>>32712606>Sure, but who is to say that (You) know better? Me
>How about you let people succeed or fail on their own? Western society already does. Cue getting gunned or stabbed down in a mass killling by a failure. There's a reason Semper Fidelis is a thing, and it's because strong social bonds are forged by loyalty rather than complete independence.
>Give them advice, push them towards functional and more traditional family life, but why force them? You don't leave holes in the boat and allow it to continue to leak, because then those people who make poor choices turn around and demand society compensate even when it's not society's fault. Although to be fair, it often is in social darwinist police states that glorify psychopathy and materialism, allow people the freedom to fuck up their own lives as well as the lives of those around them, while outlawing violent retaliation regardless of how much damage someone did to your wellbeing. But that's more due to the fact that society actively facilitates harm and toxic hypercompetition rather than trying to curb its excesses.
>Isn't the purpose of strong families to protect the development of its members so they are able to maximize their freedom, understood as the degree of control they have over themselves and their lives? For men and boys, yes. Women don't need (or deep down necessarily want) complete freedom. At a certain point, after seeing women young and old thirsting to be groomed, controlled and financially exploited by Vox Akuma, you really need to sit down and be honest about gender differences.
>Isn't the purpose of families to maintain a strong lineage that can stand up in the face of advesity, often promoted by corporations, governments, intelligence agencies and NGOs and the ideologues and oportunist within them? And that's why you don't give any of those an "in" by affording freedom to those most likely to be manipulated and turned against their own interests. Take magni's recent collab partner. By all accounts she has every reason to be satisfied with notoriety and freedom, yet she's still a discontent raging against schrodinger's boogeymen to compensate for something missing in her life.
>Even if I think the modern perspective being pushed with propaganda is harmful for this end, I also think that the compromise I outlined in a previous post, which really isn't about equality as you said, is a better approach than a hard coded patriarchy enforced ultimately by force (be it governmental or in an abusive family situation)You're right. It should be enforced from the bottom up. But saying that all male authority and the enforcement of it is abusive is literally just a feminist talking point. Nobody alive even remembers what life or society was like in the west prior to women gaining the right to vote, so people don't actually have any personal point of reference for saying that a hard patriarchy is in fact worse than modern empowerment. All we know is that things like mass killings, terrorism and human unhappiness have steadily increased since "EQUALITY" between demographics became the driving ideological motivation behind culture and law, and sometimes you do have to consider that correlation may indeed be tied to causation.
