This man is one of the most masterful purveyors of CCP propaganda I've ever read. He must be well-compensated.Tom Mazanec wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 3:37 pm John Pilger: The Coming War
by
EDITOR
May 1, 2023
https://scheerpost.com/2023/05/01/john- ... oming-war/
Generational Dynamics World View News
-
spottybrowncow
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:06 am
Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
-
Guest
Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
John Pilger has been a useful idiot for decades. Ridiculously anti-American. Bit of a hack really.spottybrowncow wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 9:28 pmThis man is one of the most masterful purveyors of CCP propaganda I've ever read. He must be well-compensated.Tom Mazanec wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 3:37 pm John Pilger: The Coming War
by
EDITOR
May 1, 2023
https://scheerpost.com/2023/05/01/john- ... oming-war/
Changes in Marital Standards
This will be a series of posts on the family, marriage, and associated culture change.
I thought I should write this after seeing a number of posts bewailing the current state of such things. The current state of affairs is the result of probably a century or more of social change.
I’m going to start with something from a bit more than a century ago. The Titanic.
I really dislike the James Cameron movie about the Titanic because it takes culture/values from the 1990s and uses them as the main plot device in a situation that takes place in the 1910s. What happens in the movie, an upper-class girl ditching an arranged marriage to take up with an itinerant artist, is something that almost never happened (there are always exceptions). In all reality, the girl would never have had anything to do with the Leonardo DiCaprio character.
Back then, and for thousands of years before that, marriage was the fundamental social contract. The primary reason for marriage was security. Security was provided for by varying combinations of wealth, children, and social standing. So, marrying into money was seen as a valid and even proper thing to do. This usually went along with social status, if possible, hence the desire to marry into a desirable family (usually nobility). For those with less money, the prospect of children would provide for future security. In the long-term agricultural societies of the past, children provided parents with a workforce. The more children they had, the more their combined family agricultural enterprise could produce.
Additionally, children provided the prospect of being taken care of once one could no longer physically work. The more children, the more they could collectively contribute to taking care of the parents, and the greater the chance that one could either marry well or strike it rich somehow.
For women looking for husband, historically the most important trait was that the prospective mate was a “good provider”, and that he had a “good reputation” (others thought well of him). For men looking for a wife, historically the most important traits were the ability to have children, and that they were seen as industrious (would do well at running a household). Those with “poor reputations” (for whatever reason) were just not considered. Further down the list of “desirable” traits in marriage, though obviously still present, was physical attractiveness. This was true for both genders. So both looked for the basic desirable traits discussed above, in the most attractive package available.
Society put serious pressure on the morality of individuals. For most of society, (obviously many royal courts and the lowest levels of society were different), you were expected to remain loyal to your spouse for life and that you would take care of your part of the “social bargain”. This “contract” historically was that the man would provide for the financial and physical wellbeing of the family, while the woman would take care of the household and children. If you decided to stray from what was expected of you, you became an outcast from society. This had dramatic and serious economic consequences in addition to being socially shunned. You couldn’t get a job, as you were seen as having “ruined your reputation”. So, a man who abandoned his family, or a woman who had a child out of wedlock were pariahs.
Sexual urges were meant to be satisfied by marriage. And yes, it did drive people to get married. Obviously, many over time strayed, but as stated, there could be serious consequences for doing so. The result was the vast majority of society kept (or at least paid lip service) to these conventions.
As I see it, this state of affairs changed dramatically with the advent of the motion picture. Prior to the movies, actors and actresses were seen as the next to bottom rung of society. They were viewed as barely a level above prostitutes (for women) and lying cheats (for men). Movies changed the status of actors and actresses, making them famous celebrities. Movies also started to change what each sex looked for in a marriage partner.
Physical attractiveness became more and more important. People more and more wanted spouses that looked like their fantasies that they could see on the screen.
The moral tendencies of actors and actresses also became more acceptable to society, as it now held these people in increasingly greater esteem. In the 1930s and 40s the average person would still have been economically and socially damaged by having a divorce or a child out of wedlock. But not so much in Hollywood. And as people regularly read gossip columns about celebrity “stars”, such actions slowly became seen as less important than they had in the past.
In the post-World War II society, the vast majority of people initially followed the old conventions. But they did not pass them on to their children, as their values came more and more from the movies, while those of their parents and grandparents did not. The war had also put extreme pressure on marriages and families as the husband may have been gone for years, and thus the normal outlet for sexual urges was not available.
The post-war era also saw the widespread introduction of television. Now, instead of seeing the most beautiful people in the world in movies for a couple of hours a week, people were seeing similarly attractive people on the TV at home for hours a day. Within a few years, pornography in magazines became widely available. Restrictions as to what could be shown in movies were lifted.
All of this, in an exponentially increasing fashion, changed what people looked for in a mate. In the past, most looked for someone of “substance”, meaning a man that would provide, treat with kindness and respect, and would do honorable things. For women, it meant someone that could be counted on to raise a family, maintain the home, and remain loyal. The change was away from seeking these traits and increasingly focused, ultimately almost entirely, on attractiveness. What it meant was a movement from “substance” to the “esoteric”. This change in desirable characteristics happened for BOTH sexes.
Before moving off of the topic of “attractiveness”, I want to point out that it is important to take care of yourself and present your best self throughout your life. While we are all born with varying degrees of “attractiveness”, you can degrade what you were born with by poor hygiene, poor physical conditioning, and poor diet. People obviously can make themselves less attractive by being filthy or fat. I read once that Mr. Rodgers (of PBS Children’s Programming fame), who was overweight as an adolescent, decided to do something about it, and he took up swimming. During his adult life he kept his weight at 143, which to him and his wife was code for “I Love You” (143 is the number of letters in each word). He kept himself in shape for his spouse because that was something he wanted to do for her.
In addition to the gradual switch from “substance” to the “esoteric” in looking for mate, there was a parallel collapse in moral standards. This was aided by the appearance switch, but also by changes in culture and the advent of effective birth control for women (the pill). The cultural changes were in the increasing acceptance of divorce and of sexual relations outside of marriage.
The “sexual revolution” was a disaster, most of all for women. In the past, you had sex with a man only after he committed to take care of you (and your children) for the rest of his life by marriage. This was not just a legal contract but a significant social one. Failure to live up to this contract, as pointed out earlier, had significant social and economic consequences. Men had always wanted sex with as many women as possible and as soon as possible. Now, thanks to the “sexual revolution”, they could pressure women into it without fear of consequences. And they certainly didn’t have to commit to their sexual partner in any way. They could, as the saying goes, “love them and leave them” (love in this case meaning having sex, not the traditional sense of the word). Marriage rates started to decline, divorce rates started to skyrocket, as did the number of children without fathers in the home (or even financial support from the fathers). This meant that in many/most cases, women could no longer count on the support of their partner. There are currently no real consequences for men doing this.
Now, it is not all men who behave this way. Yet, because women are now looking for men based almost exclusively on attractiveness, they have a distinct tendency to end up with a man who does act this way. I saw a study years ago that a short, yet above average looking guy in his late 20s had extreme difficulty finding dates. They interviewed hundreds of women who had both seen and had interaction with this guy. For him to get dates, he would have to have been a Nobel prize winning neurosurgeon with significant financial holdings. This is what they had to add to his resume to get the women in the study to even give this guy a chance.
The current dating app people are now starting to admit that only the top 5-10% of men have success with their platforms. These very attractive individuals are able to have sex with almost as many women as the want as frequently as they want. The other 90-95% have increasingly serious difficulty, again as a result of being increasingly less attractive.
Men do the same kinds of things. They look for the most attractive woman while disregarding the “substance” that they once looked for. This is exacerbated by the serious problem men currently have with pornography. It used to be that men started seeing porn in the late teens. Now they are starting to see a lot of it while barely into adolescence. As alluded to earlier, it greatly reinforces the desire to look for a mate based solely on attractiveness. It also provides an unrealistic expectation of what women look like (and act like).
I count myself fortunate that while in college, and while dating the most attractive girl I could get to go out with me, I came to the realization that her attractiveness was the only thing she had going for her. She was not by any means intelligent, and did not seem to be driven to accomplish much in life. I realized that meaningful conversations and hence a relationship with her would be woefully lacking. So I stopped asking her out. Luckily I was able to eventually find a smart, talented, and driven person with values similar to my own in quite a reasonably attractive package. But it did take quite some time, and also required for her to also come to the realization of what she really needed in a man was not just attractiveness.
A successful partnership/marriage does require that EACH SIDE look for the proper substantial personal attributes and that each commits, for life, to remaining faithful and loyal to that other individual. Unfortunately, this is now the exception rather than the rule.
There is no turning back from this and society will ultimately collapse as its fundamental structure, the family, falls apart. There was hope at the end of the Roman empire because the “barbaric” tribes actually had stronger marital and familial ties and bonds than the so-called Christian Romans did. This is what allowed for the survival of mankind during the dark ages.
I thought I should write this after seeing a number of posts bewailing the current state of such things. The current state of affairs is the result of probably a century or more of social change.
I’m going to start with something from a bit more than a century ago. The Titanic.
I really dislike the James Cameron movie about the Titanic because it takes culture/values from the 1990s and uses them as the main plot device in a situation that takes place in the 1910s. What happens in the movie, an upper-class girl ditching an arranged marriage to take up with an itinerant artist, is something that almost never happened (there are always exceptions). In all reality, the girl would never have had anything to do with the Leonardo DiCaprio character.
Back then, and for thousands of years before that, marriage was the fundamental social contract. The primary reason for marriage was security. Security was provided for by varying combinations of wealth, children, and social standing. So, marrying into money was seen as a valid and even proper thing to do. This usually went along with social status, if possible, hence the desire to marry into a desirable family (usually nobility). For those with less money, the prospect of children would provide for future security. In the long-term agricultural societies of the past, children provided parents with a workforce. The more children they had, the more their combined family agricultural enterprise could produce.
Additionally, children provided the prospect of being taken care of once one could no longer physically work. The more children, the more they could collectively contribute to taking care of the parents, and the greater the chance that one could either marry well or strike it rich somehow.
For women looking for husband, historically the most important trait was that the prospective mate was a “good provider”, and that he had a “good reputation” (others thought well of him). For men looking for a wife, historically the most important traits were the ability to have children, and that they were seen as industrious (would do well at running a household). Those with “poor reputations” (for whatever reason) were just not considered. Further down the list of “desirable” traits in marriage, though obviously still present, was physical attractiveness. This was true for both genders. So both looked for the basic desirable traits discussed above, in the most attractive package available.
Society put serious pressure on the morality of individuals. For most of society, (obviously many royal courts and the lowest levels of society were different), you were expected to remain loyal to your spouse for life and that you would take care of your part of the “social bargain”. This “contract” historically was that the man would provide for the financial and physical wellbeing of the family, while the woman would take care of the household and children. If you decided to stray from what was expected of you, you became an outcast from society. This had dramatic and serious economic consequences in addition to being socially shunned. You couldn’t get a job, as you were seen as having “ruined your reputation”. So, a man who abandoned his family, or a woman who had a child out of wedlock were pariahs.
Sexual urges were meant to be satisfied by marriage. And yes, it did drive people to get married. Obviously, many over time strayed, but as stated, there could be serious consequences for doing so. The result was the vast majority of society kept (or at least paid lip service) to these conventions.
As I see it, this state of affairs changed dramatically with the advent of the motion picture. Prior to the movies, actors and actresses were seen as the next to bottom rung of society. They were viewed as barely a level above prostitutes (for women) and lying cheats (for men). Movies changed the status of actors and actresses, making them famous celebrities. Movies also started to change what each sex looked for in a marriage partner.
Physical attractiveness became more and more important. People more and more wanted spouses that looked like their fantasies that they could see on the screen.
The moral tendencies of actors and actresses also became more acceptable to society, as it now held these people in increasingly greater esteem. In the 1930s and 40s the average person would still have been economically and socially damaged by having a divorce or a child out of wedlock. But not so much in Hollywood. And as people regularly read gossip columns about celebrity “stars”, such actions slowly became seen as less important than they had in the past.
In the post-World War II society, the vast majority of people initially followed the old conventions. But they did not pass them on to their children, as their values came more and more from the movies, while those of their parents and grandparents did not. The war had also put extreme pressure on marriages and families as the husband may have been gone for years, and thus the normal outlet for sexual urges was not available.
The post-war era also saw the widespread introduction of television. Now, instead of seeing the most beautiful people in the world in movies for a couple of hours a week, people were seeing similarly attractive people on the TV at home for hours a day. Within a few years, pornography in magazines became widely available. Restrictions as to what could be shown in movies were lifted.
All of this, in an exponentially increasing fashion, changed what people looked for in a mate. In the past, most looked for someone of “substance”, meaning a man that would provide, treat with kindness and respect, and would do honorable things. For women, it meant someone that could be counted on to raise a family, maintain the home, and remain loyal. The change was away from seeking these traits and increasingly focused, ultimately almost entirely, on attractiveness. What it meant was a movement from “substance” to the “esoteric”. This change in desirable characteristics happened for BOTH sexes.
Before moving off of the topic of “attractiveness”, I want to point out that it is important to take care of yourself and present your best self throughout your life. While we are all born with varying degrees of “attractiveness”, you can degrade what you were born with by poor hygiene, poor physical conditioning, and poor diet. People obviously can make themselves less attractive by being filthy or fat. I read once that Mr. Rodgers (of PBS Children’s Programming fame), who was overweight as an adolescent, decided to do something about it, and he took up swimming. During his adult life he kept his weight at 143, which to him and his wife was code for “I Love You” (143 is the number of letters in each word). He kept himself in shape for his spouse because that was something he wanted to do for her.
In addition to the gradual switch from “substance” to the “esoteric” in looking for mate, there was a parallel collapse in moral standards. This was aided by the appearance switch, but also by changes in culture and the advent of effective birth control for women (the pill). The cultural changes were in the increasing acceptance of divorce and of sexual relations outside of marriage.
The “sexual revolution” was a disaster, most of all for women. In the past, you had sex with a man only after he committed to take care of you (and your children) for the rest of his life by marriage. This was not just a legal contract but a significant social one. Failure to live up to this contract, as pointed out earlier, had significant social and economic consequences. Men had always wanted sex with as many women as possible and as soon as possible. Now, thanks to the “sexual revolution”, they could pressure women into it without fear of consequences. And they certainly didn’t have to commit to their sexual partner in any way. They could, as the saying goes, “love them and leave them” (love in this case meaning having sex, not the traditional sense of the word). Marriage rates started to decline, divorce rates started to skyrocket, as did the number of children without fathers in the home (or even financial support from the fathers). This meant that in many/most cases, women could no longer count on the support of their partner. There are currently no real consequences for men doing this.
Now, it is not all men who behave this way. Yet, because women are now looking for men based almost exclusively on attractiveness, they have a distinct tendency to end up with a man who does act this way. I saw a study years ago that a short, yet above average looking guy in his late 20s had extreme difficulty finding dates. They interviewed hundreds of women who had both seen and had interaction with this guy. For him to get dates, he would have to have been a Nobel prize winning neurosurgeon with significant financial holdings. This is what they had to add to his resume to get the women in the study to even give this guy a chance.
The current dating app people are now starting to admit that only the top 5-10% of men have success with their platforms. These very attractive individuals are able to have sex with almost as many women as the want as frequently as they want. The other 90-95% have increasingly serious difficulty, again as a result of being increasingly less attractive.
Men do the same kinds of things. They look for the most attractive woman while disregarding the “substance” that they once looked for. This is exacerbated by the serious problem men currently have with pornography. It used to be that men started seeing porn in the late teens. Now they are starting to see a lot of it while barely into adolescence. As alluded to earlier, it greatly reinforces the desire to look for a mate based solely on attractiveness. It also provides an unrealistic expectation of what women look like (and act like).
I count myself fortunate that while in college, and while dating the most attractive girl I could get to go out with me, I came to the realization that her attractiveness was the only thing she had going for her. She was not by any means intelligent, and did not seem to be driven to accomplish much in life. I realized that meaningful conversations and hence a relationship with her would be woefully lacking. So I stopped asking her out. Luckily I was able to eventually find a smart, talented, and driven person with values similar to my own in quite a reasonably attractive package. But it did take quite some time, and also required for her to also come to the realization of what she really needed in a man was not just attractiveness.
A successful partnership/marriage does require that EACH SIDE look for the proper substantial personal attributes and that each commits, for life, to remaining faithful and loyal to that other individual. Unfortunately, this is now the exception rather than the rule.
There is no turning back from this and society will ultimately collapse as its fundamental structure, the family, falls apart. There was hope at the end of the Roman empire because the “barbaric” tribes actually had stronger marital and familial ties and bonds than the so-called Christian Romans did. This is what allowed for the survival of mankind during the dark ages.
-
Guest
Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
Only small numbers of conservative Christians and Moslems have well functioning families now. Most children in the West, and even in the the developing world (Latin America), are born to single mothers. Most of the children alive today will be "wilding" through cities when they grow up and contributing tremendously to society's misery in the next few years.There was hope at the end of the Roman empire because the “barbaric” tribes actually had stronger marital and familial ties and bonds than the so-called Christian Romans did.
Well then, there is little hope for mankind now.This is what allowed for the survival of mankind during the dark ages.
-
Cool Breeze
- Posts: 3040
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm
Re: Changes in Marital Standards
You guys are still bringing up this "dark ages" stuff? Come on. The "barbaric" tribes probably just restricted female sexuality (chaos) more. What you aren't bringing up is the propaganda from your generation, and the concomitant giving of jobs to women, which makes the #1 reason they "need" men superfluous. Add legal, vestigial things and you have complete chaos, as there is no real incentive for men to marry - which is why most are checking out now. Instead of adopting characteristics that will sell men on marriage, women just complain. Sad, but true.Navigator wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 2:01 am There is no turning back from this and society will ultimately collapse as its fundamental structure, the family, falls apart. There was hope at the end of the Roman empire because the “barbaric” tribes actually had stronger marital and familial ties and bonds than the so-called Christian Romans did. This is what allowed for the survival of mankind during the dark ages.
Women outside of the west are far better partners. For westerners, all they have to do is ask why, and one gets his answer. It's quite simple. But the generational divide is so huge, and the older generations so clueless (they can't identify with this society even though they see women acting badly all the time around them) ... or they plain don't care. The result will be the hardest, most productive workers (men) leaving the economy and the tax ponzi, which of course will stop the freebies the oldies were "promised" by the debased government who set up all the anti family and anti male policies.
-
Guest
Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
The Red Army finally "overcame" the Nazis, not because of their huge numbers, but because they were supplied (at huge cost in British/Allied sailors lives) with vast amounts of equipment , largely supplied by the USA. Meanwhile Germany was slowly being starved of oil and energy. It was the ability of the USA to PRODUCE that finally overcame Mr Hitler. I strongly suspect Mr Putin will go the same route. Adlof like Putin kept bringing out fancy new weapons, and while they too killed civilians, they used up resources that would have been better used elsewhere.
-
Bob Butler
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
- Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
- Contact:
Factors...
The numbers helped. Actually, the Russian people were originally inclined to let the communist regime fall, but the Nazis treated them like Slavs, quickly convincing them that fighting was the better option. This is not to say the other factors Guest mentions were not important. Then too the Slav's WW II determination or Ukraine's recent determination are certainly factors.Guest wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:00 am The Red Army finally "overcame" the Nazis, not because of their huge numbers, but because they were supplied (at huge cost in British/Allied sailors lives) with vast amounts of equipment , largely supplied by the USA. Meanwhile Germany was slowly being starved of oil and energy. It was the ability of the USA to PRODUCE that finally overcame Mr Hitler. I strongly suspect Mr Putin will go the same route. Adlof like Putin kept bringing out fancy new weapons, and while they too killed civilians, they used up resources that would have been better used elsewhere.
Worth a look...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... alties.svg
-
Guest
Re: Factors...
Wikipedia is your source?Bob Butler wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 7:03 pmThe numbers helped. Actually, the Russian people were originally inclined to let the communist regime fall, but the Nazis treated them like Slavs, quickly convincing them that fighting was the better option. This is not to say the other factors Guest mentions were not important. Then too the Slav's WW II determination or Ukraine's recent determination are certainly factors.Guest wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:00 am The Red Army finally "overcame" the Nazis, not because of their huge numbers, but because they were supplied (at huge cost in British/Allied sailors lives) with vast amounts of equipment , largely supplied by the USA. Meanwhile Germany was slowly being starved of oil and energy. It was the ability of the USA to PRODUCE that finally overcame Mr Hitler. I strongly suspect Mr Putin will go the same route. Adlof like Putin kept bringing out fancy new weapons, and while they too killed civilians, they used up resources that would have been better used elsewhere.
Worth a look...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... alties.svg
Re: Generational Dynamics World View News
The Red Army was the largest factor in the defeat of Nazi Germany. In 1942/3, about 80% of German forces were engaged on the Russian Front. The Russians in total lost about 12-15 Million soldiers plus another 12-15 Million civilians in the war. US aide did not really start to get to Russia in Bulk until 1943. So in the critical years of 1941 and 1942, they got substantially less than they got later on.Guest wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:00 am The Red Army finally "overcame" the Nazis, not because of their huge numbers, but because they were supplied (at huge cost in British/Allied sailors lives) with vast amounts of equipment , largely supplied by the USA. Meanwhile Germany was slowly being starved of oil and energy. It was the ability of the USA to PRODUCE that finally overcame Mr Hitler. I strongly suspect Mr Putin will go the same route. Adlof like Putin kept bringing out fancy new weapons, and while they too killed civilians, they used up resources that would have been better used elsewhere.
Russian equipment, which was decent at the start of the war, got a lot better as time went on. Russian tactics and battlefield prowess also improved dramatically over time (compare Operation Bagration in 1944 with their pathetic offensive against Finland in 1940/1). It was a combination of US and USSR production that eventually overwhelmed the Nazis.
The US aid was mostly stuff to help them with their logistics, like trucks. Without these, Russian forces could not have pushed forward as fast as they did. In fact, the US/UK in the end put the Russians into Eastern Europe. How different things would be if the US/UK could have made it to Berlin while the Russians were still in eastern Poland!
At this point, Russia either needs a strong military reformer to take charge (doubtful under Putin), or the Chinese will have to arrive en-masse. Of course, tac nukes could also be called upon if things look dire enough, but I think the Chinese have already put the lid on that for now.
-
Bob Butler
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
- Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
- Contact:
Re: Factors...
Actually, I used Google to search for WW II casualties, and one of the first sources I recognized was Wiki. You have a better source? I'll endorse Navigator's post above. I've also thought that should Putin lose to Ukraine, the West could/should keep the sanctions in place unless Russia disarms.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests