In His essay on Houellebecq, Thierry Baudet blames the weather to work and equality as a cause of divorces and a decline in birth rates. Is The family really the sole responsibility of women?

Demographic research has been conducted into the causes of divorce and in short it comes down to what Baudet claims as a conclusion from the essay (I have not read it) is sound nonsense. As is the case with many sources/statements of Baudet, although I have stopped keeping it exactly, after some previous sources he cites contain outright lies and this was easy to see when you put the CBS figures next to it.Bear in mind that this man is pathologically lying, so in everything he comes with, you can put serious questions. Never assume anything for true, certainly not with him. But you do not have to go into the depths of what is going on, only those statements of Baudet are already chopped up.

After a peak since the introduction of divorce, the percentage has remained reasonably stable as around 40%.Occasionally, it rises at a low-current economy and higher unemployment, as in the last crisis, often the peak comes a little later, usually caused by micro-economic conditions such as house under water, attorney fees, etc.

The two most common reasons for divorce is adultery (34%) and money (33%).At first the divorce is often requested by the man, in the second often by the woman. At a distant third place with about 11% state disease. It is said that until death separates us, the practice is more and more difficult.

However, what the percentage does not show for who it is.A large part of the 40% is caused by the same group of people, who do not separate once but several times. For example, a woman who once divorced has a 70% chance to divorce again.

Research into oxytocin receptors in marmots has shown that faithfulness or infidelity is hereditary.

If you are going to switch the employment rate regionally against each other and that can be seen at the CBS StatLine too, it shows that it has little influence on the percentage of divorce.

Work and unemployment is mainly determined by business cycle and by a person’s background (usually highly educated).

So what you can say is that not everyone is born for happiness and not everyone is fit for a marriage, but equality, ahem he has once again uneven that I can give him.;)

And whether equality has an effect on the child.I would argue not, rather real wages, that the last 40 years excepted from a short break in the 1990s was lagging behind. That is not something FvD can do something about, on the contrary, which will worsen the problem sooner. Policy and organisation of FvD is so dysfunctional and extreme right that the trade unions, minimum wage and negotiation at Collective bargaining can do nothing good.

I am now going to stand on my stripes!

Of course not, what a nonsense.The reasons for my divorce have nothing to do with the ‘ going to work ‘ of my ex, but with personal factors.

The reason I wanted to start a divorce was mainly because I considered myself as capable as every woman to educate my autistic son alone.

‘ Equality ‘ can be a reason for divorce, but it is rarely the cause.In my case, the legal equality between man and woman and the right for me to contribute as much (later, but that is another story) to the education of my son (instead of becoming a ‘ weekend father ‘) is a reason to end a failed relationship.

It would have been an alternative that two people had stayed together against better knowledge ‘ for the sake of the child ‘, which would therefore suffer much more.

Baudet is an idoot.But not only therefore.

Only at Debielen.(Baudet is a debiel). I really can’t make too much time to that figure.

‘, ‘ No.He is like a little spoiled boy who likes to call very hard ‘ poo ‘. But then by way of expensive words so that it sounds serious. It is clear that he does not understand where the real interests and development directions go in society. Goes by itself.

“,” Mr. Baudet is happy to serve with fallacies, with the favorite pattern: to twist the words of his opponent and to appeal to him (incidentally, many politicians do that, very sad).

But that does not mean that we have to do that too.Otherwise formulated: Baudet says (or actually: Houellebeck says, and Baudet goes on) that women, in their pursuit of individualistic independence, load so much on their own plate that they come into the mess with work, partner, family, etc.

‘ Exclusive responsibility of the woman ‘ he says nowhere.And I also do not see that he lays the cause of divorces when women go back to work.

Incidentally, I can go a great deal in the statement that (1) emancipation is an expression of individualisation, (2) that a growth in divorces is an expression of individualisation, (3) that the shrinking of families is part of Individualization and even (4) that legalizing abortion is a significant part of the need for individualisation.

But all these factors can not be thrown together at will and then say that (2) prevents (1) or (3) from (1).

No, the only thing you can argue is that in the Sixties an individualisation wave has been deployed, as a result of which we have come to think massively differently about all sorts of traditional patterns.But as soon as you engage in fallacies like ‘ immigration is the result of individualization in the West ‘ or ‘ Baudet claims that the family is the exclusive responsibility of the woman, you do the same as he: misinterpret words and Checkout.

Incidentally: I also find Baudet an engerd, a populist, a self-contained jellyfish and a dangerous sujet, and I see in the cited article that he is rusting the words of Houellebeck from their relationship and leaves the plank horribly miss, but we must Keep Argumentations clean.

What one of Mr.Baudet thinks, I would like to give to everyone himself, also his statements.

Of course, the equality of women before the law is measured to the whole history of humanity an extremely short period.It is therefore not surprising that modern society is not ready to do so, nor can it be reasonable. So there is still a way for us.

A serious problem is certainly the sociological problem of the absence of the fathers in families.Hundreds of thousands of children only grow in NL almost without a father. And insofar as families are formally intact, the fathers in education are often absent, because women have a strong mark on them. Specifically masculine qualities, such as the promotion of autonomy and self-reliance, but also discipline and order, are thereby in the background to the detriment of the orientation of children to such not insignificant qualities.

In addition, education has become a women’s stronghold and increasingly derailing boys, who are lost for higher education.The majority of the students at the universities are female, tendence rising. Certain traditionally male disciplines are now heavily populated by women, taking a direction as medications. This will, of course, provide for large social landslides that are very detrimental to the men or the equilibrium of certain occupational groups. The consequences of this are slowly being seen, but can still not be assessed well on their impact. In any case, an important problem is that occupational groups where women are in the majority fall in social terms, in addition to lagging salaries.

IE does not say that and no of course not.

Baudet interprets Houellebecq and the questioner interprets Baudet again.The extent to which these interpretations are correct, as some of the answers have already shown, is not so interesting and the proposition is more interesting than the question. So let’s look at the question first and then the proposition that leads to the question.

Is The family the exclusive responsibility of women?Every good-looking person will no answer here. The family is the joint responsibility of those who compose that family.

I would like to venture to the question that is hidden in the statement: 鈧?艗his work and equality of women Are the cause of divorces and falling birth rates? 鈧?/p>

In addition to improving the sanitary conditions at the beginning of the 20th century, improving contraceptives in the second half of the 20th century, having paid work is one of the main causes that a woman is an independent, of the Man can conduct independent life.Because of this independent life, the family is no longer automatically the cornerstone of society and single-parent families are increasingly increasing. Within a family, having a child can be seen as a restriction. If you do not want to outsource the child to a nanny, one will have to choose to work less. You already see that more and more partners are delaying the getting of a child or choosing not to take children at all. If one chooses a child, you will come across the threshold when considering to take a second child.

Does the empowerment of women affect the increase in separations?I think this is largely true. The woman used to be both morally and financially tied to the man. The breaking of a marriage had much heavier consequences for the woman as for the man. Therefore, a woman will now be much easier to end an unfunctioning relationship.

Leave a Reply