@Luke_Stocky@Eric_Conn Also, women report higher levels of happiness. Political views are taken into consideration when talking about that. Therefore, that point is irrelevant
@Luke_Stocky@Eric_Conn Not really. College educated women on average are more likely to be in committed relationships than women who aren't college educated. Also, women with doctorate's degrees have more children those with a mere high school education
Some thoughts.
I'm going to post my critique of the manosphere in the next few days. But long story short...
Fertility and marriage have gone up and down throughout history due to economic and technological changes, medical advances, and war. Feminism is "downstream" or a "lagging indicator" of material conditions. The almost universal monogamous society of 1950s and '60s America was an aberration, not anywhere close to being the norm across world history.
Men who are more intelligent or richer, or more brave, bold, aggressive, or reckless, have outbred their contemporaries throughout world history—again, with the notable exception of maybe 20 years in mid-century when America had a brief period of almost universal monogamy . This fits the breeding pattern of aggressive male completion among mammals and, even more so, the "breed then die" ethos of insects.
The "manosphere," as it's currently constituted, is a resentful, socialist movement of low-status men. They feel entitled to aberrational, illusory universal monogamy, not to mention a steady job and wife. Marxists would make recourse to labor strikes to get what they want. The Manosphere claims that they are "traditional," which they most certainly are not.
On the other hand, I'm ambivalent about feminism, to the degree that it represents "choosiness" among women. Only the strong get through and thus have a future. Perhaps feminism is Mother Nature's response to the dysgenic breeding patterns that people like Andrew Wilson want to universalize. It's a way of breeding higher types or at least reducing lower types.
As for the Wilsons, I think I made myself clear. They are a contemptible and embarrassing pair. Andrew is a weakling. His wife is an obnoxious slut and probably deranged. No polite person would bring up their chaotic "family" unprompted ... but since they go on lecturing people about "tradition" and "Christianity," they make it fair game. In a word: Yikes!
As for the debate, I asked for 10 minutes to make an opening statement. I obviously would give Wilson the same in return. I need five minutes to clear my throat, and expect a productive conversation and back-and-forth. This was apparently too much to ask!
A similar thing occurred when Rebel Wilson "debated" RFH. She demanded that RFH turn on her video, which she was, at the time, in no position to do and had expressed as much. She then quit, in the same manner that Andrew did. My sense is that this pair wants to turn "technicalities" into debate victories. No one's buying it.
Regardless, both Andrew and Rebel are vile, ignorant proles, and I'm quite happy to never cross paths with them again.
@Luke_Stocky@Eric_Conn I already did in the comments. It was from Pew Research.
Also, US census bureau from 2019 shows that college educated people have lower divorce rates than the national average
@honkeymcconkey@JaminMcKeever@Eric_Conn My support for Ukraine in a defensive warfare against an aggressor is irrelevant to this convo.
What I'm saying is an objective fact
Dumb take
Women that go to college are much likelier to get married, divorce less, report higher rates of happiness and have a whole connection of networks which gives them a variety of different opportunities. Overall, college is a net positive for women.
Let's talk about women and higher education.
First, the argument that women need higher education so they can raise godly sons actually goes back to the French Revolution period. Proto-feminists and revolutionaries sought to destroy Christian families, so they used this nefarious line often: "A woman needs to have a university education outside the home if she is to raise godly sons."
This was a subtle maneuver. What they really wanted was to brainwash the girl whilst away from her Christian father's authority. This is why Marxists and Bolsheviks targeted and infiltrated education. Women off at school are easy prey for leftists.
Second, Scripture is clear that young women should not leave their father's protection/headship, which means his household, until she is passed on to the headship of the husband at the altar. There should not be a period of "single womanhood" wherein she lives outside the authority of a head.
Third, single women should not be encouraged to go get an advanced degree (you get a degree to get a job outside the home, obviously a man's domain, biblically speaking). If her main vocation/calling is motherhood, it's obvious you learn that in a home with a mother, not off at college. Let's be real: College is for training workers in the workforce. Women aren't called to do that.
This whole notion that you should get married, but until then go find a career so you don't waste your time, is not what women are called, biblically, to do. Now, this does not mean she "doesn't work." She can assist her father in myriad ways within the productive household, and her mother as well.
Fourth, young women should be instructed, in line with Paul (1 Tim. 5:14; Titus 2) to continue serving in the household, with headship, under a godly mother. The best place for her to learn how to be a mother is in the home, with a mother.
Fifth, her father should actively seek a husband for her. He plays a pivotal role in vetting suitors, even as Abraham sought a wife for his son, Isaac.
Sixth, when women pursue degrees, rack up debt, and then chase careers, this actually hurts their marriageable status—men would have to inherit a boss babe, debt, etc. They're also far busier advancing in business, which often prohibits them from spending time looking for a spouse. And they become wildly independent, which makes them unsuited for a role in which submission is the main ingredient.
@wheresurhusband@spanglermt What I'm saying is that college itself isn't deleterious to one's marriages.
Also, college is one of the major factors of social mobility, therefore even if what you said is true, college still plays a major role in that
@randallthorn99@Eric_Conn Sure. But I'm saying that college educated women have roughly the same rates of marriage as women back then. They aren't the ones who are having trouble with being married/staying married, their counterparts are, however.
@randallthorn99@Eric_Conn No, I addressed your point. Even in spite of more liberal views on marriage over the decades, college educated women remain roughly the same during that timespan.
I can't say but it's probably not that much different than those that don't go to college.