Future of Higher Education in the US

I don't see how defining family has absolutely anything to do with, "defend the rights of man or woman who are pro family". No one was attacking that. You were attacking people that didn't want to have a family. Defining a family doesn't have anything to do with that either?

 

I'm not attacking people who don't want to have family, I'm not attacking but protesting people who are preaching and promoting and "punisdhing" people who want to have a family, who are for traditional family.
I'm not attacking LGBT community, as well, as long as they don't attack retro traditional way of living.
Live and let live.

 

There you go again. Where has anyone attacked, punished or protested against people who want to have a family. You keep repeating that false statement but it hasn't been done anywhere that I know of?

 

A radical feminist movement in which women shun marriage, dating and sex with men is taking hold among young liberal Americans.

 

Why do you care? It is kinda weird and has nothing to do with the future of education.

 

This is what Sananton said about me, if you go to previous page in this discussion,
"To Lerner, discrimination against women and non-White people isn't concerning. He thinks that women being celibate is violence against men and a more pressing issue than actual violence against women."

Why did this even came up in this conversation? Because there is another thread about - A radical feminist movement in which women shun marriage, dating and sex with men is taking hold among young liberal Americans. This is to punish man.
So I responded, to the false accusation falsely attributed to me. A cheap shot.

 

Hello!

I thought the future of higher education in the US would be Peterson Academy (anti-woke, not too in-depth, ...). But well, the discussion was, um... well, "fascinating" here...

Best regards,
Mac Juli

 

I really don't think this is true. The 4B movement is in South Korea. Women not wanting to date, have sex or get married is not attacking men in any case.

On the one hand you say folks should be able to do what they want as long as it is legal. On the other hand you seem to keep saying that these extremely few women are somehow attacking or causing violence against men. You said they were having a war against men and marriage. You seem to keep contradicting yourself. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I think what you may consider that extremely few women as you say, but they are not few, they are extrime part of a larger movement that attacked the family as institution and man for a long time. It's a separate discussion l, as Feminist movement in Universities I very old indeed. Not all their activity is anti man, many are to protect women.

 

Their bodies, their choice. Pretty simple, actually. Unless, of course, you don't believe women should have control over their own bodies. (A lot of that kind of thinking out there.)

 

No issue here, as long as they don't attack the family and man. Why choose radical Famenist to represent them?
Some people don't want to have family or children. In free society it's their right.
That's my take on this.

 

You keep saying this as if they have attacked anyone. What are you referring to? What attacks have there been that you keep referring to?

 

When the radical Femenists "evangelise" like missionaries and spread it in the US, for lack of better term, the Korean 4B movement that stands for four Korean words beginning with “bi” or “no” in English: bihon means no heterosexual marriage; bichulsan, no childbirth; biyeonae, no dating; and bisekseu, no heterosexual sexual relationships.

How is this not an attack on the US hetro family and man?

Supporters of the movement urge and promote refusal to date, marry, have children or have sex (or any combination of these), effectively boycotting a system in their Korean view that it prioritizes gender inequality. Maybe in Korea but not US.

And while some participants might want to have marriage and children, they agetate the risks of having to conform to traditional gender roles outweigh the benefits of starting a family.
Again maybe in Korea but not in the US.

So in the US this is an attack on hetro family and man.

 

Maybe they better do more for the girls in Afganistan, where millions of girls will never step their foot in a school and never will be educated.
Maybe not never, bit it seems like it right now.

 

Calling it an attack is a misnomer. It is the wrong word. An attack would be hitting or shooting. It is not a verbal attack either. It is saying I'm not having a boyfriend or getting married. That is not attacking anyone?? A verbal attack would be like yelling at someone, "You are a damn idiot." or "You stink, you piece of crap." It implies a personal attack. If missionaries come to the door and try to convince me to join the Jehovah Witnesses it would be just as ridiculous to call their missionary work attacking people. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with what they are trying to convince me of it is still not attacking. It is wrong misleading and confusing to use the word attack like that because nobody is attacking anyone. I hope now you can understand why sanantone, NotJoeBiden, and I got confused by what you were saying.

 

In addition to how horrible and anti-consent this message is: wow, even "moderate" MAGA apologists sure HATe 1st amendment! Hey Lerner, "evangelizing", even "like missionaries", is PROTECTED SPEECH. Your Soviet Union roots are showing.

 

Can we please get back on topic about the future of education and not justifying 4chan incel grievances. There is another post dedicated to that topic.

 

I'm Technology Evangelist.
I use the term often.
Check LinkedIn for how it used today.
I evangelise often.

 

1ST AMENDMENT IS NOT LIMITED TO SPEECH YOU AGREE WITH. I mean, didn't you learn about this while preparing for your naturalization test?