You realize that for years...

It's normal and more common than stuff like gay parents. I actually think there's not enough single parents representation in kids shows these days.

Maybe not the most normal, but still common. They exist, it’d be dumb to pretend they don’t

Reminder Sam's dad was around, he was just really busy working hard for his wife and son.

Everyone else's dad died or was in military during Desert Storm & Iran.

No, Sharon’s dad was in a rock band, and Buster’s dad was a pilot

user, society made it normal, shows are just adapting to the reality.

Jewish-liberal agenda

That IS the norm in the west. That, and divorce.

Post a video with a narrator that doesn't sound like a retard next time

OP's certainly close to summon Him with that pic

Attached: (you) absolute madman.png (659x539, 191K)

Another thing Disney would frequently do is have aunts and uncles raise their nephews instead of their parents. What was that about?

Parents die or leave kids, sometimes leave them to their siblings

>a disturbing amount
That's just how it is in Japan a lot of the time. While it's mostly an excuse to get the kids in a situation where they don't have to hide shit from their parents, it's pretty common for people to work in another town for several months or even a year at a time there.

You guys know that people just dying, especially lower class, was really common until about the 1960's right?

Those comments are absolute cringe and the logic of the video is somehow worse. It reeks of a faggot who was picked on and always imagined
>If I had a father he would have shown me how to beat up the bullies :D
Fuck out of here you absolute queer. You don't scare off a bully by fighting them, you alpha male them back. I can tell this dude didn't have an actual father who taught him male respect, the most sissy thing to do is come to a fist fight because you're such an insecure fag it's the only way you can express your hurt fee fees. He defeats his own argument with that shit, 'Violence is the only solution!' yeah buddy, and when your faggot offspring is too weak to fight, too beta to tell their bully to fuck off, too stupid to banter, and too weak willed to ignore it, what's the final option to retain their power in the social dynamic? Pick up a gun and start shooting.

They aren’t really normalizing it in order to convince kids/parents to get divorced. They’re normalizing it to make the large percentage of kids without two parents feel better about the fact that their parents made a shit decision.

Sometimes it’s better for the parents to divorce rather than put stress on the kid with them constantly fighting

My dad left when I was five and not one of my friend's parents weren't divorced or in the process of it. My best friend's dad taught me how to ride a bike.

Attached: jim TP.gif (290x214, 216K)

Polio, tuberculosis, and pertussis killed people back then

Of course. If it wasn't normalized through entertainment, people growing up without that might get the sense that something is wrong. That something isn't the wayit should be, get on the barricades and push for changing marriage laws. Maybe the legacy of a serial killer like Henry VIII, known as 'divorce', was as bad or worse as the other things he did.

>"both parents are working out of town" homes
This shit is what's making their generations reliant on anime and seclusive

That was a fairytale thing.
Apparently all the way back to knights and such was royalty sending their kids to be fostered by some other noble or strange lake ladies.

Lots of Japanese children have abandonment issues because of their work culture, it’s just so widespread over there it’s not considered bad or weird

Well said

Attached: 1508239173793.jpg (792x589, 55K)

Why do you people always sound fucking nuts

It's called introspection. Maybe you'll learn it one day.

>Braceface, WITCH, AsToldByGinger, and PepperAnn
This Negro of mine

t. Single son household child

Attached: C10AC436-04F4-4F26-8143-0049FED0C85A.jpg (190x139, 4K)

Is that what you're calling delusions now?

You that before this era it was common for mothers to die at childbirth creating a very similar issue, right?

I mean sure, if locking yourself in denial like this helps prevent a breakdown on your part, be my guest.

Is it really normalizing, or is it just trying to push for relatability?

You're accusing people of denial when you're arguing a 16th century king is a signal of the decay of values. Do you ever listen to yourself?

That's a whole lot of assumptions coming from a guy that thinks divorces should be outlawed (I guess)

And none of them are black? Come on now.

This is you jumping to conclusions. And then going off about other people's sanity. All I said was that maybe he wasn't the greatest person, maybe his ideas weren't that great and maybe with one of them, we've got one several hundred years old practise that has proven detrimental. Divorce is a harmful practise and has long overstayed it's welcome. It's time that as a society, we move forward and do away with it. You aren't opposed to progress and moving forward, are you?

>people should be trapped forever in unhappy relationships because maybe a 16th century king was a bad guy

They're only unhappy in your cartoon-and-life-action-tv shaped world-view. You failed to separate fiction from reality. In real life, things work out a little differently.

Gee user, didn't know my own parents unhappy hate filled relationship was cartoon and life action TV. Thanks for helping me realize in reality they're actually happy and don't sleep in separate rooms!

Did you ever actually meet your father in person since your parents' divorce? Or is everything you know about him a story your mother told you?

My parents aren't divorced, they literally sleep in different rooms in the same house. But that's utopia for you I guess.

Meh, still better than a broken family. At least they have no profiteering middleman further muddying the waters between them.

based

Yeah, I'm sure a broken family would have been just the worst for me user. I still have fond memories of my dad picking me up after soccer practice and ranting in how many ways he would murder my mother and get away with it. Or my mother reverently in the kitchen screaming in hysterics after my dad poured the mashed potatos she'd been working on all day down the kitchen sink before storming out of the house. Fond memories of a wonderful Catholic relationship. I'm sure after the divorce my life would have been drastically worse in ways I could only speculate with aid of whatever bullshit you've got crocked up.

It was a plot device

You can't have someone like Mickey Mouse have children because that would ruin his whole thing or Popeye having kids because he's an adventuring Sailor man who doesn't have time to raise kids unless it's the Famous Studio version and thereafter

The practice of divorce existed before Henry VIII, you know: the Viking peoples practiced divorce back in the 3rd century BC. Terms for limited divorce are outlined in Leviticus.

You know that the Japanese have this thing about women quiting their jobs to become housewives, right?

It's been normal for years OP

I had a friend who lived a single mother household and had a different man in the house at least 2 or 3 times and I only had a mother
It's pretty normal for divorce's to occur or for one of the parent's to walk out on the family entirely but it does hurt when the community looks down of those types of people as lesser for not following the standard norms they can't help but be born into
Having characters like that help kids come to terms with it and realize it's not that big of a problem and you're just about as normal as the kid who's parents love each other and probably better off then the parent's who stopped pretending they don't hate each other in front of their own child

I had several friends with single parent households. If anything, the nuclear family touted in adult cartoons is much more rare. And I happen to have that same exact structure.

Buster is definitely the black friend, arthur even called him nigger

Attached: bigot.png (799x735, 622K)

It didn't last then, it won't last this time either. The west will either do away with divorce as a thing you walk away from alive, or perish in favour of someone who does.

Guess why it's capitalism

both parents must work

>the idea that single parent households are "normal"?

They're extremely common

My dude, you are deluded, monogamy is cuck philosophy for people so shitty they require a mechanism that forces commitment to keep people. That's why Mormons are true chads.

weren't these all created during the "divorce boom" of the 90s? Seems more like effect than cause.

You should work on getting even ONE woman to like you before you go fantasizing about incestuous harems, kiddo.

I'm not the one with a system to lock someone to my side forever because you can't get someone to stay

Monogamy, or rather the approximation towards it, is the engine that fuels cooperation and division of labour. Even cultures that allow poligamous marriages stick to it to some degree, and even when they stray from it, they only do so WITHIN marriage. Everyone who breaks from it towards the caveman model of lacking family structures, eventually either regresses back into the paleolithic, or dies and gets replaced by someone else (who upholds marriage) along the way to that. The here and now is no exception. It's just how life works. The sooner you approach the acceptance stage on that, the better.

Putting it on television is not the same thing as "normalizing" it.

>05
What about female polygamy?

>MUH WEST
Shut up, Spergler.

If you outlaw divorce what's stopping married people from just splitting up and living separately?

in The Weekenders' case it does show the boy being raised by a divorced mother being a neurotic effeminate wimp with a definite longing for his missing father.

in As Told By Ginger I think it avoided ignoring the divorce as some setups like this do and portrayed the negative effects; the single mother struggles to stay financially afloat and the children have unhealthy feelings of longing and bitterness towards their dad, respectively. It also implies the reason for the divorce by showing that the dad is lazy and self-centered rather than just ignoring the issue.

Hold up user, the Han, Romans, Persians, and Islamic empires all are calling bullshit on your retarded claim. Stranglehold on resources gives more power to a nation than fucking marriage laws, just admit your christian college sociology degree was a waste of time and study a humanity that pays.

Women can channel chad energy to great effect. Nothing more Alpha than having a line of men bond to your beck and call.

You know nothing of unhappy marriages and it shows. Before their divorce they were miserable terrible people, they fought constantly and for 7 years I had to live in a household where everyone was always on edge. They were terrible people during that time. The divorce was the best thing that they happened to our family. They are both far happier now and so am I.

To be honest, I don't worry about that. Just put together a local family court to find out which of the two is the instigator behind the separation, and then execute either the instigator, or both of them at once. It keeps people on their toes and motivates them to keep marriages intact. It's a normal thing in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordania and in the far-out areas in Saudi. As well as rural India to a degree.

Those same empires you invoke have all had functional family structures. They may not have been perfect, but they were superior to what we have right now. You forget that 'stranglehold on resources' applies on a family level, too. Don't do your part in the social contract between women and men? Well, no resources for you then, you just starve. They had no such thing as the social safety nets that keep walking waste alive. Only western countries bother with this nonsense. Regardless of how you twist things, you can either get used to the idea of women as homemakers and housewives, or look upon things that I can tell you now, will seem much more bleak to you.

Attached: 1547953639220.jpg (680x794, 227K)

Not Yea Forums, but it is a kids show and related
There was this Australian tv show called nowhere boys about a group of boys who get transported to an alternate universe where they just never existed. One of the boy’s parents were divorced in the main timeline but in the AU his parents are still together and happily married

1. So the steel weapons and superior numbers of the Northern Crusades were caused by refusing divorce, and not by having better access to natural resources and not living on a frozen rocky peninsula. That's... an interesting take on history.
2. So, judging by , you want to have wives executed for fleeing an abusive husband. How do you feel about parents who abuse children? Should that be allowed too? How about remarriage after the spouse dies? Do you believe that Sati was a just and correct practice?

If anything, lasting elementary families are now the exception, not the rule anymore.

So what you're telling me is, the only reason Boudica lost her uprising is because she wasn't in the kitchen raising children? But then Rome at the time also had women actively participating in the body politic and divorcing their husbands so shouldn't they have lost since their Family Value Index had declined since the days of the Republic? Just what ratio of Family Values to No Family Values starts the decline of these great empires? Also when the Jewish uprising happened it's easy to argue the Jews had the best Family Value Index out of anyone so why did they lose if Rome's Family Value Index was so low? But then again divorce always existed in Roman society, even built into their stolen Greek myths, so if they always had a low Family Values Index shouldn't they have gone back to Caveman days? Having some troubles here can you enlighten me more on your Molyneux level understanding of Roman society?

1. Yes, if Europe had done away with marriage and just flushed it all down the drain with giving women all these legal toys they have now, they would have been too busy bashing each others' heads in over who gets to be with all the girls, to bother with stuff like building roads, building houses, forging weapons, making clothes, let alone fight a war together. That's all only when you transcend beyond the stone age, and you do that by giving society structure. By setting in stone which woman gets to be with which man, so the men can focus on more productive things. And yes, that happens through marriage. So sorry, but all
> I want divorce and all the laws and family court practices common today to exist
really is is
> I want us to be cavemen! Not building anything and just working out and bashing each other's heads in to get as many gfs as possible for lack of options on the gfs' part, that sounds like the life. Who needs clothes and central heating?
And sorry, but it's just not going to work out that way. Someone else, someone with a superior family model to your broken family/caveman model is simply going to outcompete and replace you. And yes, among other things, their model will be superior to yours, BECAUSE they have marriage and make sure said marriages are solid.
2.
> le abusive husband meme
Oh please, we're talking about the real world here, not some weekday evening crime tv show.

> But then Rome at the time also had women
Oh, you mean that particular time in Roman history immediately followed up by the fall of Rome? Doesn't that validate EXACTLY what I posted?
> so why did they lose
Considering the context with them in particular, I wouldn't call any scenario that involves their survival 'losing'. Especially when we put it in perspective with where they stand now. If anything, they're another good example for how keeping up traditions and family structures, even if they are not 100% perfect, guides you in the right direction.

Let me guess, you can't get a woman to stay with you so you want society to force them to do that for you.

>that particular time in Roman history immediately followed up by the fall of Rome?
Yes, after Boadicea's uprising in 60 AD Rome immediately collapsed 400 years later

>I wouldn't call any scenario that involves their survival 'losing'
I don't know, getting genocided, having your home razed to the ground, and being diasporaed doesn't mark me as the stronger values winning out here. Yeah they continued their traditions but it kinda defeats your entire point when the stronger values got totally buttfucked by the depraved that would go on to survive another century and a half.

finally someone who likes W.I.T.C.H. without being that son of a fucking chicken toucher Witchfag

Attached: sharon01.jpg (479x360, 31K)

You're a shitty troll, but I'm off work today so I'll bite:
1. Norse society had roads, forges, weaving, and warfare while still having divorce built into the fundamental structure of society. In fact, in Norse society women ran the finances of the house and did most of the farming, while men hunted and fought. The idea of marriage being irrevocable originates in Catholic theology, which saw marriage as divinely ordained. Orthodox priests allowed for divorce in cases where the husband was unfit.
2. I'm impressed: no society in history actually just straight-up denied a man might ever mistreat his wife. So, Mr. Sherlock, when a man hits a woman so hard she loses teeth because she didn't fetch him his beer fast enough (something I have witnessed with my own eyes), what exactly is that?
3. What do you think of Sati? Is that a morally correct practice?

Also as a side note, As Rome became stronger their marriage laws became less and less strict-people didn't get a divorced, they would decide they were divorced and simply move on with their lives- so that by the times of Augustus he put forth extremely unpopular adultery laws that were thrown out months after he died. So how does that equate into, Strong Family Values = Strong Nations? Rome during Pax Romana had laws we would consider bohemian and was the most powerful nation in the world.

No. I'm an outside observer. Seeing family after family after family fail. And following any of the paradigms you follow, as I did, yields no common denominator, there is no cure-all solution. Because you're looking at it the wrong way. Humans were never meant to be pacifistic and conflict averse like they are now. That's a very recent and short-lived fad. Nothing more. Under a strict can't-we-all-get-along approach, no civilization lasts. People have conflicts. That's just part of life. And equally part of life, is that those conflicts can't always be resolved amicably. Life isn't a progressive cartoon. Women aren't always 100% reasonable. Aforementioned conflicts sometimes happen with them, whether you want them to or not. Life isn't always hunkie-dorey.

> he thinks the Jews 'lost' where the Romans won
You're still not getting the whole 'long-term' part. Ask yourself two questions. Where are the Jews now, where is Rome now? Because if you ask me, it's not looking good for Rome. Point to the Roman empire on a map, because I'm having trouble finding it. I can locate Israel just fine. Looks more like they spread thin, had weak social cohesion, no ethnic identity to speak of and ever so slowly collapsed under the weight of piled-up quick-fixes. Whereas the tribe makes up the richest people in the world, have mechanisms in place in which they can just magic up infinite money out of thin air and have a nation with world-first-class intelligence and security, all running on other countries' resources. By law. Can't even refuse to participate in that machinery by boycotting, it's illegal. In some places, you can't even criticise them verbally. I wouldn't call that 'losing'.
What would you say? Marriage and traditions, even the nasty bits like circumcision, versus short-term indulgence and girl power. Who would you say won out in the long run?

Aside from that, if you think the purpose of divorce in Rome was "girl power", you're even more ignorant then you've already made clear.

> brings up Jews out of nowhere
> is given an out
> won't drop them
> tells others to go to /pol/
And yes, in the end, divorce there for women to have a threat of violence to dangle over their husbands. Family disputes should be settled within the family, not by outside forces. As soon as you're involving strangers in your family disputes, it's all already gone to shit. Any legal options and protections for women are really just pitting the partners of wedded couples against one another. That and a mechanism through which people regress back into caveman mode through men using those legal options and protections as an excuse to get violent towards the husbands of women other than their own.

>One of the boy’s parents were divorced in the main timeline but in the AU his parents are still together and happily married

Attached: 1404244490591.jpg (200x200, 14K)

>lol where da romans at
The entire foundation of your Western Society you're throwing such a fit over was founded by Rome you absolute mongoloid. Every single Western Nation is evidence that Rome existed, every single major European and Eurasian nation interacted with Rome at some point or took their inspiration from Rome's impact. Czar? Kaiser? That means Caesar, western society holds Rome as the greatest ideal to live towards. Islamic states? They directly copied Rome's structure of government and civic policies. And much of their Golden Age was golden because they were translating all the great Roman works. If you look at a map every single Western influenced nation, AKA the entire fucking world, was western influenced because Rome existed.

The same can be said of Jews, except it goes, Fuck you get out of our country. Being pathetic retards kicked around until they got their own ethno-state when they got kicked too hard. That being your ideal is such a joke I don't even know what to say.

> your western society
> your
> western
Again with the assumptions. I don't have an assigned 'society'. I merely argued in favour of what works, regardless of the cultural flavour it comes with. And yes, I've read the excuses and the references to misplaced idolization, but I can't help but notice that you failed to answer the question: Where, on a 21st century map, is the Roman empire? If they had done everything right, they should exist just about now, even thousands of years later. But they don't. All I'm saying is perhaps mistakes were made, and giving an estimate of what some of those mistakes could have been.

Attached: i dont have a side.png (778x697, 446K)

If you're playing by the rulebook of ideology than all of Western and Islamic society is the Roman Empire. Unless you're seriously arguing Ashkenazi are ancient Hebrew Jews, in which case you're actually retarded.

based