I just realized that women initiate divorces at about the same rate that my superstar player aka "Fantastic 4" makes 3 point shots. For people that like to say things along the lines of "you shouldn't judge your relationship based on what is happening in other people's relationships" or that other trite I have a question.

If you knew a basketball player had a 72.5% 3 point shooting average (my player's actual career shooting average from downtown thus far) what would you assume would happen if he took a 3 point shot?

Well, if we know that married women initiate divorces at about the same rate then what should we assume a woman will do if she gets married?

Just like it isn't our fault for assuming a 70% career 3 point shooter would make a 3 point shot it isn't our fault for assuming a 70% divorce initiator would initiate divorce.

Points.

He talks fast and persuasively. A closer listening and judiciously stopping to 'hear' what he says reveals the meanings he glosses over.

Women in affluent societies ARE encouraged to divorce, contrary to his assertion at the outset. There is a concerted effort made and an entire legal industry 'earning' billions from such encouragement, which ought more realistically be called 'persuasion' or 'agitation'. The situation is NOT as Barb suggests, just a character fault or female 'meme'.

Barb's discussion, after his intro, lays out an attack on 'Traditional' marriage, but his first argument is predicated on stats refering to 'women earning 60% of more of the family income'. This is hardly 'Traditional. He briefly acknowledges this but then cites his views on Chinese and Indian and other Asian women. Relevance? 'Traditional marriage' as experienced in the Easern countries does not equate to the west, and he mearly assumes it does but offers no evidence. Just lots of 'stats'. He even gives stats for Muslim Indonesia where divorce is mearly an act of voice. That arranged marriage is also 'traditional' in such countries and termed as such, is deliberately confused. I say deliberately as Barb is an educated and forceful speaker who projects the impression that he is deliberate.

He casually calumnies western men for 'niaively believing in romantic love' as though it were just an imagining rather than a common and almost universal experience in western countries. This is sophistry. He even has the timerity to refer to the 'Traditionalist Bully', a shame-the-man' tactic so common with feminists. I have no idea why he adopts this stance and so have to assume that he is just anti-men who chose a different path to himself. Little in the rest that I listened to, countered my assumption.

He sees and describes Traditional marriage as a 'Farce, where both parties willingly suspend reality'. In some instances he may be right as there are always exceptions to the rule, but I would contend that most 'traditional' couples do actually Love one another and respect one another, at the very least at the outset, and have every intention of observing their vows. Many bend under the social pressures (divorce ease, mendacious agitprop about dv, the legal industry etc) which are a prime cause of the break in those intents.

That took me up to minute 11 of nearly half an hour and frankly I had heard enough. The bias was - to me - showing through. What President Obama has to do with it, I did not stay to find out.

Now.... I can find issues with 'traditional' marriage too, as most here can. But I am not likely to use the sort of irrelevant arguements that he puts to us. There is no need to 'stray' into such territory. Perhaps it is the medium he chooses. ie to put a half-hour essay in spoken form where he can quickly move on before the listener has had time to think for themselves. Ideally the video format, as with pods, should be used for shorter talks, as practiced by less wordy and arrogant, and more entertaining folk, like Bernard Chapin.

Barb's recent attack on a female you tuber who seems to me to be a supporter of men's rights, demonstrates, I think, a lacsidaisical attention to what Men's Rights is about. If a chap is going to be 'intelligent' about Men's Rights, he should at least respect other men -and women - for their differing views.

Men and woman are different. Neither are universaly 'Bad' or 'Good'. Relationships between are built on a variety of foundations, some of which work better than others.

But do NOT attack the wall or specific colours of brick in the wall for being at fault when it is the friggin' bulldozer that is knocking it down.

Is traditional marriage your solution to the problems between men and women?

Barb is probably correct to point out that traditional marriage as it exists among social conservatives is a bit of a farce. And he's probably correct about the exchange of sex for male labour being the foundation of marriage.

This shouldn't however discount the institution entirely. He relies entirely on anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that a traditional marriage isn't the best place to raise children, but doesn't propose any alternative. And this is a huge flaw in the argument.

So-called traditional marriage evolved because adopting it was at least for a time mutually beneficial to both parties in evolutionary terms. The simple fact is that children do significantly better with a father present in the home. Even if it is a purely transactional contract, traditional marriage that exchanges labor for sex can still be of mutual benefit to both husband and wife, even if only from an evolutionary perspective.

In fact, evolution is currently in the process of selecting against the offspring of single-mothers in just about every way. Evolution is selecting in favor of those who have adopted a traditional marriage. Evolution is to some degree favoring the Islamic practice of having multiple wives, but given the circumstances, this arrangement can hit the law of diminishing returns pretty hard. For instance, if your wives are developing rickets because you've confined them in a burkha, well, having four of them isn't much of an evolutionary advantage if they aren't getting enough vitamin D.

More to the point, the offspring of a traditional marriage clearly have an advantage, despite the state's attempt to tilt the table away from traditional marriage.

In sum, as long as a traditional marriage remains somewhat traditional, all parties tend reap some benefits. When women become too demanding however, the traditional marriage contract begins to crack, and in this, Barbarossa is spot-on. In the modern western world, the institution of marriage is almost and afterthought, because the odds have been stacked so heavily against success. It is still possible for marriages to succeed, but ~30 years of feminist indoctrination has made that task a very difficult one indeed, and as such, it is quite correct to advise modern men to avoid marriage altogether, because the risks have started to outweigh the benefits.

There is one more facet to stacking the odds so heavily on one side however. The payout if you get it right increases exponentially. As children of toxic marriages become more, and more damaged, the children of fruitful and positive marriages become so much better by comparison. As toxic marriages increase, so the proportion of fruitful positive marriages decreases, and both the offspring of those marriages and the marriages themselves become increasingly rare. This puts a downward pressure on public institutions to lower the bar to accommodate the new majority of inferior offspring. The superior offspring face less competition, and are more likely to achieve. This situation has actually therefore created the opportunity to hit the evolutionary jackpot - but only if you're willing to play the odds.

And as I'll concede, they're very long indeed.

“Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win.”
-Robert A. Heinlein - Time enough for Love

When I think of "traditional", I think of the old, historical type of marriage. When mothers actually taught their children, instead of sending them from one place to another to let someone else fill the role. The fathers also shared their knowledge to the next generation, instead of sending them to the wolves to "learn". There are men's responsibilities and women's responsibilities. Shirking these responsibilities is not in a traditional family; in a traditional family, the man and woman embraces these responsibilities.

I would probably have much to say about this, if I could be arsed spending half an hour watching it and another hour considering a reply..

Sadly, I have to fix the washing machine that the housekeeper has (again) broken..

I just watched this video last night, and put up a bunch of comments. They are too all-over to randomly post here, but if anyone wants to see them my Youtube name is "Thylacinegurl".

I especially love the comment where I am called a Good Slut...lol. I was actually disappointed that my follow up questions were not answered.

Thylacines are native to nowhere but Tasmania. And extinct now.

Their 'familiar' name is Tasmanian Tiger.

Quote from Traveler

I just watched this video last night, and put up a bunch of comments. They are too all-over to randomly post here, but if anyone wants to see them my Youtube name is "Thylacinegurl".I especially love the comment where I am called a Good Slut...lol. I was actually disappointed that my follow up questions were not answered.

I subscribed to you. "DirectorFrisch"

Quote from Percy

Thylacines are native to nowhere but Tasmania. And extinct now.

Their 'familiar' name is Tasmanian Tiger.

Yeah, they were quite amazing looking. I had a silly dream of being a cryptozoologist when I was younger.
I've always been interested in strange creatures/supposedly extinct animals, from real ones like the thylacine and coelacanth to
ones that we still don't scientifically recognize like Yetis or mokele mbembe.
My "hero" in middle school was Ivan T. Sanderson

Ah, childhood...

Quote from FloatyBoaty

I subscribed to you. "DirectorFrisch"

Hey, I saw that!
Thank you, Floaty...I'll subscribe to you too.

I think the best solution is for people to decide what is best for them, as far as relationships go. While traditional is best for some, others might prefer an alternative or nothing at all. I follow Christianity and abide by the laws that have been set by God but I respect anyone else's decision and wish them the best with whatever they choose. Don't let feminism stop you from living the way that is best for you, as you have the power and free will to decide.

Quote from Popadibs

Is traditional marriage your solution to the problems between men and women?

Traditional marriage is still practiced but I consider it to be a broken concept. Couples in 'traditional marriages' are under considerable threat and pressure, and the Feminists have caused men to open their eyes to the burdens Traditional marriage place on men.

Quote from Traveler

Yeah, they were quite amazing looking. I had a silly dream of being a cryptozoologist when I was younger.I've always been interested in strange creatures/supposedly extinct animals, from real ones like the thylacine and coelacanth toones that we still don't scientifically recognize like Yetis or mokele mbembe.

I am still interested in the strange and different. Like "alternative" energy - it's there, but the energy cartels don't want you to know that.

Quote from Traveler

Hey, I saw that!Thank you, Floaty...I'll subscribe to you too.

You're welcome, and thank you.

Quote from haute macabre

I think the best solution is for people to decide what is best for them, as far as relationships go. While traditional is best for some, others might prefer an alternative or nothing at all. I follow Christianity and abide by the laws that have been set by God but I respect anyone else's decision and wish them the best with whatever they choose. Don't let feminism stop you from living the way that is best for you, as you have the power and free will to decide.

Yes, very good.

I follow Christianity and abide by the laws that have been set by God but....

antimisandry.com Traditional Relationships.....

God is a quiet sort of divine chap who listens a lot and says very little. He is an 'activist'.

Christianity has a Bible which 'sets the scene' with the Old Testament, which JC said he came specifically to overthrow. It is the Talmud. Jewish. Not Christian. The 'rules' that were 'set' by Jesus are contained in the Lord's Prayer in the New Testament and with an addendum to Love one's neighbour as oneself.

There were no other 'rules'.

Indeed, the only words that are ascribed to God in the New Testament were "This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased".

Apart from that He made not a sound.

So, what are these 'Rules' 'set' by God you talk of?