Bathroom Battles: All part of the war on breeders

originally posted by: redempsh
A society that cannot point to the procreation of future generations as normative, cannot sustain itself.

Societies have vanished throughout history, but equal rights for non-straights as a sociological driver isn't nearly strong enough to do the job. Society will be able to sustain itself just fine.

The previous system, in which every single adult had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, was an equal right.
So this isn't about "rights," this is about re-definition of the institutes of civil society.

The rights in question are the legal protections of marriage, as they pertained to insurance, survivorship, guardianship, hospital visitation, and so forth. These rights were afforded to heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples.

It has always been about rights.

In college, I took an Honors Colloquium Course on the history of the American Family. This was well before the fight for gay rights, so sexual orientation was not part of the discussion.

However, one point worth making is that the downfall of the traditional, nuclear family unit can be traced back to one primary driver: technology.

Two hundred years ago, a man would have had a very hard time surviving the harsh environment without a wife and a hoard of kids to help with the farming, hunting, sewing, and other chores.

Due to technological advancement, a man (or woman, for that matter) can live all alone. No kids required. Today, parents have children because they WANT them. They have relationships because they WANT THEM.

Technology essentially pushes individuals higher up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, into the more rarified air of self actualization.

You can blame it on whatever you like. But there is no insidious agenda at work here.

If futurists like Ray Kurzweil are to be believed, in a couple of hundred years everyone will be walking around as mechanically enhanced cyborgs wired directly into the net. At that point, this argument about the traditional family is going to look pretty antiquated.

originally posted by: redempsh

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: redempshno one is stopping you

That's just it; I am contending for the sake of this thread that forces are, indeed, attempting to lower the birth-rate and eliminate the family unit as a locus of power & decision-making in the west.

Until about 20 years ago, there was an assumption that society existed to help people start and nurture families. There were noise ordinances in residential neighborhoods, as well as curfews for children. Most of these laws are now off the books; likewise zoning ordinances that control how close liquor stores and "adult entertainment" can be built near schools have been repealed. Whether or not this is part of a conscious plan, many people are noticing that there is a definite trend which favors any 'alternate lifestyle' over traditional two-parent families

There is another thread on ATS (that someone else started) which contends that parenting is more difficult now than in the past, due to constraints on parents.

I have oodles of kids, by the way. I get harassed constantly by the authorities for it, too. That's what I'm saying here.

Where do you live where there is no noise ordinances or curfew for kids? How does not having those two things destroy the family?

originally posted by: Greggers
In college, I took an Honors Colloquium Course on the history of the American Family. This was well before the fight for gay rights, so sexual orientation was not part of the discussion.

However, one point worth making is that the downfall of the traditional, nuclear family unit can be traced back to one primary driver: technology.

Two hundred years ago, a man would have had a very hard time surviving the harsh environment without a wife and a hoard of kids to help with the farming, hunting, sewing, and other chores.

Due to technological advancement, a man (or woman, for that matter) can live all alone. No kids required. Today, parents have children because they WANT them. They have relationships because they WANT THEM.

Technology essentially pushes individuals higher up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, into the more rarified air of self actualization.

You can blame it on whatever you like. But there is no insidious agenda at work here.

If futurists like Ray Kurzweil are to be believed, in a couple of hundred years everyone will be walking around as mechanically enhanced cyborgs wired directly into the net. At that point, this argument about the traditional family is going to look pretty antiquated.

This is, in my estimation, likely to be much closer to the truth than other theories put forth in this thread.

I don't have much to add at this point, I would just like to thank you for the insightful post.

ETA: This is not to say I don't believe there are groups in every part of the spectrum pushing insidious agendas, I believe the above is far and beyond the largest driver of this phenomenon.

And I agree that this struggle, on principal, has always been about equal rights for all at the heart of it. Being LGBT is something someone is, it is not WHO they are. We are all brothers and sisters and to marginalize one of us is to marginalize us all.

originally posted by: redempsh
The hypothesis offered here is that the Bathroom Battles concerning where transexuals should urinate and defecate are proxy fights for the larger war against the family unit.

Why we have male / female toilets has puzzled me for a long time. It seems to be a relict from the past, when men and women were kept separate as long as possible, to prevent "indecent behaviour". Well, nowadays, indecent behaviour can be observed anywhere, so no use of trying fending if off on the toilets, I'd say.

Women I know also insist that males are, well, less hygienic ("I once wandered into a mens room, oh boy, it was a pig sty"). Being male myself, I know that the size of the pee-bowl indeed inversely corresponds with the amount of pee on the floor somehow, and I often wondered what was wrong with my fellow males: how did they mis THAT gigantic bowl, and from the size of the lake underneath, not for unsubstantial time either.

But in general, the idea of "unisex" toilets sits fine with me, and it would solve the (IMHO non-existing) problem that some very narrow minded people seem to have if it comes to transgenders, gays etc. and their bowel and blatter rites.

In short: you're creating a problem where there is none. I'd focus on clean, healthy, hygienic toilets and appropriate behaviour when in the waterloo, if I were you. Part of a conspiracy? Of course not. If they wanted you to stop procreating, they would never fill your TV screens and Internet connections with nudity. Which, BTW, I quite enjoy, but let's not go there

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Women I know also insist that males are, well, less hygienic ("I once wandered into a mens room, oh boy, it was a pig sty").

Balderdash.
I know this because in my house sharing days I once moved into a residence formerly occupied by women.

Foul would be an appropriate word.

a reply to: Greggers

However, one point worth making is that the downfall of the traditional, nuclear family unit can be traced back to one primary driver: technology.

Yeah. Electric guitars.
It was rock 'n roll, I says!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Women I know also insist that males are, well, less hygienic ("I once wandered into a mens room, oh boy, it was a pig sty").

Balderdash.
I know this because in my house sharing days I once moved into a residence formerly occupied by women.

Foul would be an appropriate word.

Can absolutely vouch, especially for public bathrooms. Women are utter pigs in there, while the men's room is remarkably immaculate by comparison.

I want to know the reasoning for stuffing used pads & tampons in the corner behind toilets instead of in the receptacle right in front of us on the stall wall. Seriously, WTF kind of thought process is that? That makes the attempted pad flushings seem almost meh.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The world has been run by people with filthy habits and sick minds for a long time just take a look at Britain just about every sick bastard there has a Knighthood,look at Hastert people as high as third in line to the Presidency have molested and forced there lusts upon others,well now these perversions are coming mainstream with confusion running rampant they will have a field day i do not care what you do in your own home but I will not sanction preaching deviancy as normality.

A very long time, and usually in secret, sadly! I have heard that there were a lot of British entertainers exposed for perversions recently. We see it with politicians here, and there are strong comments that entertainers here are just as bad. I wish people like Feldman would just start naming names, already!

I only care what hey do in their homes when it involves children.

Media drive drivel. Elite controlled media tells the populace what to be mad about and easily stirs them into a frenzy. People called french fries freedom fries at one time, because the media told them to. I am brainwashed, but at least I am aware of my mental enslavement.

originally posted by: MrThortan
People called french fries freedom fries at one time, . . .

Not me. One of the Dumbest things I've ever experienced.

And the waitress that pulled that, got straightened out.

a reply to: redempsh

Does this mean that men are no longer obligated to put the lid back down for the ladies? Are we finally equally capable of putting the lid in the position we need it to be without relying on someone else to do it? Is all the trans-sexual enabling just a smokescreen to force this simple individual responsibility? Hmmm