Draft (will become in 1 week an article)
Preamble gender, sex, family issue appeared
Gender studies with left spin
In Austria as well as in some other parts of the western world, gender theme were occupied by political left wing people and gender studies became to a only female emanzipational propaganda and transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual tolerance issue, without knowledge what's really inside the box of the Pandora.
Right wing and conservative people became angry about that in the past and claimed, that the christian, classic, muslim (traditionl) family values and classic marriage became thereby underminded.
I for my part think, that this argument from the right wing contained a lot of bullshit and hate against minority groups, because LGTB people are very rarley and still a little minority in society and never ever have that huge impact (like the jews never had a huge implact at
Weimar Republic in germany).
Well some people pour oil in the fire of anger in social discussion and outed a lot of provocating hate speach, even when they were rich and married. [...]
But, there is a mostley invisible but existing pressure on right conservative traditional people, that they feel and realize, that they suddenly have less chances to get into a realationship or found a family and claim, that's only the result of medial focus on leftist gender issue and the absence of traditional values.
Some traditional thinking people had surley a lot of frustration, because of fewer opportunities for relationships and family founding (either real or imaginary).
On change from elected left governments (like US Democrats, Kemalists, Social Democrats) to right conservative elected governements (Donald Trump GOP, people's parties in Europe), many gender studies, univeristies were closed or not more budgeted well in some parts of the western world.
I for me part think, that dividing the topic of gender, sex, familiy and into 2 parts (academic gender studies & traditional religion or folk wisdom) was an essential huge mistake.
I would suggest a field of study that deals with interpersonal relationships in general, sexual relationships, marriage and family in general and that's at least popular academic.
Interpersonal relationships between men and women and too few child births often have much more implications for the economy, society, politics and the future than previously assumed, but not appear clearly and mostley are marked taboo.
e.g. the birth of too few Chinese girls meaned in the past that young Chinese men often had to find a marriageable woman in the near abroad with some expenditure & costs of money.
Restrictions on both might be the reason of social pressure, suffer and anger
I think, that for many classic traditional people founding a family became more complicated as it was in the past and admitting to an alternative sexuality too, but that it has nothing at all to do with the oposite society spectrum. Entering in a relationship and human reproduction became for some parts of western society more difficult.
Different point of views and models of needs of human individuals and society
Many models of human needs and society needs came out from a specific point of view and also might have been statistically evidence based only at their epoche (>90% positive of sample base/range; sample quantity 0.5% - 2.5% of society).
[...]
Maslow's hierarchy (case study)
I'm sure, that the Maslow pyramid of needs matches for most human societies at the level 1 - 4 (physiological, safety, love and social and esteem) pretty sure for allmost all members of society [...]
A claimed needs for succeeding model by me
Attention, I draw today a model of needs for succeeding out of my mind, but it's common sense and generally opinion of the zeitgeist of many teachers and chamber people between 1980 - 2010 in Europe.
Everybody would claim that model immediately as true or matching, even if it has no statistical evidence at all, neither only a little sample interview based questioning range.
(Remind that, agreeeing to a model and matching inside the model might be two different things, I can strongly agree to a model rationally, but I might not match inside the model).
The old conservative rule
"You must have first a good payed job" ⟹ "then found a family" often became ironic in our dynamically changing times.
Reasons:
- [IronyOn]
- People with good jobs don't have any time to find opportunities to get to together with nice young man / woman, because they mostley work a lot. (only coming together inside the company is possible, but's that's not estimated / wished by compliance or share holder interest).
- Jobless people have a lot of time, which is never spended 100% to find a new job. So they have possibilities to go out and meet someone, but very conservative relatives (mum & dad) or close friends don't like it and often make strong opinion campaign against coming together with unemployed people.
- Coming together at highscool, collegue or university might be chance, but conservative relatives (mum & dad) or close friends claimed a new rule before marriage: "Better at the time, when both work", so after finding a job after education, she lives in Chicago and he in Seattle Washington and then it's over with family founding.
- There are even many more traps in some radical modern marriage codices, like
"When he becomes unemployed for one year" ⟹ "then divorce".
Most partners know, if the loved person is strongly affected to cancel culture or it's only for some time difficult to get a new jobs and then he/she/it restarts.
There might be also the opposite rule at some very radical following directive "thou must serve more the family then the boss, who pays you big fat money & ice-cream" communities:
"When he works too much and don't have any time for you during one year"
⟹ "then divorce". - [/IronyOff]
[...]
