Comments by "Andre Falksmen" (@andrefalksmen1264) on "Better Bachelor"
channel.
-
That's a cultural thing, a lot of people come from cultures where parents really do have a peasant culture, and so they don't really teach their children a worldview are about society and what they should aspire to in general. Most people are destroyed by the reality of the world, and by trying to live out the values the parents taught them in contradiction to realities of the world. Problem is no one ever wants to admit that their parents were worthless, that their parents were wrong and didn't understand the world, so instead they are destroyed by their value system and end up hating the world rather than facing facts. There are people who do come from cultures where the parents do give the world of you, we're school is not a place where you're expected to learn, but rather a place to take the test. Most people will never admit any inferiority, so when they see different life outcomes for other people there are envious and embittered by that. However, as much as people refuse to accept it, everything starts in the home. Just as there is little likelihood that your son is going to become a doctor if you didn't lay the Preparatory groundwork before she turned eighteen, he is also not going to make wise choices in dating, marriage, and child-rearing if those were not grounded in him before the age of 12.
19
-
15
-
14
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
@Da.Onus.Burger.618 yeah, the Harry and Meghan situation is more complex than people say. It gets a lot of hate and Megan gets one to blame, but people aren't seeing all perspectives.
The Narrative is Harry gave up his Birthright and benefits of being a Prince for this vain woman.
In reality, Harry is trying not to end up like his uncle's. once William had kids, he became irrelevant, and as those kids grow older he becomes even more irrelevant. Like his Uncle Andrew and Edwards he can expect pennys from the Royal purse and a life spent flogging himself to shady foreign billionaires and corporations who want an entree into respectability or help lobbying the British government.
there's even video of his uncle Edward's wife, who works in event planning, offering a potential client access to teenage boys, or whatever else he needs while he's in London.
So what's a boy to do, if you knew that you're going to have to work for the money anyway, you might as well go all out with it and make a billion off of the brand. and you find a woman who wants the money more than the title.
2
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I perhaps should have been more clear. When human beings were primitive hunter-gatherers, the institution of marriage does not exist and the social ranks when I mentioned earlier prevailed among all human groups. We know this, because uncontacted tribes no matter how far apart from each other on different continents, display that same arrangement.
We are getting into some complex areas of anthropology, sociology, and history. However, you must bear in mind the rise and fall of civilizations, and uncompleted development of society. That is to say, the institution of marriage is an entirely a construct of the Neolithic agricultural revolution and only groups who have had contact with peoples or themselves under went the process practice marriage.
The division of the women amongst the men, granted originally in polygamous form, the passing-down of property to one son, whom one could reasonably guarantee were indeed one Sons, is the basis for civilization.
2
-
You see a lot of Jackholes talk about "cultural Marxism", they believe the breakdown of the family is some grandiose plan for greater State Control. What these idiots don't understand is that with the breakdown of the family you cannot have a state, you don't even have a society, nothing functions. It is the family and not the individual which is the building block of society.
Despite the talking points of conservatard, in actual Marxist States like the Soviet Union and East Germany, the family was protected, deviant Behavior was punished. In East Germany they didn't even allow single mothers to keep their child, the secret police would take the child and place the child for adoption with a conventional family. Only in Romania was there wide spread out of wedlock, and that was a policy of their dictator to increase in population; he outlawed all contraception.
As for the movie Idiocracy, it's nonsense. You want to see how you take a impoverished illiterate population and transform it into a skilled Workforce, see Stalin's industrialization of the Soviet Union.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I'm going to be honest, the institution of marriage and indeed civilization, reduced women to the status of property. Of course to be fair, even before that in prehistoric times they could still be seized as a spoil of war and impregnated by Victorious tribes. so it did indeed suppress women's mating instincts, and we should all be grateful for that because if it had not we would have never gotten out of the proverbial caves.
the evidence would suggest that indeed prehistoric human groups were matriarchal, in as much as an older female was considered the most important person in the group, but this was always for some clients magical abilities, in short superstition.
While, some semi civilized people may be settled and practice agriculture, while practicing matrilineal inheritance, we most certainly cannot find any dominant Society that ever practice such. Far from its readers, I would not hold the succession of female rulers, say in Nubian civilization or in early modern Russia, Austria, or Spain, as matriarchy, as aside from the head of state, all other power was vested in males.
To know if a people have had contact with other more developed peoples, even civilizations, there are always telltale signs. First, for nomadic peoples, there is always the presence of livestock. Cattle, horses, goats, and other livestock had to be domesticated in a settled environment, and these people how to obtain them after domestication by a trade or raiding. Notice that even pastoralist, like the Massi or the Dinka raise cattle, which had to be domesticated by settled People's first. Likewise, Bedouin tribes relied upon domesticated cattle, again confirming their contact with settled peoples.
1
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I think you're trying to fudge the reality. The archaeological record shows that with settled agriculture, tribalism typically ends, and we move into the realm of private property. tribal base communal agriculture Typically does not survive and has only really been observed on a large scale in Papua New Guinea.
At the beginning of agriculture prominent men, called lugal's or big men in ancient Sumeria, did indeed keep harems and practice polygamy. It is only as the society becomes more complex and the division of labor goes beyond Agriculture and into Urban life that polygamy becomes a disadvantage. That is because for a farmer wife and children may be an asset, but for a grain Merchant, Until the children reach a certain age, they are largely a liability.
Of course there were other forces, religious forces that seem to put a check on the impetus toward polygamy and harems for all except for the most powerful people in a society.
If marriage put a check on both male and female sexuality, it did so only in as much as it's traditionally restricted women, at least in their first marriage, from all choice, and forced men into the position of having to show their productive Worth to a female's father rather than in seducing a woman.
Again, these may be harsh realities, but they have been the best things for human development and the cause of civilization.
1
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 well again, you have to remember those tribe had contact with more advanced societies or were once more advanced and experienced some sort of reversion.
The question of how does marriage benefit a man in the modern world, is somewhat more complex, depending upon the risk from the divorce laws. I would hardly think an a man in the Arab world, where there are not the same laws as in the west, would say that marriage is a disadvantage.
The way the marriage marketplace operates in the modern Western World makes marriage a grave disadvantage to most men. But then again most men are also at a great disadvantage even in the sexual Marketplace place.
whatever happens, the problem we face is that the family, and not the individuals, is the Bedrock of human civilization. No civilization can hope to survive in the absence of the family and the family cannot survive in the present condition.
Allowing women sexual choices has been a disastrous policy, which has been compounded by the notion of romantic love, and no fault divorce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ostensibly, men taking the last name of a woman is not, in and of itself, a violation of the patriarchal system. Traditionally, in Asian societies, this is taking place where the father has no Sons and leaves his assets and property to the husband of his firstborn daughter, on the condition that he takes on the family name of the wife's father. This still happens in Japan where families have no male heirs so the daughter's husband changes his last name and is legally adopted and receives the property and inheritance that would normally go to a son.
The practices are going to be less common in the west, however beer and mine it did occur to certain degree. There are thousands of aristocratic families with "double bolted" last names, like "Oliff-Copper", where the outline of the female family was effectively dying out, but had substantial more assets then the family to which the daughter was to marry, the condition of the marriage and passing of the assets to the woman's husband being that he adopt the surname.
Even in America, it was not uncommon until the 1960s for men with particularly ethnic surnames to adopt the surname of the woman they were marrying, if it sounded more waspy. Case in point, Martha Stewart, whose maiden name is a Polish ancestry, mentioned that her brother, a dentist, took his wife's surname in order not to have an "ethnic practice" and attract more upper middle-class clientele.
1