Social Harrison Butker: Doxed, Slandered and Calls to be Canceled for having Christian Views

[nostradumbass]

I don't disagree with a lot of this. But desiring to have children and desiring to be a stay at home parent are 2 completely different things.

The % of women that prefer to be stay at home parents has been lurching back and forth dramatically over the last few decades. The % has been as low as 24% and as high as over 50%. But it's the reasons for the decision that are really telling. By far the biggest reason women give in favor of being a stay at home parent is economic. 'I've always wanted to be a stay at home Mom-It's my reason for living' is way down the list. The closer the cost of childcare gets to the second highest income in the family, the better having a stay at home parent looks. And interestingly, more men are now stay at home parents. Nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are now men.

58% of college students are now women. And women are getting better grades in college than men overall. It's likely that the % of married women outearning their husbands will continue to grow. So it will be increasingly likely that economically at least, it will make more sense for the man to be the stay at home parent if that's the route the families choose.

It's unlikely Mrs. Harrison Butker would get a job offer that pays significantly more than the $4 million a year her husband gets to kick field goals. But if she did, I wonder how quickly Harrison would embrace his role of husband and stay at home father.

As I said earlier, if men really want stay at home wives and mothers, they will need to make that choice better than the alternatives. And those alternatives are pretty much the same as mens now. I think the next 4-5 decades are going to be a time for men to either check their ego's and swallow their pride, or join one of the many and growing incel factions.

Kind of a bizarre interpretation of that information. "Economic" doesn't mean they really enjoy driving around in their minivan to fast food places to drop shit off on people's porches, or punching a clock. It means they work because they have to. Saying "nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are now men" doesn't mean what you think it does. The number is actually 18%, which means 82% are women, and that is of the stay at home parents, not of the of the married population. Of the married population, only about 1% are "stay at home dads", and even that is misleading because it's "not in the paid labor force", and 25% just lost their job and haven't found another, 35% are ill or disabled, and another 22% are "in school/retired/other". They also have a 33% higher divorce rate than couples where both work, or the man is the sole or primary breadwinner.

"Stay at home dads" isn't going to catch on for the same reason people who do have to hire a nanny don't hire dudes.

"Men need to check their egos and swallow their pride or join the incels" is so far off the mark that it's almost comical. How is it even possible for someone to have thought "incels" were men who just refuse to sleep with women who make more than them? Women of course are the ones who would need to "swallow their pride" and start marrying more broke bums for your prediction to come to fruition, since that is for whom economic viability is a major factor in marriage decisions.

Instead, in the same time that women have been encouraged or required to work more, to the extent that single women in many metropolitan areas make more than their male counterparts, what we've actually seen happen isn't a huge spike in marriages where women are the sole or primary breadwinner(still only at about 15%), what's happened instead is the marriage rate plummet and the out of wedlock births skyrocket.

Women marry across and up. They marry up more than they marry across, and they marry across more than they marry down, by pretty large margins. What this artificial push for women to make more than men accomplishes, through preferences for "women owned businesses" and hiring quotas, is it just shrinks their number of economically viable husbands, lowers marriage rates and increases out of wedlock births. It's the same trajectory that has already worked wonders in the black community when they incentivized not having a dad in the house, and have sent those marriage rates from higher than the white population down to like 33%, with a 75% out of wedlock birth rate within a few generations.

 

[cooks1]

Kind of a bizarre interpretation of that information. "Economic" doesn't mean they really enjoy driving around in their minivan to fast food places to drop shit off on people's porches, or punching a clock. It means they work because they have to. Saying "nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are now men" doesn't mean what you think it does. The number is actually 18%, which means 82% are women, and that is of the stay at home parents, not of the of the married population. Of the married population, only about 1% are "stay at home dads", and even that is misleading because it's "not in the paid labor force", and 25% just lost their job and haven't found another, 35% are ill or disabled, and another 22% are "in school/retired/other". They also have a 33% higher divorce rate than couples where both work, or the man is the sole or primary breadwinner.

"Stay at home dads" isn't going to catch on for the same reason people who do have to hire a nanny don't hire dudes.

"Men need to check their egos and swallow their pride or join the incels" is so far off the mark that it's almost comical. How is it even possible for someone to have thought "incels" were men who just refuse to sleep with women who make more than them? Women of course are the ones who would need to "swallow their pride" and start marrying more broke bums for your prediction to come to fruition, since that is for whom economic viability is a major factor in marriage decisions.

Instead, in the same time that women have been encouraged or required to work more, to the extent that single women in many metropolitan areas make more than their male counterparts, what we've actually seen happen isn't a huge spike in marriages where women are the sole or primary breadwinner(still only at about 15%), what's happened instead is the marriage rate plummet and the out of wedlock births skyrocket.

Women marry across and up. They marry up more than they marry across, and they marry across more than they marry down, by pretty large margins. What this artificial push for women to make more than men accomplishes, through preferences for "women owned businesses" and hiring quotas, is it just shrinks their number of economically viable husbands, lowers marriage rates and increases out of wedlock births. It's the same trajectory that has already worked wonders in the black community when they incentivized not having a dad in the house, and have sent those marriage rates from higher than the white population down to like 33%, with a 75% out of wedlock birth rate within a few generations.

Saying nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are men means exactly what I think it means.......Nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are men.

And it does not surprise me at all that families where men are the stay at home parent have higher divorce rates. Men have never correctly valued the stay at home parent role. They don't when their wives are doing it, and they don't when they are doing it. That is one of the fundamental changes that is needed. And for the record my wife was a stay at home parent. She's had side gigs and part time stuff here and there, but only now that our youngest is 11, is she choosing to jump into the workforce again full time.

The declining marriage rate does not concern me. In fact it's a good thing, because divorce rates have have been dropping just as fast, perhaps even faster than the marriage rates. We are under 15 per 1000 annually now. The last time divorce rates were than low, we'd not yet watched the moon landing.

Out of wedlock births- that is a concern. But I think that issue is better solved by fewer births than trying to step into the DeLorean and zip back to the good ole days.

The era we have recently entered is a new one for men and women. Up until now, women were fundamentally dependent on men in some way. Back in the caveman days, they depended on men's strength and aggression for survival and protection. Then they had to depend on men for a place to stay and any semblance of comfort. During this time, men did not have to depend on women for survival. They chose to have women because they liked fucking and spreading their seed. And, turns out, they were handy to have around.

But now, women do not need men for physical protection or a reasonably comfortable life. They can accomplish all those things on their own. If they keep a man around now, it will be because they choose to. And that man must give her reasons other than his physical strength and 'bringing home the bacon'. Taken as a whole, men are not particularly fond of this new normal, and honestly-it's understandable. They must now bring more to the table just to have the same as before.

It's been a rough adjustment and there are some reasons to worry. More than half of adult Gen Z men reported having no romantic relationships during their teenage years. And these are the kids that were informed by porn videos of women getting choked out and fisted during that time. Might be a bumpy landing for them. But everyone will have to adapt.

 

[nostradumbass]

Saying nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are men means exactly what I think it means.......Nearly 1 in 5 stay at home parents are men.

And it does not surprise me at all that families where men are the stay at home parent have higher divorce rates. Men have never correctly valued the stay at home parent role. They don't when their wives are doing it, and they don't when they are doing it. That is one of the fundamental changes that is needed. And for the record my wife was a stay at home parent. She's had side gigs and part time stuff here and there, but only now that our youngest is 11, is she choosing to jump into the workforce again full time.

The declining marriage rate does not concern me. In fact it's a good thing, because divorce rates have have been dropping just as fast, perhaps even faster than the marriage rates. We are under 15 per 1000 annually now. The last time divorce rates were than low, we'd not yet watched the moon landing.

Out of wedlock births- that is a concern. But I think that issue is better solved by fewer births than trying to step into the DeLorean and zip back to the good ole days.

The era we have recently entered is a new one for men and women. Up until now, women were fundamentally dependent on men in some way. Back in the caveman days, they depended on men's strength and aggression for survival and protection. Then they had to depend on men for a place to stay and any semblance of comfort. During this time, men did not have to depend on women for survival. They chose to have women because they liked fucking and spreading their seed. And, turns out, they were handy to have around.

But now, women do not need men for physical protection or a reasonably comfortable life. They can accomplish all those things on their own. If they keep a man around now, it will be because they choose to. And that man must give her reasons other than his physical strength and 'bringing home the bacon'. Taken as a whole, men are not particularly fond of this new normal, and honestly-it's understandable. They must now bring more to the table just to have the same as before.

It's been a rough adjustment and there are some reasons to worry. More than half of adult Gen Z men reported having no romantic relationships during their teenage years. And these are the kids that were informed by porn videos of women getting choked out and fisted during that time. Might be a bumpy landing for them. But everyone will have to adapt.

If it means exactly what you think it means, then you wouldn't have brought it up, because it's a point against what you're claiming.

"A fundamental change that is needed" for what, exactly? To fill your quotas? You have every single indicator pointing in the same direction when people have an actual choice, and instead of accepting it, you're trying to have some wrestling match with reality when people don't choose what you wish they would.

You seem to have forgotten the purpose of marriage in the first place. "Men chose to get married to spread their seed" doesn't even make sense. If that was their goal, of course they would not get married and just knock up a bunch of different chicks and move on to the next. In fact there are demographic groups who are doing that right now, and the results couldn't possibly have gone much worse. Obviously marriage isn't now and never was to benefit men, and it's not supposed to be all about the woman either, it is for the benefit of children. Men give up some of their freedom and "desire to spread their seed" in order for women to indulge their desire for motherhood in a stable environment. The results are in, amigo, and single mothers seem to be doing a pretty horrific job of raising kids without a father in the house. Lol, what kind of preposterous threat is "men are going to have to start becoming homemakers, or else women will just start having sex with them without the responsibility of marriage"?




You can't simultaneously hold the view that plummeting marriage rates is a good thing, and that out of wedlock births are concerning. Your solution to out of wedlock births where people continue the low marriage rates, and just stop having sex and babies, and live alone and focus on a corporate job and have HR send out an "e-vite" to their funeral because they have no family, seems pretty damn undesirable and thankfully not even in the realm of possibility. Your choices are marriage or a huge spike in out of wedlock births, that's it.

If your guess was that divorce rates were dropping just as fast or faster than marriage rates, you would be wrong by quite a lot. Marriage rates are at all time low, while divorce rates are just a little bit lower than the all time high. Marriages where the man is the sole or primary breadwinner still have the historically low divorce rates, egalitarian marriage have divorce rates quite a bit higher than that, and marriages where the woman is the sole or primary breadwinner are higher than the average rates of any point in history.

You don't even believe it yourself, unless you'd like to be consistent and support the logical next step of getting rid of child support from men, and whichever parent is better suited to financially take care of the children gets primary custody of them. Women don't need no man, and they can do it all themselves anyway, right?

It seems that the traditional male breadwinner family is still very much a reality in the U.S., and those couples where the wife has a higher income than the husband still have a greater chance of divorce than couples where the husband has a substantially higher income. This is not only true in the United States. In highly egalitarian Sweden, a higher share of income earned by the wife creates an increased risk of divorce, per one study, and another study found that even an unexpected windfall (winning the lottery) leads to a greater chance of divorce for female winners and a lower chance of divorce for male winners. These results suggest that the spouse who provides the most financially in the marriage matters differently to husbands versus wives, and they are consistent with the claim that women still value the financial prospects of a spouse more than men do.

 

[HenryFlower]

Liberals are softer than baby shit and their pearl clutching over this is absolutely embarrassing. I can't imagine how fragile and pathetic you have to be to have the complete meltdown they are having over this the past week. They just hate strong people with values because they have always been weak and never worthy of respect.

idk bro, i rarely see your posts, but every time i do, it’s you having a meltdown over something being woke. you’re literally so scared shitless of wokeness that i’m worried you don’t even leave your basement level apartment.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

When did the left become so intollerant?

 

[cooks1]

nostradumbass said:

If it means exactly what you think it means, then you wouldn't have brought it up, because it's a point against what you're claiming.

I brought up that 1 in 5 stay at home parents were male only to point out that more men are stay at home parents than before. 11% of stay at home parents were men in 1989, and 2% of stay at home parents were men in 1970. This is a significant shift that has been going on for a while now and it is not done.

nostradumbass said:

"A fundamental change that is needed" for what, exactly? To fill your quotas? You have every single indicator pointing in the same direction when people have an actual choice, and instead of accepting it, you're trying to have some wrestling match with reality when people don't choose what you wish they would.

The fundamental change we need is that both men and women need to have more appreciation and acknowledgement of the stay at home parent role and it's importance. Neither have ever valued it properly, Until quite recently the male view was that it was beneath them and it was the only role women were fit for. And it was that perspective that drove women out of the home in droves the second they had real opportunity outside it. Why would women value the role when theirs husband's didn't. It would also be in the governments interest, financial and otherwise, to incentivize married stay at home parents.

nostradumbass said:

You can't simultaneously hold the view that plummeting marriage rates is a good thing, and that out of wedlock births are concerning. Your solution to out of wedlock births where people continue the low marriage rates, and just stop having sex and babies, and live alone and focus on a corporate job and have HR send out an "e-vite" to their funeral because they have no family, seems pretty damn undesirable and thankfully not even in the realm of possibility. Your choices are marriage or a huge spike in out of wedlock births, that's it.

If your guess was that divorce rates were dropping just as fast or faster than marriage rates, you would be wrong by quite a lot. Marriage rates are at all time low, while divorce rates are just a little bit lower than the all time high. Marriages where the man is the sole or primary breadwinner still have the historically low divorce rates, egalitarian marriage have divorce rates quite a bit higher than that, and marriages where the woman is the sole or primary breadwinner are higher than the average rates of any point in history.

LOL- You can absolutely and without hypocrisy simultaneously contend that dropping marriage rates are fine and out of wedlock births are concerning. My solution- Fuck all you like but wait until your married to have kids. The marriage rate may be going down, but it's pretty easy to get laid right now if that's what you want. Use contraception and birth control. Get an abortion if you have an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. And that is definitely a viable plan, because the TOTAL birthrate has been dropping steadily for over 30 years.

And the number of new divorces per 1000 marriages is at it lowest point in over 50 years. Divorce rates have been dropping for a while now. They were around 14.6 per 1000 in 2022/2023. The drops over the past 15 years have been the most dramatic. Even you should be able to notice that once the marriage rates got to their lowest point, that's when divorces started plummeting the fastest.

nostradumbass said:

You don't even believe it yourself, unless you'd like to be consistent and support the logical next step of getting rid of child support from men, and whichever parent is better suited to financially take care of the children gets primary custody of them. Women don't need no man, and they can do it all themselves anyway, right?

I think the current rules about alimony and child support should be applied the same regardless of who is earning more or less. If the woman was making 300K and the Guy was making 50, he should (and generally does) get alimony and child support just as if it were the other way around. And his ex-wife will bitch about every penny she pays--- just like ex-husbands have been doing since the dawn of time.

 

[fingercuffs]

Plenty of women have worked hard for a career only to find out it wasn't worth the personal cost. Others have made it big and don't care about the personal cost. Yet.

Where was the speech about stay at home dads?

 

[Poon Goon]

Where was the speech about stay at home dads?

He doesn't stay at home so why would he talk about that? You can't just dick around at home kicking footballs and expect someone to pay you for it.

 

[HomeCheese]

Just another rich white dude trying to tell women what to do and claiming he has the holy blessing of the good book to do so. Fuck this guy. What a trash perspective.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Just another rich white dude trying to tell women what to do and claiming he has the holy blessing of the good book to do so. Fuck this guy. What a trash perspective.

Speaking of trash perspectives, what does his race have to do with anything?

 

[HomeCheese]

Speaking of trash perspectives, what does his race have to do with anything?

Do you agree with what he said? Women should focus on being homemakers. Is this what you would tell your daughters?

If you want to start a thread to chat about his race go ahead, I'll chime in.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Why don’t you buy a women a watch?

Because there’s a clock on the stove

 

[Mr Holmes]

Do you agree with what he said? Women should focus on being homemakers. Is this what you would tell your daughters?

If you want to start a thread to chat about his race go ahead, I'll chime in.

You're the one that brought up his race. Why?

 

[HomeCheese]

You're the one that brought up his race. Why?

Just once and you brought it up twice now. Why?

Back to the thread. You side with this guy, you telling your daughters this message? Do you also use the holy book as justification like you are somehow doing god's work or something?

 

[Mr Holmes]

Just once and you brought it up twice now. Why?

Because you're dodging the question. And now for a 3rd time. Its fine, I already know you're trash.

 

[nostradumbass]

nostradumbass said:


I brought up that 1 in 5 stay at home parents were male only to point out that more men are stay at home parents than before. 11% of stay at home parents were men in 1989, and 2% of stay at home parents were men in 1970. This is a significant shift that has been going on for a while now and it is not done.

nostradumbass said:


The fundamental change we need is that both men and women need to have more appreciation and acknowledgement of the stay at home parent role and it's importance. Neither have ever valued it properly, Until quite recently the male view was that it was beneath them and it was the only role women were fit for. And it was that perspective that drove women out of the home in droves the second they had real opportunity outside it. Why would women value the role when theirs husband's didn't. It would also be in the governments interest, financial and otherwise, to incentivize married stay at home parents.

nostradumbass said:



LOL- You can absolutely and without hypocrisy simultaneously contend that dropping marriage rates are fine and out of wedlock births are concerning. My solution- Fuck all you like but wait until your married to have kids. The marriage rate may be going down, but it's pretty easy to get laid right now if that's what you want. Use contraception and birth control. Get an abortion if you have an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. And that is definitely a viable plan, because the TOTAL birthrate has been dropping steadily for over 30 years.

And the number of new divorces per 1000 marriages is at it lowest point in over 50 years. Divorce rates have been dropping for a while now. They were around 14.6 per 1000 in 2022/2023. The drops over the past 15 years have been the most dramatic. Even you should be able to notice that once the marriage rates got to their lowest point, that's when divorces started plummeting the fastest.

nostradumbass said:


I think the current rules about alimony and child support should be applied the same regardless of who is earning more or less. If the woman was making 300K and the Guy was making 50, he should (and generally does) get alimony and child support just as if it were the other way around. And his ex-wife will bitch about every penny she pays--- just like ex-husbands have been doing since the dawn of time.

Right, so like I said, it's a misinterpretation on your part. The figure that would convey what you thought this did would most accurately be the percent of the entire male population who are stay at home dads, because that would also somewhat take into account who women opt to marry in the first place. Slightly less accurate but still better than what you presented would be of the percentage of the married population, because it does partially account for women's selection but doesn't account for the increase in couples where both spouses have to work. The figure of men being higher share of the stay at home spouse population doesn't show a massive uptick in couples embracing a role reversal, it shows that those are the least common marriages my a mile, that they are the least successful, and represents a large decrease in couples that can make ends meet on 1 income.

The main increase in that number happened after the 2008 financial collapse because a lot of men who were the breadwinners lost their jobs, so the number of unemployed dads spiked for about 2 years after, then started declining again as their wives started leaving them, because women are more interested in your ability to earn money and provide than your ability to pack a lunch and do dishes.

You can run for office on a platform of forced abortions, but until then, declining marriage rates does necessarily mean a huge increase in out of wedlock births, which is backed up by the inverse relationship between the two over the same time, and further shown when broken down by demographic groups. Decreased birth rates overall does not negate the massively increased percentage of out of wedlock births, all it does is decrease the number of children with married parents, which is about the worst trade off I can think of.

This claim that women want to be the breadwinners isn't backed up by anything anywhere at any point in history, and everything that does exist is pointing to the exact opposite.

 

[nostradumbass]

Do you agree with what he said? Women should focus on being homemakers. Is this what you would tell your daughters?

If you want to start a thread to chat about his race go ahead, I'll chime in.

You already did "chime in" about his race completely out of nowhere, and hey surprise, it was just to point out your racial animus with absolutely no relevance to the topic.

You can tell your imaginary daughters that male values are the right values, and that traditionally female values are shit because they don't produce income, but the rest of us aren't sacks of shit who thought the guy's race somehow discredits what he said, and tell women it's more "empowering" to sit in a cubicle and get used up by bums and deadbeats than it is to raise kids.

FFS, look at the majors women pick when they're told they have to work. Early childhood education, nursing, social work. The man is still the primary breadwinner in the majority of marriages, because having the security to raise children without having to worry about money IS what most of them want, and the ones who don't have that option and do have to make money end up going into fields that are the next closest thing to what they want to be doing.

Why is it that the same people who pretend working for some corporation is "empowering" for women and way more important than raising a family, are also the ones who bitch about work for themselves non stop and how they need shorter work weeks and more paid vacations and their boss is greedy and the government should give them more free shit so they don't have to work so much?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Better donate a lot of money at this guy to help with his "trouble"!

 

[fingercuffs]

He doesn't stay at home so why would he talk about that? You can't just dick around at home kicking footballs and expect someone to pay you for it.

Did you even watch it? Your thoughts?

 

[Poon Goon]

Did you even watch it? Your thoughts?

In the current golden age of entertainment commencement speeches aren't on my list of things to watch. I know the argument is that the guy is either a hero for his traditional views or a piece of shit sexist, but I really don't care either way. It's just some guy with his own opinion. Most importantly to me, he plays for KC so I already hate him and wish him nothing but failure in life.