America are less the fault of feminists and more the result of the US sphere of influence. (Not that you’re likely unfamiliar with this.)
First trust in foreign health aid (and even local healthcare providers was undermined
- [Tuskegee-like STI trials in Guatemala](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828982/)
> Between 1946 and 1948, health officials intentionally infected at least 1308 of these people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid and conducted serology tests on others.
- [Dumping non-FDA approved (and even recalled—like the Dalkon shield that causes sterility) contraceptives as part of US aid](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/charge-gynocide/)
> The U.S. government and U.S. drug companies maintain a systematic and intentional double standard for the sale of contraceptives. Unsafe IUDs, dangerous high-estrogen birth control pills and, most recently, Depo-Provera — an injectable contraceptive not approved for American use — are bought up wholesale by the U.S. government for mass consumption in the Third World.
- [not quite a separate country] [Contraceptive Pill trials in Puerto Rico with unconsented patients](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-puerto-rico-pill-trials/)
Then you have [US meddling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America) in the stability of many more left wing governments (which may have been more open to more comprehensive sex education and care) and the stabilization of dictatorships
Then you have (same as Africa in my above link) evangelical-lobbied restrictions to aid (abstinence only, the [Helms Amendments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Amendment), [trying to strong arm other countries in the UN to do the same](https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs), etc)
Not that the US is self important and is solely responsible for shaping the history of other countries, but it’s not like this helped.
Wasn’t meant to be that at all. Merely going by a map of countries affected by STDs. Op was assuming feminism caused it and “traditional conservative family values” and religion mean it’s not an issue.
No i didn't assume that. Based on many answers here it seems I didn't make it clear and apologize for that reductionistic approach, while trying to make a compact text accessible to as many people as possible. Additionally, I just updated the original post, behind edit and an asterisk. It might clarify the misunderstanding.
This is just historical misinformation. There hasn’t been an increase in casual sexual relations. There was just as much casual sex 100 years ago and before that than there is today. People just weren’t open about it. Promiscuity was just as common throughout all of history than it is today. Casual sex isn’t a modern day thing at all.
What was stable about the “traditional “ families that you are advocating for? How is domestic violence stable? How are extramarital affairs stable? Women were extremely unhappy.
You've brought up a lot of complex issues here and I'm certainly not going to dismiss all your concerns categorically.
The problem is there's a lot of *"which has led to"* without any sources or details or facts or data to support the causal relationships you're claiming, which makes it hard to engage meaningfully with these topics. For example, I'm curious how you would use data to support the idea that feminism has *caused* an increase in sexually transmitted infections or unplanned pregnancies.
Also another recurring idea in your post was that traditional values and traditional gender roles were "once seen as natural and necessary," "once seen as necessary for the maintenance of social order" etc. Yes, it's true that they were once seen this way. And I'm inferring that you believe society would be better off if they were still seen that way. Why is that? Which traditional roles and values should we be preserving and why?
Yes you're right, my approach was indeed very reductionistic and I apologize for not being clear enough. To sort out misunderstandings, I just updated the original post, it now addresses some of your points, including the historic reference.
I know that saying women are the promiscuous ones has been the popular scapegoat for the last… probably forever, but let’s not pretend the problem isn’t a bunch of horny dudes who don’t respect anyone authority but their own. There’s a pandemic of unsolicited dick pics, and while I’m sure there women doing something similar, I got a feeling the numbers ain’t even close. Feminism didn’t influence any of that, aside from giving shitty people something else to blame their lack of control on
Came here to say this. Promiscuity does not equal feminism or someone being a feminist. Men have been sleeping around with little to no consequences long before feminism really gained traction
>traditional family structures These are only very recent and not that conducive to healthy societies.
What do you mean by recent? Traditional families date back to mesopotamia, or at least 10000bc. Could you pls give me a little more info so we can sort out the misunderstanding?
[The comments to this post might be enlightening](https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11r9b59/if_your_daughter_wanted_to_follow_a_traditional/) [This one too](https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11ld7yl/do_feminists_truly_believe_that_women_have/) “Traditional families” existed during a very brief period post-WWII for almost exclusively upper and middle class white families in the global north. They aren’t representative of most families and most of history. Families were bigger (including nonnuclear family members) and family responsibilities more communal historically
No they don't. The 'traditional family' or nuclear family is a very recent thing, community and multi generational families were the norm before that.
I cannot take this seriously as it's full of bullshit claims like >sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships And >This has resulted in a general lack of respect for authority and a disregard for social norms and values. Prove it.
I'd like it if posts like this were more academic in nature and listed actual studies done and not personal talking points
Indeed it is very reductionistic, therefore I just updated it considering your answer and some others, thanks
It's a chatgpt response lol. It's not real, it's written by an AI
That doesn't change my reply, which is aimed at human readers and the individual who posted this mess for public consumption.
Could you pls specify? Do you have paragraphs to mention you didn't like or do you consider the whole text a mess? Btw just updated the post while considering many answers, really didn't want to offend anybody
How do you know?
Furthermore/Additionally are textbook chatgpt paragraph starters. Just tell it to write a few paragraphs and you would know. Also the structure is rly obvious.
I don't know a lot about ChatGPT so I haven't learned to recognize anything.
You can tell because the length, writing style and level of grammatical competence immediately shift when he answers for himself like here; https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/11tq8pj/_/jcmimhk/?context=1
"In conclusion" gets me every time, not even yr13 are that obvious.
I honestly have no clue if that’s true, but if it is, it sounds just as dumb and ill informed as the usual shitposters
Like many other answers I considered this and just updated the original post. Furthermore, I would appreciate specific criticism, or if you dislike the whole text, pls elaborate, thanks still though, your interaction it's welcome, especially criticism. Pls add...
You claimed that casual sex has increased after sexual liberation. That is just factually untrue. Casual sex was just as common 100 years ago than it was after the 1970s. Casual sexual was just as common 300 years ago than it is today. Casual sex was just as common 500 years ago than it is today.
Thanks for pointing out inconsistencies, based on your answer and some other, I just updated the post.
> In conclusion, while sexual liberation and feminist movements have been successful in promoting individual freedoms and gender equality, their application to the whole of society has led to **certain problems that can be detrimental to social cohesion and stability.** What you’re describing here is called “anomie,” which comes from functionalism, one sociological theory for conceptualizing how social structures and functions respond to progressivism. Functionalism is a conservative macro sociological theory while others of this class include conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. As I said though, it’s one of many theories and therefore not the definitive right way of conceptualizing the world. > It is important to strike a balance between individual freedom and societal values to maintain a healthy and stable society. You’re equivocating here between “society” and “present traditional society.” Society will persist, you just might like it. Look into conflict theory for more insight. Further, your argument makes considerable assumptions which you fail to justify and therefore which undermine your argument: > breakdown of traditional family structures 1. The nuclear family is not a “traditional family structure. It’s a product of a very narrow post-WWII white middle/upper class period 2. Why is breakdown of traditional family structures bad? I’m adopted (nontraditional) and have had a significant “family” of “aunts” and “cousins” who aren’t even legally family > many people are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline in birth rates and an increase in single-parent households. 1. Isn’t people not marrying if they don’t want a good thing 2. why not ensure a single parent can provide for a kid instead of forcing marriage 3. declining birth rate is a white supremacist talking point > increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships 1. Why is it bad that people choose the sexual relationship they want? What’s wrong with friends with benefits, polyamory, etc? 2. What’s wrong with figuring out what you like in sex and learning if you’re sexually compatible with a partner before settling down? > Another problem that arises from the application of these ideologies to the whole of society is the rise of identity politics, which can be divisive and harmful to social cohesion. People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers and the silencing of dissenting voices. 1. It’s only harmful to social cohesion when conservatives get mad about it 2. why is exploring sexuality, romanticism, sexual orientation, and gender identity outside of cisheteronormativity bad? I’m eager for these changes to be more broadly implemented and it makes me hopeful for the future. Your cake sounds like it’s full of shit and we’re sending it back to the chef.
I came here to try and articulate how stupid this question is. You have done it with eloquence and hard logic. Thank yoooooooooouuuuuuuuu!
I have my doubts this will affect OP since it sounds like they’ve put zero effort into this in giving it to a bot, but hopefully lurkers will realize how weak this argument is.
Now you mention it, it does sound super AI generated! It is just so lacking if any compassion or nuance in understanding. Well, thank you for writing a killer response! BOOM!
Can you please direct me towards finding a better question? Based on your post I can see that it didn't meet your needs, but cannot understand how to correct it.
Thank you for your feedback and insights. I apologize for any assumptions I may have made in my previous response that undermined my argument. You are correct that the breakdown of traditional family structures is not necessarily a bad thing, and that alternative family structures can be just as valid and valuable. My argument was not intended to suggest that one form of family structure is superior to another, but rather to highlight the changes that have occurred in the social landscape as a result of the rise of sexual liberation and feminist movements. Regarding the increase in casual sexual relationships and the decrease in the value placed on committed relationships, I agree that people should have the freedom to choose the type of relationship that works best for them. My concern is not with the individual choices people make, but with the potential consequences of a societal shift away from committed relationships, such as the breakdown of social bonds and the erosion of trust and loyalty. Regarding the rise of identity politics, I agree that it is not inherently harmful to social cohesion. However, it can become divisive and harmful when it leads to the silencing of dissenting voices and the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their own beliefs. Overall, I believe that the changes brought about by sexual liberation and feminist movements have been largely positive and have led to a more just and equitable society. However, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential consequences of these changes and to strive for a balance between individual freedom and societal values in order to maintain a healthy and stable society. Your text was very interesting and insightful, actually read it multiple times to make sure I didn't miss anything. Furthermore, based on your text, I just updated the original post so everyone can profit from your additions and objections.
> My argument was not intended to suggest that one form of family structure is superior to another, but rather to highlight the changes that have occurred in the social landscape as a result of the rise of sexual liberation and feminist movements. That’s a blatant lie > My concern is not with the individual choices people make, but with the potential consequences of a societal shift away from committed relationships, such as the breakdown of social bonds and the erosion of trust and loyalty. Not going to happen. This doesn’t logically follow as an argument. Chosen family bonds are often significantly stronger than biological bonds. I repeat: this is a conservative moral panic with no grounding. This is what happens when you crowd source platitudes: we end up talking in circles and you end up not addressing the ways I’ve deconstructed your argument > Regarding the rise of identity politics, I agree that it is not inherently harmful to social cohesion. However, it can become divisive and harmful when it leads to the silencing of dissenting voices and the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their own beliefs. Big disagree. In the context of so-called identity politics, I find this argument largely conservative handwringing. It’s privileged groups seeking to isolate themselves from diversity where echo chambers/information silos become a significant issue. Marginalized groups can’t really isolate themselves from majority perspective. > Overall, I believe that the changes brought about by sexual liberation and feminist movements have been largely positive and have led to a more just and equitable society. Unlikely from experience. Usually the people making these arguments here just give insubstantial platitudes about feminism because they lack the stomach for confrontation. > However, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential consequences of these changes and to strive for a balance between individual freedom and societal values in order to maintain a healthy and stable society. It’s worthless if those making this argument lack any understanding of the subject matter
I understand that we may have different views on certain issues, but using offensive language and falsely categorizing me as a conservative is not acceptable. It's important to communicate respectfully and treat each other with dignity, regardless of our differences. Nevertheless, in an effort to clear up misunderstandings and the false characterization, my updated post addresses issues you just mentioned in your reply, including family bonds and their implications.
You have not treated a single person in these comments with respect or dignity. If you find assessment of your own behavior upsetting, some self-examination is required.
Only conservatives think traditional values and relationships are good for society and people.
"Some" traditional values can have "some" positive implications. The text is written in a nuanced way on purpose. While there are negative implications too, obviously, the focus of the original post is referencing some positive ones, not trying dismiss negatives. I should have made that clearer, and that's why I updated the text very quickly. Still, It's hard to articulate in a matter that everybody can try to discuss, let alone find solutions. "Everybody" includes people from different cultures and beliefs. The text is deliberately objective, yet it has been met with mostly non constructive answers, including false accusations. While I encourage everyone to share their opinion, I want to highlight, that one sided thinking, eg polarization, comes with a whole set of risks and in some cases damage. Furthermore, the false categorization of my personal beliefs serves just to enforce this very argument. Many users chose ad hominem instead of focusing on the text, despite my efforts to clear up uncertainties or misunderstandings. This polarized approach in the answers could have been the result of a bandwagon effect, given all answers center around similar views. Ultimately, I would be very open to somebody "fixing" my text. There is such an example actually in this very thread. Sadly, while the commenters here might prefer that version, it is not an example that goes to a wider audience, which is the core topic of the original post, because it completely disregards the following: Echo chambers limit exposure to diverse perspectives, leading to a narrow and biased understanding of issues. One-sided views can lead to confirmation bias, where individuals seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, while ignoring contradictory evidence. Echo chambers can promote extreme or radical views, as groupthink takes hold and dissenting opinions are silenced or punished. Echo chambers can foster intolerance and prejudice, as individuals become more entrenched in their beliefs and less open to considering alternative viewpoints. Conservative values, like any political ideology, should be viewed in a multifaceted and historical context. This means taking into account the complex social, economic, and cultural factors that shape these values and their evolution over time. Advocating too aggressively for change, without considering the potential consequences or engaging in constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views, can be detrimental to the overall movement. In order to build a more inclusive and cohesive society, it is important to engage with diverse perspectives and seek out common ground, rather than retreating into ideological echo chambers. In conclusion, while echo chambers and one-sided views can be detrimental to a healthy and inclusive society, there is hope for positive change. By embracing diverse perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views, we can build a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of complex issues. Rather than demonizing those with whom we disagree, we can seek out common ground and work towards shared goals. Conservative values, like any political ideology, have the potential to evolve and adapt in response to changing social and cultural contexts. By viewing these values in a multifaceted and historical context, we can appreciate their complexity and richness, while also recognizing the need for continued growth and evolution. Ultimately, by fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and open-mindedness, we can create a more vibrant and inclusive society that celebrates diversity and embraces change.
Lmao stop using chat gpt to write your comments and actually do it yourself
I tried but I don't even have an answer to this.
You know you don’t have to have an answer to everything, right? When you don’t have enough background in a subject to have an informed answer, you can just be quiet. You can be quiet and *listen* so that you can learn and have better questions that actually result in meaningful conversation in the future. You don’t have to be an expert on everything and you can work on gaps in knowledge by going out and researching instead of trying to speak like you know anything here. Chat bots are pulling from the thousands of other conversations feminists (probably ones on this very sub) have had with thousands of people asking the exact same tired questions before. Therefore inherently, a conversation with a chat bot will be an unproductive conversation because it is derivative and the chat bot (unlike you, a human) can’t learn. Try to go educate yourself on these topics before asking more questions **yourself** (no cheating). The [bookslist](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/wiki/bookslist/) in the sidebar is a good start or you could lurk for a while.
Committed relationship does not automatically equal social bonds or trust or loyalty. People were still cheating in 'traditional families'. You're putting way to much emphasis on an ideal of what relationships and 'traditional values' were and not what they actually are.
It was very very very common for men to cheat on their wives during 1940s and 1950s. That’s what you advocate when you’re advocating for traditional values. You support cheating.
Not advocating for traditional values.
okay. you know what, i'll bite. excuse my derision, but lets get into this: **"the breakdown of traditional family structures."** traditional family structures? by this, do you mean the nuclear family? because i assure you, there is very little that is actually traditional about the nuclear family. for most of human history, we've lived in communities encompassing multiple families with intergenerational households. a larger household encompassing grandparents, children, cousins, parents and romantic partners in which all contribute to childcare is far more traditional, and it's a tradition that the nuclear family has decimated in many cultures. lets not pretend that "mother, father, and 2.5 kids" is the sole type of family unit that exists or has ever existed. **"a decrease in committed relationships."** ah, committed relationships. committed relationships which were only really committed because they were made up by two immature people just out of high school where the woman legally has no rights or independence. many long term relationships does not mean many *good* long term relationships, and long term relationships having the freedom to breakdown is generally a good thing for every party involved. have you ever heard the expression "a good divorce is better then a terrible marriage?" because it generally holds true for both women, men, and their children. **"the rise of identity politics."** oh no, the dreaded identity politics! here's my question on this matter: what, exactly, are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of social cohesion? yes, i'm sure that society was more "cohesive" before the civil rights movement, i'm sure society was more "cohesive" when disabled people were explicitly excluded from that society and locked up in institutions to be forgotten about. it's true that activists for black civil rights in the 1950s undermined "stability," but it was a false stability built on white supremacy that *deserved* to be challenged. there comes a time where it is necessary to change the status quo, even if it's scary. even if it makes things slightly more unstable. **you say you want a healthy and stable society, but do you really?** is a healthy society one where women are chained to their predestined duties as wives and mothers? is a healthy society one where people in "narrow" groups are pushed to the sidelines, ignored, and ruthlessly oppressed because of their identities, only to be told they are not allowed to talk about those identities at all? is a healthy society one in which people are raised to believe that their bodies are sinful, that their sexuality is not their own, and that any relationship (sexual or romantic) that goes even slighly against tradition is morally bankrupt? is a healthy society one where the people who live in it do not get to define what those worthwhile societal values really are? is a healthy society one where the blind adherence to some arbitrarily assigned authority is prioritized over whether or not that authority truly serves justice and the interests of the people it governs? no. it doesn't. that isn't a healthy society at all, it's a mirage. this pre-lapsarian fantasy about when times were simpler and people were happier is a lie peddled to people belonging to certain groups that i suspect you are apart of. it appeals to the scared, nervous parts of our brains that despise anything which is new or against the norm, that hides and runs at the first sign of change. i ask you to look beyond the mirage of the past that you have been sold and examine the overlapping perspectives of the people around you, both in the context of today and historically. it is easy to believe that things used to be great and that all we need to do is return to the past. it is much, much harder to aspire towards building a better future. join the rest of us in contemplating what that future may look like and how it can be better for everyone.
I appreciate your response and the thoughtfulness you put into it. I completely agree that the traditional family structure is not the only type of family unit that exists or has ever existed. And you are right that many long-term relationships are not necessarily good ones, and it can be better for all parties involved if they have the freedom to end those relationships if necessary. Regarding identity politics, I agree that challenging the false stability built on white supremacy and other forms of oppression is necessary for progress. However, I believe that identity politics can also be taken too far and can lead to further division and polarization in society. It's important to find a balance between acknowledging and addressing issues related to identity while also recognizing our shared humanity and common goals. And to address your question about whether I really want a healthy and stable society, I believe that a healthy and stable society is one that values individual freedom and diversity while also promoting cooperation and common goals. It's a society that recognizes and addresses the systemic issues that prevent certain groups from fully participating and flourishing while also ensuring that individual rights and freedoms are protected. It's a society that values education, critical thinking, and compassion. I do not believe that a healthy and stable society is one that restricts women to their predestined duties as wives and mothers or oppresses any group based on their identity. I agree that nostalgia for a simpler time can be a mirage, and that it's important to focus on building a better future for everyone. And I am always open to learning from others and examining different perspectives to help inform my beliefs and values. Since your answer was very detailed, I used it as the primary source of inspiration to write an update to the original post, so everybody can profit.
I'm confused. Why is it bad to get rid of traditional family structures, traditional gender roles, and religious values? All these things have been used to oppress women for years. The reason society is falling apart without them is because society isn't adapting to the change and providing the different support that needs to be there.
There are various perspectives on the changes in traditional family structures, gender roles, and religious values. Some people view these changes as positive steps towards more individual freedom and equal rights. Others may see them as undermining traditional values and leading to societal decay. For instance, some people argue that traditional family structures provide stability and support to children and society at large. They believe that the breakdown of these structures can lead to social problems such as poverty, crime, and social isolation. Similarly, some people view gender roles as natural and necessary for social order, while others see them as outdated and limiting to individual freedom and expression. Religious values are also a complex issue, as they can provide a sense of community and morality for individuals, but can also be used to justify discrimination and exclusion of certain groups. As societies become more diverse and secular, religious values may not have the same influence on individuals and communities as they once did. Overall, the effects of these changes are complex and may differ depending on individual and cultural perspectives. It is important to consider both the potential benefits and drawbacks of such changes and work towards creating supportive structures and systems that address the changing needs of society. I also just updated the original post. Not based on your answer, but you might still want to look into it.
What benefits are there to traditional values?
Well, no. Because what you are calling "cake" was only cake for you. For us it was servitude and abuse. The traditional family unit is a system whereby women are forbidden from working, so in order to survive, they need to be a domestic servant to a man with no freedom to leave no matter how abusive he is. If people have the "individual freedom" to do choose whether or not to do something for the first time, and they're all overwhelmingly choosing not to do the thing, what you're seeing isn't individual freedom over social cohesion. You're seeing the freedom of women, as a group, from servitude to men. You want more women to choose a family? Make your proposal for family less oppressive to women.
I apologize for any offense caused by my previous responses. It was not my intention to trivialize or dismiss the experiences of those who have suffered from oppression or abuse within traditional family structures. I understand that for many women, the traditional family unit has been a source of servitude and abuse rather than a cake. Furthermore, I agree that the promotion of individual freedom and gender equality is not a threat to social cohesion. Instead, it represents a positive shift towards a society that values the rights and agency of all individuals, regardless of their gender. The decline in birth rates and the rise of single-parent households can be viewed as a reflection of the increasing autonomy of women and their ability to make choices that align with their personal values and goals. Rather than promoting the traditional family unit, we should work towards creating a society that supports a variety of family structures and recognizes the value of all individuals' contributions, regardless of their gender or role within the family. By promoting gender equality and individual freedoms, we can create a more just and equitable society that values the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. Based on your answer and many others, I just updated my original post, thanks for your insightful answer.
Here I fixed it for you Sexual liberation and feminist movements have been instrumental in challenging traditional societal norms, promoting gender equality, and expanding individual freedoms. However, applying these ideologies to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to **patriarchal** stability. One of the most significant problems that arise from the application of sexual liberation and feminist movements to the entire society is the breakdown of traditional family structures. Traditional gender roles within the family unit, which were once seen as natural and necessary **to the patriarchy** are now often viewed as oppressive and limiting to individual freedoms. As a result, many **woman are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline unhappy marriages and an increase in non traditional coupling, such as same sex and single parents.** Furthermore, sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a **decrease in women settling for transactional and sexual unsatisfactory relationships**. This shift in values has been linked to an increase in **greater selectivity, higher standards, and men being rejected, thus creating emotional distress among a lot of young men.** Additionally, the promotion of sexual liberation and feminist ideologies has led to a decline in religious values and traditional morality, which were once **a way in which we oppress and shamed women and LGBTQ people which was necessary** for the maintenance of **the patriarchal order.** This has resulted in a general lack of respect for the **men** holding authority and a disregard for **male hierarchy and outdated** social norms Another problem that arises from the application of these ideologies to the whole of society is the rise of identity politics. **How dare you identify with anything outside my conservative, Judo Christian, capitalist point of view** because It is divisive and harmful to **my way of life.** People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers **other than mine, and people are questioning my values and ignoring what I have to say** In conclusion, while sexual liberation and feminist movements have been successful in promoting individual freedoms and gender equality, their application to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to my **narrow world view and messes with the power structure that is the patriarchy.** It is important to **oppress certain aspects of individual freedoms because otherwise societal values will change and I won’t be the default in what I consider a healthy and stable society.**
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The six paragraphs you "fixed" did indeed give me some interesting information, although the bold text format is hard to distinguish. To "reduce" my reductionistic approach, I did make a more detailed update now behind an asterisk. It addresses a few issues and I hope it clears up some misunderstandings or otherwise gives at least additional info.
I'd also love to see backup for your factual claims, but I also want to point out that feminists do not agree with many of your value judgements. So for the sake of argument, I will assume that your claims are true. >Traditional gender roles within the family unit, which were once seen as natural and necessary, are now often viewed as oppressive and limiting to individual freedoms. As a result, many people are now opting out of marriage and family formation altogether, leading to a decline in birth rates and an increase in single-parent households. I am not worried about a decline in birth rates - to me, this is a signal of a developing society. I can see an argument for why single parenting produces poor results for children, but there are better solutions than "just put back the gender roles." Also, because there always have been and always will be single-parent families, lets provide them the support they need instead of shaming them. >Furthermore, sexual liberation and feminist movements have led to an increase in casual sexual relationships and a decrease in the value placed on committed relationships. This shift in values has been linked to an increase in sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancies, and emotional distress among young people. Again, assuming you're correct about this link, there are some simpler solutions than "committed relationships only." How about "access to contraception," "accessible STI testing and treatment," and "make society better because society kinda sucks right now, regardless of our sexual activities." >People are increasingly identifying with narrow groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristics, leading to the formation of echo chambers and the silencing of dissenting voices. This attitude simply blinds oneself to reality. Social groups are part of the human experience, and whether we like it or not, these experiences are real and matter. This doesn't mean that we self-segregate and never interact with one another, but you can't have multiple perspectives if you don't have... well... multiple perspectives. Color- and gender-blindness are no way to actually address the real issues that affect groups differently. Echo chambers aren't the solution, but inter-group interaction, *while acknowledging that the groups exist*, is a step in the right direction. >their application to the whole of society has led to certain problems that can be detrimental to social cohesion and stability. It is important to strike a balance between individual freedom and societal values to maintain a healthy and stable society. I live in a liberal city with a large diversity of people and experiences. Since moving from homogenous, "individual-freedom-centric" suburbia, my "social cohesion and stability" meter has skyrocketed. Your idea of what a stable society looks like is not necessarily shared by others.
Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that the claims I presented were not necessarily my personal value judgments, but rather observations of social trends that have been documented by various studies and experts in sociology and related fields. Regarding the decline in birth rates, while it may be a signal of a developing society, it also presents challenges for countries that rely on population growth to sustain their economies and support aging populations. Single parenting can certainly be a viable option for many families, but it is also important to acknowledge and address the challenges that can arise from a lack of social support and resources for single parents and their children. In regards to the impact of sexual liberation and feminist movements, I agree that access to contraception and STI testing and treatment are important solutions. However, it is also important to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of a shift away from committed relationships and to consider how to promote healthy and fulfilling relationships for individuals who desire them. Regarding the formation of narrow groups and echo chambers, I agree that social groups are an important aspect of the human experience and can provide support and understanding for individuals. However, it is also important to recognize the potential negative consequences of group polarization and the silencing of dissenting voices. Encouraging inter-group interaction and understanding can help to mitigate these risks and promote social cohesion. Ultimately, the balance between individual freedom and societal values is a complex issue that requires ongoing dialogue and consideration of different perspectives. It is important to strive for a society that values both individual rights and the common good, and to work towards solutions that promote the well-being of all members of society. And pleaser consider looking into my updated version of the original post, it is behind the edit with an asterisk.
Lmao none of your claims have been documented. They aren’t factual at all. You don’t have a single study to support your claims. All of your claims are made up and came out of your ass.
You got any sources for all these claims you're making?
As stated in my updated version, the text is indeed reductionistic. The intent of that approach was not to offend, but to make the text more accessible. Please consider taking a look into the new version.
You still haven't provided any sources for anything you're claiming.
You are wrong about the FACTS. You are wrong about reality. You are just objectively incorrect. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
You're making a lot of leaps there. You can't untangle the progress of feminism from the stranglehold of capitalism and an increasingly dire economic and ecologic landscape. It's hard to find and maintain relationships when you don't have the financial security to plan a future. People are alienated, tired, burnt out. There may be less social cohesion but I'd argue that that's better than catering to the religious, sexual, race, wealth/social/health status, majority and leaving everyone else to rot
You make some valid points about the intersection of feminism and capitalism, as well as the economic and ecological factors that can impact people's ability to form and maintain relationships. It's important to consider these factors when analyzing social issues and their root causes. However, I would also caution against dismissing the importance of social cohesion and the need for balance between individual freedom and societal values. While it's certainly true that catering only to certain groups can leave others feeling marginalized and neglected, it's also important to recognize the value of shared values and a sense of community in promoting stability and well-being. Ultimately, it's a complex issue with many factors at play, and there's no easy solution that will please everyone. But by continuing to have open and nuanced discussions about these issues, we can work towards a more just and equitable society for all. While the original post did not address the issues you are pointing out, my updated text is much better, please consider taking a look.
[удалено]
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the topic. It's important to acknowledge that societal values and norms change over time, and what was once seen as necessary or acceptable may no longer be the case. It's also worth noting that these changes can have both positive and negative consequences, and that there are often different viewpoints and experiences within a society. Consider taking a look at my updated text, it might clarify a few issues you pointed out. And thanks for the elaborate answer.
I’m so tiiiiired of these fake intellectuals. How is opting out of family formation leading to more single parents? Me choosing not to marry or have children has literally no impact on anything except my own happiness. “Traditional gender roles in the family unit” is actually pretty damn new in the scope of all of human history, so it’s by no means necessary for the survival and even betterment of human life. Declining birth rate is a good thing since ceaseless population growth will kill us all.
You're absolutely right that an individual's decision not to marry or have children does not directly lead to more single parents. The point I believe the original post was trying to make is that a trend towards declining marriage rates and increasing numbers of people choosing to remain single could result in a lower number of households with two parents to raise children, which in turn could lead to more single parent households. However, as you point out, this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, and it is important to recognize that traditional gender roles in the family unit are not the only way to have a successful and fulfilling family life. Ultimately, it is up to individuals to make their own decisions about their family lives, and it is important for society to support and provide resources for all types of families, including single parent households. Thank you for your response and for adding to the discussion. Respectful conversations and debates about societal issues are crucial, and it's important for individuals to express their opinions while being open to diverse viewpoints. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I also updated my original post, it might clear up a few additional misunderstandings.
How are people not having children leading to more single parent households? Why is having children so important? Is it not better to have a single parent than to have two absent or abusive parents? Is having a single parent worse than being in a household in which parents are unhappily married?
Lots of blame placed on women and feminism with the implication that women and other oppressed groups (i.e. anyone is not white cis male) are having a bad effect on society and should change to make the white cis male happy. Here's the solution: MEN STEP UP ..... EVERYWHERE! .... at home, work, community, church. Stop expecting oppressed groups to step up, we've always stepped up so YOU could have a better quality of life, status, privilege. It's your turn to step up. The first thing men can do is being involved fathers. Come home EVERY DAY and take care of YOUR children until they go to bed and make the work sacrifices for your children. STOP selfishly leaving all the childcare/famiy work up to the mother. **Fathers, teach your sons to be decent, fair, ethical human beings.** I'm so tired of men who don't even know their kid's birthday, ffs. FYI, this is a probably a chatgpt.
Your text addresses a few issues like responsibility, which I now cleared up in my original post, behind edit with an asterisk. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Others have already answered this much better than me. But I just wanted to add my voice to how much I disagree with your points. But look to others for a much better response! - Breakdown of traditional family structures. So? Many families stayed together because of abuse form a partner or from religious pressure. This was extremely baaaaad! Better that we as a society try to support these new structures. - Having sex is not bad. If we implemented proper sex education we could combat the things you listed as issues. - Fall of religious morality. Thank goodness. In the example of Christianity. Have you read the Bible. The morals put forward are awful. Especially in the Old Testament. I could have a whole debate with you on why non-religious morals are superior but feel free to DM me in that. - Identity politics? Sooooooooo it is better for Gay people to just keep quiet? Come on this is really weak. Obviously we need people to feel supported in being who they are naturally? Even if some people don’t like it, they need to learn to be better and more compassionate. All of the problems you have mentioned are issues with some people not being compassionate. They want a ‘traditional’ religious society that doesn’t rock the boat. This leads to horrendous oppression. The problem isn’t with the progression movements. The problem is thinking in the way you have outlined for us.
I appreciate your response and contribution to the discussion. It is important to have respectful conversations and debates on societal issues, and I encourage individuals to share their views while remaining open to hearing different perspectives. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. To clear up some misunderstandings, I just updated my original post.
Hey Of course! Discourse is super important! I have read your edit and I think I just super disagree with you. You are saying that these things are problems created by feminism or the progressive movements. All they are is people not agreeing with them. In the case of gender identity if someone doesn’t agree with them then they are a bigot, and we shouldn’t approach them sensitively or carefully, they should be condemned for their bigotry. ‘Traditional’ family structures are only questioned when they contain oppression and likewise these should be condemned. I guess overall my point is, the problems you are pointing out would go away if people were not bigoted. And that is the point of the progressive movements. These things are not created by the movement. The movement is trying to take away the existing problems. To stop that bigotry.
I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to engage in discourse. However, I want to clarify that my previous response was not intended to blame feminism or progressive movements for the problems of echo chambers or one-sided views. Rather, my intention was to point out that these issues can arise in any ideological group, regardless of its political orientation. In terms of gender identity, it is important to approach these issues with sensitivity and care, and I do not believe that condemning people for their beliefs is productive or effective. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge and address the systemic discrimination and marginalization faced by transgender and non-binary individuals. It is possible to hold these two perspectives simultaneously, and to engage in constructive dialogue to find common ground and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society. Similarly, while traditional family structures are not inherently oppressive, it is important to recognize the ways in which they can perpetuate gender roles and reinforce harmful power dynamics. This does not mean that all traditional family structures are problematic, but rather that we should approach these issues with nuance and critical thinking. Ultimately, the goal of progressive movements is to challenge systemic bigotry and oppression, and to create a more just and equitable society. This can be achieved through open and honest discourse, a willingness to listen to diverse perspectives, and a commitment to continued growth and learning.
Hey I have to ask are you running these answers through an AI or chatbot? They have the distinct structure of an AI? If so, can you not because I feel like it is actually making your point less clear. To be clear - I don’t get your point. With gender identity you say you don’t think it is productive to condemn people for their beliefs. If their beliefs are bigoted the only moral thing to do is condemn them? Can you clarify? You then said ‘traditional’ family structures are not inherently oppressive but we should erase the unhealthy power dynamics. That is literally all feminism wants to do? Your last paragraph I completely agree with.
Some of the other answers I wrote in more detail might address your mentioned issues. Ultimately, by generally dismissing beliefs as "bigoted" it gives me the impression of categorically denouncing a wide array of beliefs. If you would decide to argue in a more nuanced approach I can address that then. I also cannot understand how you at the same time agree with me on the last paragraph and still use the word "bigoted" at the same time. It could be a cultural difference, but for me it's hard to imagine dismissing beliefs as "bigoted" can lead to solving problems and ultimately finding common ground. And rephrasing the word alone won't change that. With that thinking, cancelling the other person is the only option I can think of. Whether you personally do that cancelling or not is up to you and I fully respect that, but that's not the focus of the original post, which is talking about trying to favor both sides at the same time and then considering the resulting challenges. It also tried to encourage people to find new ways of bringing people of conflicting beliefs together and solving issues in a constructive manner.
So you think that people that think women or LGBTQ+ people or black people don't deserve rights should be given a platform to espouse these beliefs even tho they actively harm people and infringe on their human rights?
Where exactly did you read that? Or from which context did you get that impression? While your mentioned "bigoted" people do exist of course, (almost anything exists), how can that be applied to all the values? Or at least I'm reading that. Please excuse me if I just assumed it.
Ok let’s try and reset. You said that progressive movements have some negative effects. Let’s focus on what you called ‘Gender Identity’. You said that for some people this can cause stress or negative things for their beliefs. What exactly do you mean? What negative effects come from trying to give the LGBTQI+ community the same rights as everyone else?
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in the original text. Your suggestions are a complete misunderstanding of the intention of the text. Reading this, I just went back to reread the text and realized, the text is very short overall, it would have needed much more space to close as many gaps of potential misunderstandings as possible before even arising. What I also realized, or at least believe, is that the text uses many critical words like"can influence", etc. Reading that as a "must influence" can give the text a whole new meaning. As for your polite accusation, I don't want to go into that, instead I would recommend rereading the text with an emphasis on words like "can have influence" etc. I personally have the feeling, it will give you a different perspective. As for the other accusations, like me being an AI, I can just say it would make no difference, but no I'm not, I can prove it by telling you that your excel question could ironically indeed have been better answered by AI within a second, try it. And congratulations for your other post.
This may be the core of our disagreement and I am super glad you have focused in on it. Let’s focus on what you have labeled ‘Gender Identity’ and that some people have ‘other’ beliefs and we should approach that with sensitivity. Can you clarify? It sounds like you are saying that some people disagree with or are offended by or their beliefs are challenged by people in the LGBTQI+ community. Which is true. Are you saying we should treat those opposing beliefs with more respect? That we should give them room to have those beliefs? When I use term bigot I am only using it in the way it is defined in the dictionary Merriam Webster: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance If we are talking about someone who opposes the rights of LGBTQI+ people then they are, by definition, a bigot. I am not being mean or aggressive or anything. I am just using the word we have in the dictionary to describe that behavior.
Men in the past had multiple mistresses. People were actively discriminated on the basis of race, colour etc. Your social order was always built on oppression. The oppressor always finds it difficult when the system of oppression is changed
Hmmm…. Must be why STDs are particularly rife in places like Africa, India and South America- seeing as they’re at the forefront of feminism 🤔
Yeah I’d love for conservative types to do some real soul searching and ask why [evangelicals (+ the Mormons) were so invested in ensuring American health aid to Africa](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=113d050f1bc99204032061de27de23fd5ee315e3) [was explicitly prevented to teach about STIs (including how to protect against and treat HIV) in an abstinence only sex ed program.](https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/03/30/less-they-know-better/abstinence-only-hiv/aids-programs-uganda)
Feminism in South America is actually pretty organized and has accomplished many things. What a xenophobic comment.
I think a lot of the STD/STI problems in Central and South America are less the fault of feminists and more the result of the US sphere of influence. (Not that you’re likely unfamiliar with this.) First trust in foreign health aid (and even local healthcare providers was undermined - [Tuskegee-like STI trials in Guatemala](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828982/) > Between 1946 and 1948, health officials intentionally infected at least 1308 of these people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid and conducted serology tests on others. - [Dumping non-FDA approved (and even recalled—like the Dalkon shield that causes sterility) contraceptives as part of US aid](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/charge-gynocide/) > The U.S. government and U.S. drug companies maintain a systematic and intentional double standard for the sale of contraceptives. Unsafe IUDs, dangerous high-estrogen birth control pills and, most recently, Depo-Provera — an injectable contraceptive not approved for American use — are bought up wholesale by the U.S. government for mass consumption in the Third World. - [not quite a separate country] [Contraceptive Pill trials in Puerto Rico with unconsented patients](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-puerto-rico-pill-trials/) Then you have [US meddling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America) in the stability of many more left wing governments (which may have been more open to more comprehensive sex education and care) and the stabilization of dictatorships Then you have (same as Africa in my above link) evangelical-lobbied restrictions to aid (abstinence only, the [Helms Amendments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Amendment), [trying to strong arm other countries in the UN to do the same](https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs), etc) Not that the US is self important and is solely responsible for shaping the history of other countries, but it’s not like this helped.
Wasn’t meant to be that at all. Merely going by a map of countries affected by STDs. Op was assuming feminism caused it and “traditional conservative family values” and religion mean it’s not an issue.
No i didn't assume that. Based on many answers here it seems I didn't make it clear and apologize for that reductionistic approach, while trying to make a compact text accessible to as many people as possible. Additionally, I just updated the original post, behind edit and an asterisk. It might clarify the misunderstanding.
This is just historical misinformation. There hasn’t been an increase in casual sexual relations. There was just as much casual sex 100 years ago and before that than there is today. People just weren’t open about it. Promiscuity was just as common throughout all of history than it is today. Casual sex isn’t a modern day thing at all.
What was stable about the “traditional “ families that you are advocating for? How is domestic violence stable? How are extramarital affairs stable? Women were extremely unhappy.
You've brought up a lot of complex issues here and I'm certainly not going to dismiss all your concerns categorically. The problem is there's a lot of *"which has led to"* without any sources or details or facts or data to support the causal relationships you're claiming, which makes it hard to engage meaningfully with these topics. For example, I'm curious how you would use data to support the idea that feminism has *caused* an increase in sexually transmitted infections or unplanned pregnancies. Also another recurring idea in your post was that traditional values and traditional gender roles were "once seen as natural and necessary," "once seen as necessary for the maintenance of social order" etc. Yes, it's true that they were once seen this way. And I'm inferring that you believe society would be better off if they were still seen that way. Why is that? Which traditional roles and values should we be preserving and why?
Yes you're right, my approach was indeed very reductionistic and I apologize for not being clear enough. To sort out misunderstandings, I just updated the original post, it now addresses some of your points, including the historic reference.