- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:29 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Good Lord, who told you that? Did you fully understand what was being conveyed?
Our institutions are explicitly built around power:
quote:Foregoing marriage in favor of a less formal relationship is an arrangement agreed to by the woman by definition.
Foregoing marriage in favor of a less formal relationship is like foregoing a contract in any partnership.
---
Marriage is not a unilateral decision. Women don’t independently decide if, when, or whom they marry.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 4:31 pm
2
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:35 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The decoupling of marriage and childbirth is not the result of feminists celebrating instability. It is a rational adaptation to economic reality. Marriage has become less reliable as an institution for women in terms of financial security, labor sharing, and long-term stability. At the same time, women still want children. Interpreting that as ideological confusion rather than pragmatic reasoning is needless over-intellectualization.
Full on liberal retardism
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:41 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I also wonder how it's possible for me to have such a starkly different perception of modern marriage than the people who have been posting in this thread.
We actually agree on a problem, in theory, it's the cause of it that is the fault. It's not the fault of men alone, or marriage or men getting more leisure time. You say it's marriage, until you said it was consumerism - like I said you were right.
The problem, in general is a lack of a cohesive value system that we all share - namely Christianity - which created a vacuum for consumerism to enter. Truly though, we value efficiency and comfort and the thing that bring that in spades is consumerism.
We value self-freedom, access to money and things and the ability to create our own tailored and customized experience of the world over God, family, nation and service. That's really the issue. Not marriage.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:30 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I also wonder how it's possible for me to have such a starkly different perception of modern marriage than the people who have been posting in this thread.
I've been explaining it the whole time.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Good Lord, who told you that?
Karl Marx and feminists.
Force Doctrine is a feminist theory.
She's probably not even aware of that. But it's true.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:10 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
When most households now require two incomes, but the expectations around childcare, emotional labor, household management, and kin-keeping remain disproportionately female, marriage stops functioning as a net stabilizer for many women. It becomes a net loss.
You do realize that many women actually love caring for their children, being the nurturing ones, and organizing gatherings with family? I mean, my husband is currently on his umpteenth conference call of the day while I post on TD. I do have beans going, and the meat and potatoes are prepped. The laundry is just a doing its thing. It isn't that serious.
What is emotional labor? I need to know if I do that, too, and if I like it or not.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:24 pm to HouseMom
quote:
What is emotional labor? I need to know if I do that, too, and if I like it or not.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:34 pm to HouseMom
quote:
What is emotional labor?
Something a feminist academic made up to sound smart
Posted on 1/16/26 at 11:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Society has demonstrated it, again, and again, and again. Where in the world do you suppose "power" comes from? An unstable society?
Power comes from force and weapons. Can you point to an example of power being derived from stability? We mostly see power exerted during instability in this country.
Stability might legitimize power, but stability doesn't create it. If stability were the source of power, instability would weaken authority. Yet history shows the opposite: instability often concentrates power in fewer hands under the justification of "restoring order."
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Good Lord, who told you that? Did you fully understand what was being conveyed?
Why do you assume I am incapable of drawing my own conclusions? It's pretty insulting.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:05 pm to NC_Tigah
It should be the boys who are more hesitant to marry, because they are the ones who can have 1/2 their wealth and children taken away on a whim through divorce.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:38 pm to 4cubbies
quote:No.
Can you point to an example of power being derived from stability? We mostly see power exerted during instability in this country.
Stability might legitimize power, but stability doesn't create it. If stability were the source of power, instability would weaken authority. Yet history shows the opposite
Stability => Power is exactly what history shows.
In fact, some of the most durable forms of power in history depend on stability so much that the threat/use of force demonstrably weakened them.
The Roman Republic (early–mid Republic)
Source of power: legitimacy, norms, and institutional stability. Rome expanded before it became a military autocracy. Power flowed from mos maiorum -- shared civic norms, predictable law, and elite buy-in. Consuls, Senate authority, and courts worked because people supported and accepted them. Armies were citizen militias loyal to the state because the state was stable and legitimate.
When social stability eroded (late Republic), Rome increased coercion—and collapsed into dictatorship. i.e., : Force followed stability; it did not create it.
Medieval/Renaissance Merchant Republics (e.g., Venice).
Source of power: trust, contract enforcement, and social continuity.
E.g., Venice maintained a relatively small army, but dominated Mediterranean trade for centuries. Its power rested on: predictable commercial law, stable political institutions, long time horizons (families planned across generations). Venetian merchants extended credit and risked capital because the society was stable.
When Venice lost institutional stability, its power evaporated—without invasion.
The British Empire’s Financial Core (18th–19th century).
Source of power: stable institutions and credibility, not raw force.
Britain’s advantage was not founded in the navy or red coats. Its basis was the ability to borrow cheaply. Investors trusted: parliament, rule of law, banking, and continuity of contracts across governments.
It was such stability that allowed Britain to outspend rivals militarily. Social stability made financing possible. Napoleon had armies. Britain had credit.
Current Examples:
The U.S. and the dollar.
Source of power: institutional trust and social stability. The dollar’s dominance rests on: predictable (Constitutional) backing yielding confidence that contracts will be honored decades into the future. So countries hold U.S. debt voluntarily.
The moment social stability erodes, or we hit the instability of fiscal dominance, our power declines—without a single shot fired.
Post WWII Japan.
Source of power: social cohesion and institutional continuity.
After WWII, Japan renounced military power, yet became one of the most influential economic powers on Earth. It did so sans coercive empire or conquest (pre-WWII model). It did so with social stability: High social trust, strong norms, long-term planning culture. Modern Japanese power comes from being stable and indispensable, not feared.
Corporations as Micro-Societies (Apple, Visa, Amazon, etc). Source of power: internal stability and trust.
E.g., Visa moves trillions of dollars daily. It has no army. Its power comes from: Reliability, network trust, institutional continuity
If people stopped trusting Visa’s stability, its “power” would vanish overnight.
Bottomline:
Force can seize power, but stability sustains it.
Force is expensive, brittle, and reactive.
Social stability is compounding - it grows power quietly over time.
Contrast this with cases where force failed without stability (e.g., USSR, Warsaw bloc countries)
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:44 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Your derived conclusions don't arise from the ethers. They don't derive from critical thinking or reasoning, because they are CT based. So they are sourced from somewhere.
Why do you assume I am incapable of drawing my own conclusions?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your derived conclusions don't arise from the ethers. They don't derive from critical thinking or reasoning, because they are CT based
You're just willing this to be true at this point. Dismissing my observations and conclusions as thoughtless CT-based whatever is the laziest counterargument and proves absolutely nothing, other than your utter lack of tolerance for differing perspectives.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:38 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Your word, not mine. CT is not thoughtless
thoughtless
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:50 pm to NC_Tigah
I don’t disagree with the descriptive history you’re laying out. I disagree that stability generated power in those examples.
The Roman Republic’s legitimacy depended on who counted as a citizen and who didn’t. Venice’s trust-based commerce relied on oligarchic control and exclusion. Britain’s financial credibility depended on imperial extraction and the ability to enforce contracts globally. The dollar’s dominance exists because of military, legal, and geopolitical backstops that everyone knows exist even if they’re not invoked daily.
Stability is conditional. It lasts only as long as power remains concentrated enough to enforce order. When power fragments or becomes contested, instability arises.
Societies with weak power structures struggle to maintain long-term stability.
This is more of an analytical debate than an ideological one.
The Roman Republic’s legitimacy depended on who counted as a citizen and who didn’t. Venice’s trust-based commerce relied on oligarchic control and exclusion. Britain’s financial credibility depended on imperial extraction and the ability to enforce contracts globally. The dollar’s dominance exists because of military, legal, and geopolitical backstops that everyone knows exist even if they’re not invoked daily.
quote:
Force can seize power, but stability sustains it.
Stability is conditional. It lasts only as long as power remains concentrated enough to enforce order. When power fragments or becomes contested, instability arises.
Societies with weak power structures struggle to maintain long-term stability.
This is more of an analytical debate than an ideological one.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your word, not mine. CT is not thoughtless
You're accusing me of regurgitating some CT pamphlet I received from someone at some point instead of sharing my own ideas.
THAT is thoughtless.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:16 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Again, as illustrated, you have it backwards.
It lasts only as long as power remains concentrated enough to enforce order.
Think of it this way. Simplistically, every example laid out in my post was economically based with power secondary to enhanced societal productivity. Productivity is not a top-down pretext. GDP and/or revenue is driven by bottom-up productivity.
Productivity begets stability. Top down leadership can enhance it, but cannot duplicate it. Poor leadership can undercut it. Power can keep poor leadership in place for a while (Venezuela, Iran, USSR). Ultimately though, such an arrangement deteriorates to instability. With instability, power disappears.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:26 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Not exactly. A scholar using Marx and Engels as fundament for their own political holdings is sharing their own ideas.
You're accusing me of regurgitating some CT pamphlet I received from someone at some point instead of sharing my own ideas.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You're just willing this to be true at this point. Dismissing my observations and conclusions as thoughtless CT-based whatever is the laziest counterargument and proves absolutely nothing, other than your utter lack of tolerance for differing perspectives.
This has been fascinating, truly, because your observations about marriage in general are so different from mine. What you said the other day has been bouncing around in my head:
quote:
Idk. I have a good husband (not a perfect one). He’s a great dad. If he dropped dead today, I would never consider dating again. Heterosexual marriage is way too much work for women, imo. I call my best friend my future wife. I think a woman wanting to remarry is a huge red flag. Pretty much every woman married to a man that I know agrees with me. But I’m sure we’re all anomalies.
I assume you're younger than I am, but in my over 20 years of marriage, I have never one time talked with other women about how much being married to a man is "too much work" for me. I'm not even sure what this means, to be honest. Is it to suggest that a woman's life would be easier if she were just a single mom? Or better off in a homosexual relationship? And why is a woman wanting to remarry a red flag?
These are powerful - and harsh - statements. Marriage isn't about dividing labor and keeping score. This level of resentment isn't healthy at all. I was being silly last night, but really, this just isn't that serious. It comes across as a bunch of bitter man-hating, to be honest.
Page 20 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News