How and why was the family destroyed in America?

>>1810233
I don't get this strange notion that women were all housewives in the past. It's ok to have fantasies about this kind of thing, but it has no bearing on historical reality.

File: ITS NOT UNUSUAL TO BE IN LOVE WITH A WHITE HOE.jpg (45KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x720px

>destroyed
I'd say it was improved.

the juice

>>1810245
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1810244
What percentage of women were house wives and what percentage was in the work force?

>>1810244

Many more were than is the case today. What is more, the illusion that they were had intrinsic worth, in and by itself.

capitalism
it wants to procude shit to be consumed without any value
the only thing it cares about is profit
and dumb women buy everything

>>1810265
>>1810267
Well I suppose it depends when you're talking about, in the 50's there were plenty of women in employment, and before that too. If you want to go quite far back in history, few men were really in employment, as they would be agricultural workers (and so would the women).

Because WWll. The industrial revolution was the backbone of it.

>>1810244

Between farm wives and housewives it had to be at least 3/5

>>1810276
Did a quick Google search. In the 50's 30% of women were in the work force. So, 70% (or so) were not. Let's take out women who don't have kids and/or can't have kids, and let's say, for sake of argument, 50% of were stay at home mothers - that's a lot more than there is today, anon.

>>1810279
See
>>1810284

File: women.jpg (660KB, 1825x4361px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1825x4361px

>>1810276

It's a problem m8

Behold pic related. The law of unintended consequences in full swing.

>>1810336
> Women who found good partner
> Tend to marry him
> Happy with him
> Women who can't find good partner
> Tend to change partners
> Aren't happy
So what is your point?

>>1810356

Either 'good partners' have fallen in number over the past decade, or something else is at play. Could it have something to do with the rise of permissiveness and promiscuity in culture as those same decades went on?

Most definitely.

>>1810362
> 'good partners' have fallen in number over the past decade
With all media crap standards are higher today. In the old times, you just marry who ever is avaiable, but not it must be like the one sexy billioner CEO. Maybe not that higher, but you got the idea.

the mom/dad/two-or-three-kids nuclear family that's most commonly associated as the 'ideal' family in America was a fucking meme brought about by industrialization anyway. Before that people tended to live more like people in Afghanistan now, with your entire extended family being a tight-knit clan

>>1810336
>family-studies.org
>freedomainradio.com
I'm sure those are completely legit non-biased sources :^)

>>1810396

>ad hominem

>>1810362
Or maybe unhappy wifes were financially dependent on their husband and couldn't divorce? (among other reasons)

File: Sex-Average-chart.jpg (37KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x398px

>>1810336
This infographic is complete shit made by someone with an agenda.

Here's the original source it uses, which paints a very different picture

http://family-studies.org/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

Remember kids, correlation =/= causation.

>>1810362
>Either 'good partners' have fallen in number over the past decade, or something else is at play. Could it have something to do with the rise of permissiveness and promiscuity in culture as those same decades went on?
Probably not considering that both the divorce rate and the average number of sexual partners is down from their peak in the eighties.

>>1810245
is this image real? omfg lol

>>1810245
Never change Turkish shitposter man

>>1810233
BBC

>>1810233
Capitalism destroyed the family by relegating it to a four-person unit meant to best facilitate the service economy

>>1810245
I don't give a shit about race mixing but the normalization of illegitimate birth gets me heated

How fucking hard is it to get married first?

>>1810336
Worthless chart. Young people of the 1970s and 80s were far more promiscuous than today. The number is negatively skewed due to the presence of older women who married before the 1950s.

When looking strictly at cohorts, we see that millenials are the most chaste generation in recent memory. 15% of people under 25 are virgins.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/health/millennials-less-sex-than-gen-x/

Change in values. People right now consider pleasure the only good.

Take a look at this study, for example:

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/05/0361684312442856

>women who were briefly exposed to a women’s magazine were less likely to believe that sexual intercourse is a risky activity and more likely to believe that women should be assertive in prioritizing their sexual desire for their own sake

Marriage was seen as something to raise kids. Now, it is seem as "two people in love living together trying to look for happiness in their relationship".

>>1811070
An interesting issue is here

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm

Sex is looked at by some people as being about "pleasure". Procreation is considered a side effect.

You can see this clearly if you talk with some feminists.

>>1810336
keked at the sources

>construct a society with an economy built on the idea of people pursuing self-interest and insist it's natural
>be surprised that people no longer want to put in the effort of having a family when it's easier and more immediate to self-satisfy

>>1810401
But the graph specifically states happiness has been decreasing over time.

File: Attention_Seeker.jpg (15KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x240px

>>1810245

Capitalism. Capitalism destroys all traditional values and replaces them with values it can profit from. Leftist liberals are the foremost agents of capitalism.

>>1810233
Destruction of the nuclear family is a good thing, actually

>>1811555
Right. Communism would be radically traditional in its destruction of factors which eradicate tradition in the name of profit.

>>1811555
The nuclear family was a product of capitalism, you fucking dingus.

File: evola on marxism .jpg (189KB, 1024x896px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x896px

>>1811555
This. Fascism is the only true answer

>>1811052
Why should people get married? It's not a social stigma unless you're some 80+ year old and all it does is set things up in favor of the woman and fucking over the man.

>>1811657
By all means explain why Jane Thundercunt.

>>1811724
Exactly

See >>1810383

The nuclear family was a step towards the destruction of the family.

What family is meant to be is a tight knit group of not only your wife and children but also your grandparent, cousins and their children living in the same community (hell, even household) all helping one another.

>>1811060
>Young people of the 1970s and 80s were far more promiscuous than today.
Why don't you compare the young people of today with young people PRIOR to the sexual revolution, rather than comparing promiscuity against promiscuity?
>most chaste generation in recent memory
Doesn't really mean much if your recent memory only extends back to the orgy last weekend.
"What do you mean I'm promiscuous? I only sucked two cocks today,/yesterday I sucked six!"

>. 15% of people under 25 are virgins.
Not what the statistic actually says.
>About 15% of adults between the ages of 20 and 24 reported having no sexual partners since they turned 18,
That doesn't mean they're virgins it means they haven't had sex since they turned 18.

>>1811758
Because it encourages lack of empathy and a need for isolationism in all aspects of life.

Mine comes first. This is especially particular in the role of fathers in the past.

And I don't mean the far past, they were less family based than we were in the 20th century.

I mean in the late 19th and 20th century. A religious doctrine, like most things in Capitalism, becomes a product, and a product of its time. Religion can just easily become product as any. In fact the nuclear family is perfect and inversely imperfect for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, it encourages you to settle down and encourages you to take up expense you wouldn't otherwise need, children, a house, a mortgage, two cars, a two car garage, a lawn to keep up, food to buy.

It's the perfect way to condition upwards generations that not only is this "human nature", but that it is the only way. Capitalism, late capitalism now, becomes as biological as life itself. You can't live without buying two bags of cheerios and a two car garage, going to costco to order in bulk.

It's simply a means to condition people into a base lifestyle, and on top of that, isolate communities from forming and having equal responsibility for themselves.

It is all the burden of two.

>>1810233
Destruction of the family unit is intrinsic to uprooting the proletariat in order to cause conflict with the petty bourgeois which was made possible by the "traditional" nuclear family. It's literally a commie trick to help incite the revolution because the nuclear family was a sign that capitalism actually worked.

>>1811954
>It's literally a commie trick to help incite the revolution because the nuclear family was a sign that capitalism actually worked.

ptfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

I'm by no means a communist, but why do anti-communists sound like fucking stereotypes? Like grandfathers from the 40s warning communists were meeting up in secret clumbs in storm drains to bomb elementary schools.

They don't argue, it's no wonder people grow communist sympathies when the alternative only debates their uncomfortable facts with bonkers conspiracy theories

>>1811965
Because (((american))) anti-communists literally know nothing about how it worked even in broad sense in practice.

>>1811965
People want easy solutions.

A lot of these people looking for easy solutions are stupid.

>>1811965

You mean like McCarthy's """whacky""" conspiracy theories, that got proven right by the Venona Papers?

>>1811950
You realize that none of those points are explicitly bad things, and served as a cornerstone of society for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Your daddy issues and love of urban lifestyles do not invalidate this.

>>1811959
Being so affluent that half of a "poor" family can afford to not work while still living in relative luxury sounds like it works in my book. Perhaps you would prefer the drab life of communist society where everyone has to work or else and the family unit is purposely separated so the children can be indoctrinated into authoritarian socialist values.

>>1811965
>but why do anti-communists sound like fucking stereotypes?
Because communists are stereotypes themselves, and they actually do gather in dark places to plot the overthrow of the social order, often through violent means.

It's not the fault of anti-communists that communists are revolutionaries by definition.

>>1811954
Commies trick or not the people without bonds are less restricted so they can take more active social positions more freely.

>>1811983

This x1000.

>>1811977
Oh no a bunch of Hollywood actors have different political beliefs because they grew up in the Great Depression and saw the evil that corporate can do.

Better ruin their lives to set an example freedom of speech is only thin deep.

>>1811983
>and they often go to dark places to overthrow social order

See what I fucking mean? You sound like a hysterical soccer mom warning about satanists in the early 80's.

File: OB-BQ356_ROI_Wa_20080616105050.gif (10KB, 411x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 411x300px

>>1810244
>I don't get this strange notion that women were all housewives in the past.

A percentage of women did work outside the home but most did not and more importantly, didn't HAVE to.

Nowadays, the vast majority of women _must_ work outside the home so that the family can make ends meet.

Leftist feminism not only destroyed the traditional family, they also doubled the number of available workers, which contributed to the continuing decline in real wages for everybody.

File: Top kek.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>1811987

>Moving the goalposts this hard

>>1811983
Name one commie overthrow or assassination or terror attack in the last 25 years.

File: guE7LX0.png (51KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 657x527px

>>1811982
> family works fine
> praise capitalism! XD
> famility is kill
> commies conspiracy! D:

>>1811959
What the fuck do you think cultural Marxism is asshole?

Do you even Gramsci?

>>1811984
People without bonds are also disgustingly miserable and perform worse in the vast majority of social metrics. Humans are social animals. Companionship is a sincere need of people and without it they suffer immensely. The destruction of these bonds is bad for individuals AND for society.

>>1811995
> Vast majority of women must work outside the home so that the family can make ends meet.
And this is somehow isn't fault of our economic system, but evil leftists is to blame?

>>1812003
Which is why /r9k/ with a Hitler tint is always destined to fail on every aspect of life, even if the powers that be were specifically supporting and propping them: they're bad at everything.

>>1811990
How the fuck else are you going to initiate redistribution of wealth and CLASSLESS scoiety you mong?

>>1811996
Really, but that was what Senator McCarthy did and encouraged

You cannot hate suppression of speech while patting suppression of speech on the ass

You're supposed to be better than what you're criticizing otherwise you're just two powerful ass holes fighting an ideological battle that costs the public individual liberty to choose their own future.

It was meant to intimidate and scare people from politics that don't tote the party line

File: 200px-Capitalist1.jpg (14KB, 200x201px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x201px

>>1811995
> doubled the number of available workers
I wonder, who could profit from this and control the media to shape the society in that way?

>>1811965
> They don't argue,

>Communists want to "redistribute" my property at gun point.
>You: "OMG why don't you offer arguments against why armed robbery is wrong instead of killing the people that are trying to rob you? You're so immature, you should be an intellectual like the communists gathering a mob outside your house to burn it down."

Any action taken against communism is self-defense by default.

>>1811998
9/11

>>1812015
Maybe people just disagree with you and come up with their own conclusions. You act more cult like than them sometimes.

>THE COMMUNISTS ARE COMING THE COMMUNISTS ARE COMING

>>1812019
I feel that every action taken against Nazis and Commies alike is self-defense.

>>1812020
This one's new. Give me a humorously insane explanation for it please.

>>1810233
Women's sufferage.

>>1811965
Because communists are a fucking joke and spooked to no end

>>1811998
Kurdistan. Sri Lanka. Transnistria.

>>1812019
Nobody is robbing you at gunpoint by criticizing the status quo you hysterical loser. Stop proving me right, my point was you're making them look more attractive by being hysterical and letting the hysteria build into unnatractive places

You are helping them

>>1811998
>Stop being so hysterical about the shark in the swimming pool, it hasn't attacked anybody in weeks!

>>1812019
>Communists want to "redistribute" my property at gun point.
They want to redistribute private property, as in property in the capitalistic sense. Like a owning a business or things that aren't in your immediate possession.
So in other words, not property all. Just bullshit built on even more bullshit legal 'rights'.

>>1812042
Capitalists are the definition of spooked though.

>>1812033
Thanks for not answering my question.

If they are true communists, and they truly believe what they preach, and they aren't actively working on the downfall of capitalism they're hypocrites

>>1812042
That's not what I said, Stirner

>>1812043
>kurdistan
Ethnic uprising.

>Sri Lanka
OK

>Transnistria
Russian puppet state, impossible to color on a political spectrum outside of sucking Vlad's cock.

File: wake up sheeple.jpg (104KB, 831x209px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 831x209px

>>1812037
The truth is near.

>>1812043
> Transnistria
Wasn't really overthrow, just separartism.

>>1812052
Do you even understand the premise which communism is built open?
Forcible redistribution of property is INSEPARABLE from communist dogma.
>What are you complaining about they're not robbing you at gunpoint right this second, stop being hysterical.
Fuck off.

>>1812018
This combined with the influx of foreigners to work jobs "nobody wants to work [for the shitty wages offered]" continues to erode at western civilization.
It's essentially printing money, but you're printing laborers. Nobody benefits but the fuckers at the very top.

And of course we all know the other side of the coin. A chief reason that Communist regimes failed is because they were "printing" jobs.

>>1812054
There is currently no shark in the swimming pool.

The real shark in the swimming pool is the one in power, that you are conditioned never to criticize, that if you do criticize it you are evil and a shark in the pool.

That is the shark. Inability to critique the world we live in that won. That has power over all.

>>1812066
>literally revolting in the name of communism as well as ethnicity
>don't count because you say
Why even ask if you don't want actual answers?

>>1812068
Being Romanian, I can tell you Pacepa bulshitted a lot and was near insanity in his latter years. That being said, this sounds remotely plausible just not very likely. Interesting nevertheless.

>>1812054
There is no shark anymore you fearmongering cretin.

>>1812074
Nobody is going to force you at gun point to take away your two car garage

>>1812061
You aren't answering either

>>1812081
The fact that they're commies is a result of the fact that USSR was trying to destabilize Turkey in the Cold War. They'd be rebelling had they been fucking nazis or fascists or liberals too, stop spinning it.

>>1812087
And if I own a business? I should just let it be seized because it makes you feel good?

>you aren't answering either

How about you read the great of my post first champ?

>>1812078
Don't bother, he's a LARPer who couldn't tell you 10 things about his own assumed doctrine at gunpoint.

>>1812094
>literally what you asked for
>again it doesn't count because you say
>claiming anyone else is spinning things
Oh fuck off

>>1812076
> Chief reason that Communist regimes failed is because they were "printing" jobs.
What do you mean by that?

>>1812107
For fucks sakes I told you I'm not a communist I told you people are going towards them because compared to you they seem reasonable.

You aren't really disproving my point all that well

>>1811998
Nepal

>>1812078
There is no shark because we killed it after it went on a rampage.

Of course, any moment a second one may emerge, thus we need to be extra vigilant

>>1812114
>people becoming retarded because I yelled at them

Good riddance

>>1812117
Who cares about backwards countries, I mean name the real terrorist attack. In the US or at list EU.

>>1812107
>china and vietnam are communist
>they're having capitalist remodellings recently

That must blow your mind.

>>1812110
It's not. The PKK is a Kurdish nationalistic group that would be fighting the Turks with or without communism. Just like Mandela's revolt wasn't a communist one. But of course, you put the spin and I know you're too entrenched in your own hugbox philosophy that you can't fathom being wrong. Stop replying.

>>1812127
>China
>Vietnam
>communist

Hahahahah good joke

>>1812117
Yup. Nepal and Sri Lanka. We could count FARC too. I'll concede there are commies in various places still but mostly as remnants of former much more dangerous movements and isolated.

>>1812127
>STOP STATING FACTS THAT CONTRADICT MY WORLD VIEW
Heт cyкa

>>1812127
>>1812131
> We are totally not commies, guys!
Another lefties trick and double thinking.

>>1812087
> Nobody is going to force you at gun point to take away your two car garage
Yeah until I rent one of the bays out to my buddy, or the revolutionary committee decides that I don't actually need a two car garage since I don't own a car and I should let party members keep their cars in my garage for free since rent is bad.

Why the fuck do I even bother coming here?

>>1811052
>getting married in 2016
literally why

>>1812155
Good question, tanky. Perhaps you should fuck off to /pol/ where you belong. Oh wait, they ran you out of there too.

I wish people were more willing to see shades of grey on issues like this. I'm personally a big fan of strong marriages with a stay at home mom, but hell, I think if the mother had a career and the dad stayed home with the kids, that would probably be just as good. I think all that really matters is having a stay at home parent readily accessible for the children to help family bonds stay as solidified as possible.

>>1811052
Personally I think childbirth out of wedlock isn't inherently bad for any reason, it just gets to be very negative when the relationship is a weak one which is at risk of falling apart and leaving the kids stranded in a situation with a poor family dynamic.

I also find it incredible that one major reason why many families go without a stay at home mom has gone completely ignored in this thread. Have all of you people flat out forgotten that most low income families simply can't afford to give up a potential source of income? If we were only talking about upper middle class and up families, then yes, this would simply be about the preferences of women, but that's not even close to the full picture.

I'm disappointed by the shrinking of stay at home mothers as an element of society, but I'm also pretty sure quite a few of those moms out there working full time making minimum wage would love to be able to not need to work and spend more time with their kids.

>>1812154
Jokes on you, if revolutionary committee comes to your property you would be just killed instead of forced to give it up on gun point, comrade.

>>1812118
Oh shut the fuck up the only thing we need to be vigilant for is the shark that exists

Stop scaring people into the politics you disagree with or agree with but making it worse

>>1812078
You mean the shark in power that funds leftist movements so they can serve as stormtroopers against rightwing movements? The one that turns a blind eye to rioting leftists but immediately springs into action if someone attacks the "nonviolent" protesters?
That shark?

>>1812122
No people are changing because you're yelling about the communist apocalypse

You sound like fucking Pat Robertson

>>1812172
>>>1812078 (You) #
>You mean the shark in power that funds leftist movements so they can serve as stormtroopers against rightwing movements

This is really funny because you learn about the Truman Doctrine in Midde School

There is literally no reason you would know the direct opposite occurred for the last 2/3rds of a century

Oh well I guess education is a communist conspiracy too

>>1810233

The Pill.

>>1812178
>communism spreads through SEA, Africa and LatAm because Truman Doctrine isn't upheld
>domino theory is false
Pick one and only one

>>1812189
You said that the United States funds leftists movements that are radical.

That is literally factually false and the opposite is true. Stop being scared of uncomfortable facts because they don't agree with your upper middle class victim complex bubble

>>1812055
> They want to redistribute private property, as in property in the capitalistic sense
All property can be property in the capitalist sense.
Own your own house, farm, or tools?
Congratulations you own capital and the moment you demand compensation for the use of your property you have become a capitalist whose property should be seized by the "proletariat".

>>1812201
Not the same poster fuccboi. It is a fact that the U.S. funds left-wing groups in the post Cold War era to destabilize countries though.

>>1812209
Which ones?

>>1812216
ISIS

>>1812209
It's still the opposite. The only thing that I can think of is the Kurdistan revolutionary movements. But the US is bound to fuck then over too.

Name names. Really what are "evil world conquering leftist" groups that you can name the US has funded or currently funded

I'll tell you a giant list of the polar opposite currently and not

>>1810233
>wasp culture

>>1812219
Hearty kek

>>1812216
The U.S. funded commies in Africa during the 90s and progressive secularists during Arab Spring.

>>1810233

Capitalism destroyed it. Any other answer is wrong.

>>1812229
Those "progressive secularists" who want exactly what you want either got demolished or turned into/were always religious radicals.

In fact I think painting them as secular was a farce

If funding violent extremists is bad why are you focusing on only the fucking minnow next to the catfish. We've funded contras and juntas, Mujahadin and cartels

And they all have one thing in common that aligns with US geopolitical interests

>>1812220
>back to stating groups don't count despite fitting the criteria because you say
Perhaps it is you that should stop posting, you goalpost moving faggot.

>>1812246
I'm not moving goal posts. What goal posts am I moving.

You just don't want uncomfortable facts to exist that run contrary to your world view

>>1812250
>name a commie revolt!
>okay here's three
>hurr doesn't count because they don't fit this super special criteria I just made up
>name a US funded leftist group
>okay here's a few regions that were destabilized by aforementioned groups
>doesn't count because goalposts moved again
Cyкa бляд иди нихyи пиздeк

File: working mom.jpg (10KB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x252px

>>1812007
>> Vast majority of women must work outside the home so that the family can make ends meet.
>And this is somehow isn't fault of our economic system, but evil leftists is to blame?

Sure, but Leftist feminism played right into the hands of Wall Street and encouraged women to work outside of the home, going so far as to denigrate stay-at-home moms and portraying them as stupid and weak and somehow "missing out" on all the wonders of busting your ass at a job all day everyday....

>>1812279
It literally doesn't count because they were pawns.

You're asking for like, four to seven examples in comparison to over a hundred and information you learned in fucking grade school

>>1812296
>It doesn't count

not her but when you use that phrase, it usually means you're moving some kind of goalposts

>>1810233
>It literally doesn't count because I moved the goalposts
FTFY

>>1812302
And?

>>1812305
I didn't move the goal posts. Communists are not running the United States and never will

Anyone else here a pathetic loser who wishes they could be a stay at home dad?

>>1812288
Can someone explain why encouraging women to work didn't destoyed families in the Soviet Union?

>>1812316
>I didn't move the goalposts!
>after admitting you moved the goalposts
Бpaвo

>>1812324
Argue goal posts more. Make another post about goal posts

>>1812220
>"evil world conquering leftist groups"
Nice strawman tanky.
The left dominated government does not need to fund "world conquering leftist groups" because the left has already conquered the world.

Why are you focused solely on the United States as if it's the only relevant entity on the global stage?
Do you deny that violent "antifascist" organizations in Europe receive funding from European governments?

File: degenerate sluts.jpg (135KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x500px

>>1812319
no, I'm a degenerate and don't want children

>>1812332
For fucks sakes I'm not a tanky or a communist I'm arguing factual history on a board dedicated to it

>The left dominated government does not need to fund "world conquering leftist groups" because the left has already conquered the world.

Jesus Christ shut the fuck up Alex Jones

>Why are you focused solely on the United States as if it's the only relevant entity on the global stage

You're right I could talk about NATO and West Europe and the military coups we made that supported their Cold War interests and continue to

File: FB_IMG_1475036227688.jpg (19KB, 480x385px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x385px

>>1812328
G O A L P O S T S

>>1812332
>the left has conquered the world

>laughing Xi
>laughing Putin
>laughing Salman
>laughing Shinzo
>laughing Joko
>laughing Mugabe
>and so on and so on

>>1812358
>strawmanning this hard
>thinking Mugabe is right wing
Amazing

File: girl-ushanka.jpg (72KB, 600x603px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x603px

>>1812322
>Can someone explain why encouraging women to work didn't destoyed families in the Soviet Union?

The U.S.S.R. had a huge divorce rate (and even higher abortion rate) despite the need for couple to stick together for economic reasons.

Russia today has wide spread culture of man hating divorced women.

>>1812366
I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

Also, Mugabe isn't, neither in the simplistic american 2D schema or a more complex one, a left winger, in any sense.

>>1812366
>mugabe
>leftist

hhhha

>>1812382
>forced land redistribution in the name of equality
>Rightwing
Yeah, nah. Also over simplifying arguments to blow them out of proportion is in fact building a straw man to tear it down which is what you did. Text book strawman desu. Can you argue without fallacy? I'm guessing not judging by how often you move the goalposts when reality shits in your face.

>>1812398
>¬left(politically)=right(politically)

Look, I don't buy into your silly memes, he's not a left winger.
And I really don't know what you're talking about, you're the one who made an outrageous claim, that is
>the left has already conquered the world
,I simply pointed out leaders of various countries (some rather large and important), that are not left at all, in a memetic way.
And what the fuck, what goalposts?

Oh wait I get it, I represent all the people you disagree with in this thread, never mind I started posting 2 posts ago. I recomend relaxation and keeping away from social and regular media for a few months.

>>1811724
Family =/= nuclear family

>>1810284
>cites America in the fifties as if it wasn't the deviant historical anomaly

>>1812162
Oh wow, look, someone who isn't a retard in this thread.

I killed a turtle

>>1812461
Thanks for being the first person to actually respond to my post.

None of those things are bad though....
And historically the collapse of the family unit precedes the collapse of the nation.

>>1812493
The West will fall.

China #1

>>1812500
Ching Chong Beautiful

>>1812154
>"""""""my"""""""
Nice spook you got there. It would be a shame if it got busted.

>>1812398
>Race based supremacy politics
>left wing
yeah nah

>>1812113
Not him but its basically creating bullshit jobs that take more resources to operste than they create.

>>1812471
Best post ITT. How and why?

>>1810245
What scares me most is that I can't take this legit picture seriously.

File: statistics.jpg (106KB, 963x1097px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 963x1097px

>>1810336
>this whole thread and these /pol/tards or stormweenies

>>1810245
Leave Carlton out of this, fucker

>>1810245
>tfw No one makes you a sandwich

reaganomics