Poll: For Men's Liberation do they need to have access to having their own children without a woman

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

I live in the wealthiest county per sq ft in the state of Texas. This region has more Billionaires than the rest of the state combined. The guy who raped me when I was a kid lived in a home that looked like an actual castle. If this is the shittiest place where is the " good part of town"?
https://www.redfin.com/city/30856/TX/Heath/luxury-homes

I don't have a particularly high opinion about the US. And in the US the state of Texas is the one with the most harmful clichees and horror stories, as seen from very far away. Admittedly some of that is because there are many US states that pretty much never get mentioned here.

Generally those "conservative parts of the US" are mostly seen as some kind of freakish outlier people can't really understand at all. Not as an area that is typical for the modern world.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

I live in the wealthiest county per sq ft in the state of Texas. This region has more Billionaires than the rest of the state combined. The guy who raped me when I was a kid lived in a home that looked like an actual castle. If this is the shittiest place where is the " good part of town"?
https://www.redfin.com/city/30856/TX/Heath/luxury-homes

I don't have a particularly high opinion about the US. And in the US the state of Texas is the one with the most harmful clichees and horror stories, as seen from very far away. Admittedly some of that is because there are many US states that pretty much never get mentioned here.

Generally those "conservative parts of the US" are mostly seen as some kind of freakish outlier people can't really understand at all. Not as an area that is typical for the modern world.

Sadly, that is an awfully big part of the modern world and the one that was responsible for bringing us Trump, the leader of the most powerful military in the world. There is much wealth, power, and populous included in that part of the western world. Too much to be ignored.

Gorfias:

Saelune:
Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Misogeny and misandry are seriously unhealthy views, and someone zealous enough about them to refuse to even involve the other sex in the creation of their child would probably not provide a helathy environment for a child to grow up in. I wouldn't want a child growing up with such a parent for the same reason i wouldn't want them growing up with anti-vaxxers or religious extremists, because it would be actively harmful

CyanCat47:

Gorfias:

Saelune:
Men who see women as something to be freed from probably should not be having children to begin with.

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Misogeny and misandry are seriously unhealthy views, and someone zealous enough about them to refuse to even involve the other sex in the creation of their child would probably not provide a helathy environment for a child to grow up in. I wouldn't want a child growing up with such a parent for the same reason i wouldn't want them growing up with anti-vaxxers or religious extremists, because it would be actively harmful

It appears though they treat the child as property as well and not think of the child's needs and well being as being their primary objective as a parent. It just seems like a continuation of abuse in the end, instead of just taking it out on the spouse to control their spouse, they do so the children. Sadly it happens all the time that parents think their child is property rather than a separate human being with their own decisions to make, own path in life to take and that it isn't up to the parent to decide that for them. The child will one day grow to an adult and decide for themselves what they choose to believe. I think they should be given as much information as possible, to help them make better choices, but in the end they have their own mistakes to make as well, it is their life, not their parents to live for them.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

Liberation for women is being able to be seen as an equal person in a relationship rather than a commodity. That is still very difficult for women to do when you still have men who want to pigeonhole them into roles or view them as "there for sex", the entire premise that you could "satisfy your needs" with sex toys is part of the problem with how they view a relationship. If one, regardless of male or female, thinks they are satisfying their need for a relationship with sex toys is in no condition to have an actual relationship with an actual human being because they are completely missing the point that it is about their love and companionship and sex is only one part of it. If the person they are in a relationship with is not someone who is their friend, partner, teammate, someone they trust more than anyone in the world and have no problem sharing their life and possessions with, they really have no business being in that relationship in the first place.

Sounds more like these people need counseling to help them better understand reality and relationships rather than needing a means to produce children to indoctrinate into some sort of cult promoting ignorance of women and relationships. I see raising children to be indoctrinated in such beliefs just as bad as if they were making some KKK cult town or Branch Davidians.

There are men who want to have sex.
There are men who want to have a relationship.
There are men who want to have children.

There are men who fit any combination of he above from none of those to all three. And the very same thing is true for women.
Sex toys are to satisfy a sex drive. They have never been some relationship replacement Also they have nothing to do with the topic is is about men who want to have vhildren but don't want to have a relationship with a woman (or who don't want to have sex with a woman)

I forgot to address this part of your post earlier.

I am very well aware what sex toys are for. I am very well aware that people, both male and female have all sorts of needs and desires that are separate from one another. I was specifically addressing those who think that the only reason for a relationship is only for sex however, and those that see a person as the equivalent of a sex toy not being ready for an actual relationship with another human being. Even if you just want sex, there is still more to it than a human being being considered a sex toy. Both persons wants, needs and desires should be discussed and be compatible rather than just one. If one person just wants sex and the other wants more, than the sex should not be taking place before that is understood by both parties. Of course I understand that is easier said than done as many of us do have extremely high sex drives, but it can and should be done even among the horniest out there.

Wanting to have a child but not putting the best interests of the child first is not being fair to the child. What does the child want and need? The child's needs should take priority over what either parent may " want". I see it as being terribly unfair to the child to treat them like property. One does not " need" a child, they want a child, but a child comes with many needs of their own that should be put first before considering one's own wants.

Gorfias:
I think that when a MGTOW is "red pilled" he at least thinks he is realizing things that make him not want to own women, but to get away, or be liberated from them. Use masturbation aids and one day, exogenysis.

Expecting to be able to live in a normal human society but not have any contact with women is exercising an indirect claim to ownership of women. It's exercising a claim of ownership to public space, right to gatekeep who is allowed in public space and a right to determine unilaterally the space in which women are "allowed" to exist.

Moreover, MGTOW, despite the name, are almost universally obsessed with women. Go to any community and you will find countless expressions of bilious misogyny directed against women as a whole. It's the most insincere form of separatism imaginable, like a child pretending to run away from home and then sitting in a bush for a few hours fantasising about how worried their parents are. MGTOW can't seem to actually go their own way, they have to make sure that women constantly know that they're going their own way and that women suffer for whatever real or imagined (mostly imagined) sense of alienation they feel.

Gorfias:
I don't think an argument can be made that women, today, are "property".

That's not what I suggested.

I suggested that the root of misogyny lies in the degree to which women are perceived, by men, as property, as opposed to a kind of "externalized" hatred of women as a threat or a menace which must be exterminated or removed. This is not to say that men don't kill women. They do, constantly, but they do so as an accidental or deliberate part of maintaining control over them. Men tend to kill their partners when they try to leave them, for example, when they are perceived to have expressed interest in someone else (whether this is true or not). Men kill their female family members when their lack of modesty threatens the family honour (specifically, the honour of the male family head). Men kill women as a way of living out a dominant sexual fantasy, or to cover up sexual violence.

Misogyny, from overt violence and murder all the way down to harassment and insults, is almost always aimed at establishing or maintaining control, whether that's making women afraid, controlling their access to public space or reducing their self-esteem or controlling access to their sexual and reproductive functions. These kinds of behaviours aren't unique to men, individual abusive women can be very similar to abusive men, but in general there is not a widespread pattern of women seeking to establish control over men.

Gorfias:
If anything, the complaints of the MRA and MGTOW are that with our current divorce laws in the USA, a married man, or one in any kind of long term relationship, is in grave danger of loss of liberty and property.

So firstly, you can't divorce unless you are married. No other long term relationship counts.

Secondly, when a couple live together and cooperate economically to support a household and raise a family, do you assume that all the material worth of that household belongs to the man, and that he has exclusive right to control over it?

In the past, of course, that was true. When a woman got married, she lost her right to own property in her own name and became merely a legal extension of her husband. This is the basic legal definition of marriage (you know, the one conservatives claim to be defending from the ghey), two individual people become a single legal and economic unit. Of course, nowadays a husband doesn't simply get to own everything. We recognise that both partners make productive contributions to that legal unit, and thus we can't just arbitrarily decide that the man owns everything because he's a big important man.

If you assume the universe should work on the principle that men own everything (including women), this doubtless looks extremely unfair. That doesn't mean it is.

CyanCat47:

Misogeny and misandry are seriously unhealthy views, and someone zealous enough about them to refuse to even involve the other sex in the creation of their child would probably not provide a helathy environment for a child to grow up in. I wouldn't want a child growing up with such a parent for the same reason i wouldn't want them growing up with anti-vaxxers or religious extremists, because it would be actively harmful

I don't think you have to hate one gender or other to realize you do not necessarily get along with them and don't want to surrender your individualism to a relationship. Personally, I find having had kids, with all the accompanying aggravations, to have been the best thing I've ever done. Women are having kids, easily, with government assistance, including court enforced child support: no father involved. It appears to be an option they want. I can't tell if men would want the same.

Lil devils x:
It appears though they treat the child as property as well and not think of the child's needs and well being as being their primary objective as a parent. It just seems like a continuation of abuse in the end, instead of just taking it out on the spouse to control their spouse, they do so the children. Sadly it happens all the time that parents think their child is property rather than a separate human being with their own decisions to make, own path in life to take and that it isn't up to the parent to decide that for them. The child will one day grow to an adult and decide for themselves what they choose to believe. I think they should be given as much information as possible, to help them make better choices, but in the end they have their own mistakes to make as well, it is their life, not their parents to live for them.

I'm told never mix your law. Family law is unique and differs from property law. There is a special relationship between a custodial parent and their child. It is a possessive thing, exclusive with a rebuttable presumption of its inviolability. Some kids are accidents. Others because of a desire for the experience of raising a new generation. Thing is, as I note above... well... take a look. Lots of single moms out there and they appear to often WANT this option. I cannot tell if men want the same. Your thoughts about what you/men want in this regard?

Gorfias:

CyanCat47:

Misogeny and misandry are seriously unhealthy views, and someone zealous enough about them to refuse to even involve the other sex in the creation of their child would probably not provide a helathy environment for a child to grow up in. I wouldn't want a child growing up with such a parent for the same reason i wouldn't want them growing up with anti-vaxxers or religious extremists, because it would be actively harmful

I don't think you have to hate one gender or other to realize you do not necessarily get along with them and don't want to surrender your individualism to a relationship. Personally, I find having had kids, with all the accompanying aggravations, to have been the best thing I've ever done. Women are having kids, easily, with government assistance, including court enforced child support: no father involved. It appears to be an option they want. I can't tell if men would want the same.

Lil devils x:
It appears though they treat the child as property as well and not think of the child's needs and well being as being their primary objective as a parent. It just seems like a continuation of abuse in the end, instead of just taking it out on the spouse to control their spouse, they do so the children. Sadly it happens all the time that parents think their child is property rather than a separate human being with their own decisions to make, own path in life to take and that it isn't up to the parent to decide that for them. The child will one day grow to an adult and decide for themselves what they choose to believe. I think they should be given as much information as possible, to help them make better choices, but in the end they have their own mistakes to make as well, it is their life, not their parents to live for them.

I'm told never mix your law. Family law is unique and differs from property law. There is a special relationship between a custodial parent and their child. It is a possessive thing, exclusive with a rebuttable presumption of its inviolability. Some kids are accidents. Others because of a desire for the experience of raising a new generation. Thing is, as I note above... well... take a look. Lots of single moms out there and they appear to often WANT this option. I cannot tell if men want the same. Your thoughts about what you/men want in this regard?

Often single Moms want the option due to a bad or abusive relationship in the first place. Other's like I said, sadly treat their child as property and place their own wants above the actual needs of the child. I do not see that as being a " good parent" or honestly being fair to the child and I do hope that one day the child's well being should take priority. If more parents made sure the child's needs took priority over the parents wants, we would have less children being taken from their biological parents by the courts and be given to someone else to raise.

I had received a call from CPS wanting me to take custody of my cousin's child at one time. I told them they should get the child as far as they could away from my cousin and get them adopted into a permanent home as soon as possible so that child may one day be able to recover and have somewhat of a normal life since if they keep the child in the family it is likely they will be tormented by their own mother for the rest of their life. She is far too selfish and irresponsible to take care of a child and would only cause the child suffering. They did and luckily his life has been much better for it. The family has been keeping in touch with his adopted family, just no one will tell his biological mother where he is for his own well being. I do not have much sympathy for selfish parents.

Gorfias:

snip

Would that even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Most probably not. Would that be something that a larger number of men than women would have access to? Most certainly yes. Hey, you just gave me another good idea for a dystopian book. Soon I'll get my Hugo Award!

Lil devils x:
Often single Moms want the option due to a bad or abusive relationship in the first place. Other's like I said, sadly treat their child as property and place their own wants above the actual needs of the child. I do not see that as being a " good parent" or honestly being fair to the child and I do hope that one day the child's well being should take priority. If more parents made sure the child's needs took priority over the parents wants, we would have less children being taken from their biological parents by the courts and be given to someone else to raise.

I had received a call from CPS wanting me to take custody of my cousin's child at one time. I told them they should get the child as far as they could away from my cousin and get them adopted into a permanent home as soon as possible so that child may one day be able to recover and have somewhat of a normal life since if they keep the child in the family it is likely they will be tormented by their own mother for the rest of their life. She is far too selfish and irresponsible to take care of a child and would only cause the child suffering. They did and luckily his life has been much better for it. The family has been keeping in touch with his adopted family, just no one will tell his biological mother where he is for his own well being. I do not have much sympathy for selfish parents.

I do want a rebutable presumption that the parent knows best. I fear a state that can easily take a child from a parent's custody. But emphasis on rebutable. Yes, take kids from truly bad parents. Hard to know where to draw the line. Good movie, not sure they are the right side: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/?ref_=nm_knf_i1
Glad you did your part to protect your cousin's child's safety. I'm sure you did what you thought right under the circumstance.

CaitSeith:

Would that even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Most probably not. Would that be something that a larger number of men than women would have access to? Most certainly yes. Hey, you just gave me another good idea for a dystopian book. Soon I'll get my Hugo Award!

I'd love to read the book. Make a movie of it! Seriously, some good mining here. Closest I can think of is "Brave New World" but in that, exogenysis is used so that no one is the parent. If it were a thing, men could have kids without moms. Also of consequence: business women that turn 50 before they are really ready for a kid could use this tech. to have a kid safely that late in life. But, as a dad, I resent I came relatively late to the game. When the kids were 10ish, I was in my 40s. They want to play with dad, who, at that age, really wanted to relax. I did OK but had I been in my 60s? Not fair to the kids, even if tech makes it possible.

Gorfias:
Also of consequence: business women that turn 50 before they are really ready for a kid could use this tech. to have a kid safely that late in life. But, as a dad, I resent I came relatively late to the game. When the kids were 10ish, I was in my 40s. They want to play with dad, who, at that age, really wanted to relax. I did OK but had I been in my 60s? Not fair to the kids, even if tech makes it possible.

Isn't that relying a bit too much on stereotypes of younger vs older parents? I realise that was your experience, but wanting to relax in your 40s may not be universal. Energy levels fluctuate according to many factors. Personally, much of my late 20s was highly unproductive due to circumstances beyond my control. Having kids then would have been a disaster. Some of the most successful professionals, businesspeople, researchers, CEOs enjoy the most productive period of their lives in their 50s - there's no reason that energy wouldn't instead be channeled into raising kids. Others like yourself may find themselves wanting to wind down after a very stressful and productive early life. There are also other important factors in parenting than energy levels, and I would imagine a "late life" parent would provide more in the way of wisdom and experience than an "early life" parent.

evilthecat:

I can forsee a certain degree of slippery slope. Once you start eradicating genetic diseases and the concept is proved, then the floodgates are in a sense open. Why not edit the immune system to more effectively target cancer cells? Why not make people immune to AIDS? Why not make them more resistant to dementia? Why not slow the rate of ageing? The more normal these procedures become, the stronger the argument that denying them is cruel, and if you're already tampering with human DNA, then what's the argument that human DNA is sacred and can't be tampered with? What's the argument that we can't impose changes on a new generation when all we've imposed on them has been an attempt to bring them happiness. Might they not be far more likely to resent us for not making them immune to cancer than for doing so? What about preventing them from being unusually short, or ugly, or stupid. Isn't it also cruel to deny kids that? Might it not also invite resentment?

This presupposes the efficiency or effectiveness of gene therapy or genetic manipulation. Which is insane. Cancer is a degenerative condition with environmental causal agents that outnumber genetic proclivity... Moreover it represents a pretty debased idea of cruelty. We don't exist simply to be happy. We have drugs that can make you happy... like cocaine.

Give you euphoria and a sense of calm caused by 'brute forcing' your brain's biochemistry.

As much as I think governments should regulate and make openly available quality assured, low profit access to recreational drugs like cocaine with a doctor's prescription ... but I'm not going to boil down that it is an essential human righy to be a coke fiend.

Over time, and as use of the technology becomes prevelent (and it will, because in many cases the only arguments against it are religious or pseudo-religious objections to "playing God") the arguments against using it more widely will become weaker and weaker. Eventually, there will be a significant lobby morally objecting to the "imposition" of forcing kids to live with whatever random DNA they are stuck with when a few simple tweaks could potentially give them a better life. There will probably be a sense that opposition to this stems from an inflated sense of self-importance and a desire to vindicate one's own normality rather than putting the interests of the child first. It will be seen as a selfish, reactionary impulse, and in a world where such technology is widespread alarmist proclamations of genetic caste systems and authoritarian governments arising from nothing will probably seem increasingly crazy.

What is of greater stupidity is not the argument of 'playing God' but neglecting to understand the dangers, or pretending genetic manipulation actually has a point beyond curative deployment.

Applied science like medicine is not a toy. Neither is theoretical science. It's a tool for creative self-improvement and understanding. It is not an artform or Lego kit.

It is far too powerful to neglect to reconcile its dangers, and there are excesses to its designs in the past by doing so for which should never be trivialized. I fail to see why you are having difficulty internalizing this idea. You don't need to conflate an idea of hubris and caution with a pseudoreligious argument of not playing God.

That is ridiculous.

I have ssid *quite often enough* that gene therapy has its place. Designer babies do not.

In the time I spent writing this, around 500 people died of cancer.

Again, I don't think the cost burden will be assessed on the criteria you think it will.

And genetic manipulation could stop all 500 cases of cancer could it?

How about all those people in their 80s who get something like prostate csncer and decide not to seek treatment because they've "had a good run, just make it as painless as possible..."?

Living is dying.

500 peoplr dying of cancer justifies fuck all on its own other than accepting that cancer is often unfair ... but most consistently a factor of simply growing old. I agree... we should take every measure to 'cure cancer' ... but that doesn't excuse the fact that a 90 year old man getting prostate cancer isn't somehow some great evil of the world.

It's something that just happens. All of us fall apart and die.

Not all cancer is the same, cancer would not be cured by genetic msnipulation on its own. No one truly understands cancer precisely because not all cancer has a uniform condition of being. And yeah... in pursuit of better cancer treatments, I fully support ethical clinical trials... It's not like this argument is divorced from other treatment protocols.

Theoretically we can cure 90% of cervical cancer with the HPV vaccine.

What percentage of males in their 80s+ have malignant prostate tumours? >42% malignancy rate? Genetic manipulation on its own means fuck all at even beginning to address that idea that humans have an expiration date. Oh... and I'll have you know... through neuropsychology we have identified the mechanics of dementia. Its connections to things like amyloid beta plaque. There are targeted solutions that will have far greater effect than assuming gene therapy is somehow some ludicrous panacea.

Far more effrctive, clinically safer, and demonstrably more accessible to all.

It's like all GPs prescribing drugs for depression, despite 91% of major depressive disorders being environmental causes. That clinically, time and again, depressive disorders are shown to be better treated by psychotherapy.

But that is less profitable, more tax-reliant, than simply drugs.

That's how I view genetic manipulation to treat such universal aspects of the human condition. Inherently flawed, incapable of solving real problems, and will simply demean people of real queries into the naturr of the human condition.

Hell... there's s real argument genetics is secondary to things like womb conditions and psychosocial relations. Studies into behavioural genetics also posit ideas of psychosocial conflict as self evident. LGBTQ twins studies? Greater indication of womb conditions playing a role over genetics.

Colon cancer and weight problems? Gut flora and diet... gut flora does more to alter your immune system than anything else in life. So much so bad gut flora counts has been identified as a likely cause of numerous tumour growth patterns on their own.

Recent research with brain activity measurements suggest we can be consistently more happy also by modifying our gut flora levels to give slower rises to blood sugar levels at specific intervals after meals, and to de-incentivize binge eating, drinking, and snacking. Holistically speaking... genetics is nothing compared the overwhelming minutiae of our existence.

So it seems sensationalist (if not downright wrong) to pretend like being csutious with genetic manipulation is somehow an argument of 'not playing God'. That's ludicrous. You simply will not see the results you want to if people artificially narrow their gaze to such a small component of the human condition.

I was born with an extra allosome... doesn't worry me being a mutant. What would worry me is someone pretending as if that should define a person.

(Edit) I missed this...

Actually, the reverse is kind of true. Humans have literally never been able to fly spacecraft in space. The first manned spaceflight followed a trajectory calculated on a computer and locked in automatically. The complexities of space are in many ways far more challenging to a human brain than to a machine.

And? I've never been able to shoot a target at 400+ yds without some form of scope. The capability of a human isn't merely in the calculation of equations, but rather the organic capacity to comprehend an esoteric connection to the universe.

And once again... ignores reality and what I even wrote.

There is no A.I. we can yet conceive of that is smart enough to work how a doorknob will work intuitively. And you can't have an A.I. satisfactorily organize multi-entity, high level activities as far away as Mars orbit. The time lag is too long as to be feasible. At our current rate of A.I. innovation, it will take us centuries. And moreover, frightening as it is, we've discovered bot algorithms used in justice systems internalize all the worst aspects of our humanity, without the capacity of self-awareness.

For example.... fuzzy logic systems used in U.S. courts for punishment.

To put it in comparison, despite having to navigate a minefield of ethical weights... we can already directly feed 'visual' imagery into your visual cortex bypassing your optic nerve, by submerged chipping directly, and hypothetical wiring, through your corpus callosum. Meaning through a special camera and processing unit you could hupothetically control machines through neuroprosthetics and special cameras within connection range ... to perform fine motor actions and intuitive remote control.

And arguably one human doing that is a far better than a quantum computer that requires even greater power and resources than a human with effective life support systems.

The reason being is we already have sapient brains we can research actively, where as A.I. to be recognizably intelligent will need to seem humanly intelligent (otherwise how would we know?) ... and self-awareness, while capable in humans (on a good day) is impossible in a machine. Simply put, we have nothing like A.I. ... but wehave as many human brains as we can wish for to cut open, dissect, stick electrodes on, and shoot with magnetic fields and ooooohhh at the majesty of human thought in action as we expose it to stimuli.

More to the point, even if it is more dangerous, does that necessarily make it bad to want to see humans as humans conquer the frontier of deep space?

Look at all the places in our solar system humans have been able to visit, then look at all the places visited by probes or unmanned spacecraft. Whatever the failings of present day computers (or even those from previous decades, still used by many unmanned craft), they are utterly, utterly dwarfed by the monumental failings of humans.

Why? Because we can mindlessly fire a probe into space? That's a bad argument and you know it.

Goats climb mountains better than humans, but throwing goats up slopes does not somehow disincentivize why we might need to scale them ourselves rather than wait for a goat-based solution for building towers and other shit on them.

I remember when I first enlisted and put through selection... people were like; "You know ... in 10 years' time they'll be getting rid of us. As if they'd need mud & throat stompers like us?"

Yet the inverse has happened. Soldiers' responsibilities grew over time, their combat effectiveness has increased, the extent of their operations radically so as well. For all the technological advancement, it hasn't actually diminished the power of the Mk.I human soldier. And given the massive growth in electronic warfare, it's actually getting easier to take down drones than it is to outpace such technologies.

It's been 17 years since I first enlisted. I'm fully convinced the future for a long time coming is going to still (hopefully) have a human face.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Gorfias:
Also of consequence: business women that turn 50 before they are really ready for a kid could use this tech. to have a kid safely that late in life. But, as a dad, I resent I came relatively late to the game. When the kids were 10ish, I was in my 40s. They want to play with dad, who, at that age, really wanted to relax. I did OK but had I been in my 60s? Not fair to the kids, even if tech makes it possible.

Isn't that relying a bit too much on stereotypes of younger vs older parents? I realise that was your experience, but wanting to relax in your 40s may not be universal. Energy levels fluctuate according to many factors. Personally, much of my late 20s was highly unproductive due to circumstances beyond my control. Having kids then would have been a disaster. Some of the most successful professionals, businesspeople, researchers, CEOs enjoy the most productive period of their lives in their 50s - there's no reason that energy wouldn't instead be channeled into raising kids. Others like yourself may find themselves wanting to wind down after a very stressful and productive early life. There are also other important factors in parenting than energy levels, and I would imagine a "late life" parent would provide more in the way of wisdom and experience than an "early life" parent.

I would say, maybe too reliant on norms. I once interviewed an intellectual who had just finished his 8th book at 89. He was wealthy enough to not have to do so, but when I met him, he was outside his home raking leaves. This isn't something I'd expect from an 89 year old. And maybe a 70 year old can rough and tumble with a rambunctious child. It won't be a norm.

But if your point is that exogenysis could help professional women have children safely later in life and they deserve that option, I agree.

Gorfias:

Saelune:

Gorfias:

Do you think similar things of women who state they do not want to need men for anything?
If so, you are against the current zeitgeist.
If not, why not?

Women who see men as something to be freed from probably realize the horror of Trump as President.

Let me know when we have a female sex offender as President, then we'll talk.

If the current zeitgist is a rape culture patriarchy, then yes, I am against it. And no, I did not believe that stuff to be real, then Trump became President and suddenly I understood what every feminist was talking about.

Am I reading you correctly:
A man who wants liberation from women has an unsupportable problem.
Women who want liberty from men are understandable as there are harms and oppression visited upon them by men?

Yep.

I mean, sure, there may be some individual men who actually have a real issue with abusive women, but men as a whole? No. Men as a whole are doing fine.

But that is the problem with so called 'men's rights' groups. If they really wanted to fight for men's rights in a tangible and unbigoted way, they would focus on LGBT rights, since there is a lot of overlap with actual issues of men's rights and equality. I mean, a man's right to love another man is heavily infringed, as is a man's right to wear clothing even when it was designed for women.

But no, men are not as a whole being oppressed by women just because women don't want to be sexually exploited anymore.

Gorfias:
I don?t know the MGTOW want to control the public space. I doubt it. They want to control their own private space.

That would be trivially easy. Don't get married to a woman, don't get in a relationship with one, maybe extend that to don't have female friends. You don't need a big angry political movement to be single.

Gorfias:
Example: We have a Violence Against Women (But Men Do Not Matter) Act .

You do not. There is a Violence Against Women Act, yes. The claim that this mean men do not matter is more absurd MRA rubbish. It's little different from saying supporting the Fire Brigade is attacking the Police Force. Two seperate, if similar problems.

Gorfias:
If MRAs point to CDC and FBI stats demanding, as men are also DV victims of women and want the Act?s name changed and a large portion of the funds redirected to them and their interests, you don?t need to be a conspiracy theorist to know who will likely oppose them.

Yes, MRAs attacking a measure intended to help end violence against women is to be expected, and for feminists to oppose this is also to be expected.

Now, if MRAs were to do something actually useful, like propose a similar measure to protect men (run similarly, but with differences due to the way gender and violence work in our society) and call for funding for that, there'd be no problem. But, of course, we aren't seeing a push for that, because Men's Rights Activists are interested in men's rights the way People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are for the ethical treatment of animals.

The idea that men's rights and women's rights must be in conflict was dreamt up by MRAs who don't care too much about either.

Saelune:
Yep.

I mean, sure, there may be some individual men who actually have a real issue with abusive women, but men as a whole? No. Men as a whole are doing fine.

But that is the problem with so called 'men's rights' groups. If they really wanted to fight for men's rights in a tangible and unbigoted way, they would focus on LGBT rights, since there is a lot of overlap with actual issues of men's rights and equality. I mean, a man's right to love another man is heavily infringed, as is a man's right to wear clothing even when it was designed for women.

But no, men are not as a whole being oppressed by women just because women don't want to be sexually exploited anymore.

Paul Elam has a video response where he angrily denounces charges that the MRA are not gay friendly. He sites a book a gay man wrote who stated he was sick of being used by certain groups. If I find it I'll link it to you. Gay men are.. men. So they qualify for MRA if they want to. EDIT: https://www.amazon.com/New-Gay-Liberation-Escaping-Feminism-ebook/dp/B01AAZZN60 The MRA also have many videos with their charges against women and Feminism that go way beyond sex complaints. Though TFM had a good laugh that one of these mass shooter Incels ass hats asked in social media, if the government was going to do something about his lack of getting sex, to which TFM responded, "not even Bernie Sanders wants government to redistribute sex."

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
I don?t know the MGTOW want to control the public space. I doubt it. They want to control their own private space.

That would be trivially easy. Don't get married to a woman, don't get in a relationship with one, maybe extend that to don't have female friends. You don't need a big angry political movement to be single.

Gorfias:
Example: We have a Violence Against Women (But Men Do Not Matter) Act .

You do not. There is a Violence Against Women Act, yes. The claim that this mean men do not matter is more absurd MRA rubbish. It's little different from saying supporting the Fire Brigade is attacking the Police Force. Two seperate, if similar problems.

Gorfias:
If MRAs point to CDC and FBI stats demanding, as men are also DV victims of women and want the Act?s name changed and a large portion of the funds redirected to them and their interests, you don?t need to be a conspiracy theorist to know who will likely oppose them.

Yes, MRAs attacking a measure intended to help end violence against women is to be expected, and for feminists to oppose this is also to be expected.

Now, if MRAs were to do something actually useful, like propose a similar measure to protect men (run similarly, but with differences due to the way gender and violence work in our society) and call for funding for that, there'd be no problem. But, of course, we aren't seeing a push for that, because Men's Rights Activists are interested in men's rights the way People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are for the ethical treatment of animals.

The idea that men's rights and women's rights must be in conflict was dreamt up by MRAs who don't care too much about either.

The Violence Against Women act gets huge funds that are channeled to women. There are some 2,000 women's shelters in the US. There is, at last count, 1 in Arizona for men.
Men have tried too voice the need for help and resources. They are usually shamed and shut down and lied about. Example: about 1/3 of DV homicides are men. Plenty of people pull a fake stat out of their ass stating they were killed by women who were defending themselves.

As it is, I appreciate what the MGTOW are doing. They are getting vocal and they're educating people. Would I have gone MGTOW 30 years ago if I knew then what I know now? I honestly don't know. That's kind of why I started this thread: what do men even want?

I consider myself a very pro-male person. I think male emotional problems are downplayed and ignored, and the idea of males being victims of abuse is treated as a joke in modern culture. I'm not sure if that makes me an MRA or red-pilled, but I do think men have it harder than is traditionally believed, but that women have it hard too, more so even, but that doesn't mean men don't face problems of their own.

But I must protest the idea of being in a relationship is being enslaved to women. I am straight and I'm in a very nice loving relationship, and I'm no more enslaved to my girlfriend than she is to me. You can be in an adult, consensual relationship without being enslaved to the sexual reproductive normality of humanity. Nor do I think any man, or woman for that matter, is entitled to a life and society free of the other gender. If in private a woman or man doesn't enjoy the other gender and chooses not to hang out with them, that's their choice. But they can't ask for the offending gender to leave society or never interact with them.
A grocery store checkout person can't tell a man in line she only checks out women anymore than a male banker says he only helps male clients.

Silentpony:
I consider myself a very pro-male person. I think male emotional problems are downplayed and ignored, and the idea of males being victims of abuse is treated as a joke in modern culture. I'm not sure if that makes me an MRA or red-pilled, but I do think men have it harder than is traditionally believed, but that women have it hard too, more so even, but that doesn't mean men don't face problems of their own.

But I must protest the idea of being in a relationship is being enslaved to women. I am straight and I'm in a very nice loving relationship, and I'm no more enslaved to my girlfriend than she is to me. You can be in an adult, consensual relationship without being enslaved to the sexual reproductive normality of humanity. Nor do I think any man, or woman for that matter, is entitled to a life and society free of the other gender. If in private a woman or man doesn't enjoy the other gender and chooses not to hang out with them, that's their choice. But they can't ask for the offending gender to leave society or never interact with them.
A grocery store checkout person can't tell a man in line she only checks out women anymore than a male banker says he only helps male clients.

I do not think that makes you "MRA", nor am I even sure what " pro male" even means. I think that makes you like most people, including most feminists:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/08/male-rape-no-laughing-matter/?utm_content=buffer3b71d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/stop-joking-about-men-raped-by-women/

You can be "Pro male" and Pro female" at the same time since it should not be a matter of Male vs female but instead they are intertwined complimenting one another instead. Those trying to make it into "us vs them" are not helping male or female societal issues at all. Hell it was feminists who set up and volunteered to create support groups and resources for men and women and tried to change societal standards to allow for it to be " okay" for men to talk about their emotions and begin to heal. If it were not for the feminists we would not have even come that far. The entire absurd narrative of "evil feminists out to take away men's rights" is fueling the problems, not trying to solve anything in reality.

Lil devils x:

Silentpony:
I consider myself a very pro-male person. I think male emotional problems are downplayed and ignored, and the idea of males being victims of abuse is treated as a joke in modern culture. I'm not sure if that makes me an MRA or red-pilled, but I do think men have it harder than is traditionally believed, but that women have it hard too, more so even, but that doesn't mean men don't face problems of their own.

But I must protest the idea of being in a relationship is being enslaved to women. I am straight and I'm in a very nice loving relationship, and I'm no more enslaved to my girlfriend than she is to me. You can be in an adult, consensual relationship without being enslaved to the sexual reproductive normality of humanity. Nor do I think any man, or woman for that matter, is entitled to a life and society free of the other gender. If in private a woman or man doesn't enjoy the other gender and chooses not to hang out with them, that's their choice. But they can't ask for the offending gender to leave society or never interact with them.
A grocery store checkout person can't tell a man in line she only checks out women anymore than a male banker says he only helps male clients.

I do not think that makes you "MRA", nor am I even sure what " pro male" even means. I think that makes you like most people, including most feminists:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/08/male-rape-no-laughing-matter/?utm_content=buffer3b71d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/stop-joking-about-men-raped-by-women/

You can be "Pro male" and Pro female" at the same time since it should not be a matter of Male vs female but instead they are intertwined complimenting one another instead. Those trying to make it into "us vs them" are not helping male or female societal issues at all. Hell it was feminists who set up and volunteered to create support groups and resources for men and women and tried to change societal standards to allow for it to be " okay" for men to talk about their emotions and begin to heal. If it were not for the feminists we would not have even come that far. The entire absurd narrative of "evil feminists out to take away men's rights" is fueling the problems, not trying to solve anything in reality.

At least for me pro-male means I'm not against men, nor do I concede that being male makes me inherently wrong or guilty. For example when someone at a rally says 'its time for women to rule the world!' I role my eyes, not at the idea of female leaders, but at the idea that man are inherently bad leaders and women inherently good. I think men and women have equal opportunity to be moral or to be sellouts.
Likewise when a man is accused of rape, he's innocent until proven guilty, and if he is proven innocent I hate when he's referred to as 'alleged rapist X' instead of 'falsely accused X'.

Now I don't think the majority of feminist want any of that, but there is a vocal minority that believes in the court of public opinion or that the only thing wrong with the White House is that Sarah Palin isn't president.

Gorfias:
The Violence Against Women act gets huge funds that are channeled to women. There are some 2,000 women's shelters in the US. There is, at last count, 1 in Arizona for men.
Men have tried too voice the need for help and resources. They are usually shamed and shut down and lied about.

Specifically MRAs or MGTOW people, though? Yes, people are fighting for men's rights, and like people fighting for women's rights (or anyone's rights for that matter), they get a lot of pushback. It's not so much MRAs or the like doing so, of course. In any case, again, lack of men's resources doesn't mean it's a good idea to take from women, as opposing for arguing for separate funding.

(Putting aside the differences in need for shelters for the moment)

Gorfias:
Example: about 1/3 of DV homicides are men. Plenty of people pull a fake stat out of their ass stating they were killed by women who were defending themselves.

Because it tends to be true? Not always, of course, but a great deal of men killed by female partners have long been abusing them. Hell, access to women's shelters saves men's lives because of this.

Gorfias:
As it is, I appreciate what the MGTOW are doing. They are getting vocal and they're educating people.

They are getting vocal, and educating people, in that they are loudly lying and ranting against women.

Silentpony:
I consider myself a very pro-male person. I think male emotional problems are downplayed and ignored, and the idea of males being victims of abuse is treated as a joke in modern culture. I'm not sure if that makes me an MRA or red-pilled, but I do think men have it harder than is traditionally believed, but that women have it hard too, more so even, but that doesn't mean men don't face problems of their own.

That is certainly true. That doesn't make you an MRA, the MRM is a specific ideology. Hell, many feminists would agree with all that, and they aren't MRAs.

EDIT:

Silentpony:
Likewise when a man is accused of rape, he's innocent until proven guilty, and if he is proven innocent I hate when he's referred to as 'alleged rapist X' instead of 'falsely accused X'.

The court might decide there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, but that is not "proven innocent" and thus "falsely accused", though. Given that the majority of rapes do no result in convictions, people naturally aren't going to be too impressed by the courts.

Now, of course this is terrible, but until we see a significant increase in convictions for rape, it's inevitable. It'd not even be that difficult to do so in many places, for example, the majority of rape kits in the US aren't tested, they are kept in storage for a bit and thrown away because it's not worth spending money on. Make that a priority, give them the funding, and you've suddenly got a big, legitimate improvement you can claim to restore faith in the system somewhat.

Gorfias:

As it is, I appreciate what the MGTOW are doing. They are getting vocal and they're educating people.

Like sniffing women's crotches to make sure htey're not trying to mind control them with butter smelling hormones.

And no, I'm not joking. Youtube Sandman.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
The Violence Against Women act gets huge funds that are channeled to women. There are some 2,000 women's shelters in the US. There is, at last count, 1 in Arizona for men.
Men have tried too voice the need for help and resources. They are usually shamed and shut down and lied about.

Specifically MRAs or MGTOW people, though? Yes, people are fighting for men's rights, and like people fighting for women's rights (or anyone's rights for that matter), they get a lot of pushback. It's not so much MRAs or the like doing so, of course. In any case, again, lack of men's resources doesn't mean it's a good idea to take from women, as opposing for arguing for separate funding.

(Putting aside the differences in need for shelters for the moment)

Gorfias:
Example: about 1/3 of DV homicides are men. Plenty of people pull a fake stat out of their ass stating they were killed by women who were defending themselves.

Because it tends to be true? Not always, of course, but a great deal of men killed by female partners have long been abusing them. Hell, access to women's shelters saves men's lives because of this.

Gorfias:
As it is, I appreciate what the MGTOW are doing. They are getting vocal and they're educating people.

They are getting vocal, and educating people, in that they are loudly lying and ranting against women.
.

There are MGTOW, like Turd Flinging Monkey, that think MRAs are foolish, stating women have more political power in the USA as they are a larger voting demographic than men and that they are too myopic to ever care about fairness: they are in a political position to exploit men and and demand discrimination against them on behalf of woman and they will never give that up. That is a very defeatist attitude with which I cannot agree. But I think they red pill people, and that's important.

But the "women kill defending themselves" trope? They get that stat by asking women, "why did you kill him" and women saying, "because I was defending myself." This is called a self serving statement and there is no reason to believe that. Even if the man had been fighting with the woman, what she did is not necessarily what we legally consider defense. I can believe a lot of times it is:
Her: You are worthless.
Him: F' You!
Her: Slaps man.
Him: Slaps back.
Her: Stabs man.
Him: Goes to hospital
Her: When asked by cop why she stabbed him, "I was defending myself".

That is not self defense.

I've heard of a decline in men getting killed by female spouses and their shelters being credited before. It was also charged they have NOT had a reciprocal effect. That's counter intuitive. But, OK. Ensure men have the same shelter options and maybe female death stats will go down. Instead, 2000 to 1. Male homelessness: 10 to 1.

Can men just get separate funding for their issue? Experience so far is no.

Smithnikov:

Like sniffing women's crotches to make sure htey're not trying to mind control them with butter smelling hormones.

And no, I'm not joking. Youtube Sandman.

Love Sandman. I have to assume Sandman was being hyperbolic. I'm guessing his point is that straight men expose themselves to be exploited due to their sex drive. Maybe not. I'd have to see this particular video. He posts a butt ton.

Gorfias:
But the "women kill defending themselves" trope? They get that stat by asking women, "why did you kill him" and women saying, "because I was defending myself." This is called a self serving statement and there is no reason to believe that.

Which is why people investigating murders don't stop there. They don't just take the women's word on it and call it a day (excepting serious differences in privilege, if is she white and well off and conventionally attractive and the victim is black, say).

Gorfias:
But, OK. Ensure men have the same shelter options and maybe female death stats will go down. Instead, 2000 to 1.

No, the overwhelming majority of female DV deaths aren't because she's been abusing him. A woman is most likely to be killed when trying to leave, it doesn't work the same both ways.

Gorfias:
Male homelessness: 10 to 1.

A separate issue, homeless shelters and violence shelters are not the same thing. Though, a very serious issue that really needs to be addressed, but again won't adequately be.

Gorfias:
Can men just get separate funding for their issue? Experience so far is no.

Because there isn't the will for it. Feminists got funding for female issues by fighting for it. MRAs haven't got funding for male issues by fighting feminists fighting for funding for female issues.

There absolutely should be a hell of a lot more interest and funding for male issues. The MRM is in the way of that happening, because that's not, on the whole, what they are interested in. Far too many people only care about men's issues during discussions of women's issues, and will cheerfully ignore the problems otherwise.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
But the "women kill defending themselves" trope? They get that stat by asking women, "why did you kill him" and women saying, "because I was defending myself." This is called a self serving statement and there is no reason to believe that.

Which is why people investigating murders don't stop there. They don't just take the women's word on it and call it a day (excepting serious differences in privilege, if is she white and well off and conventionally attractive and the victim is black, say).

No, they don't.

Example: http://www.worldcat.org/title/framingham-8-the-women-who-fought-back/oclc/42501490

The "8" were NOT just defending themselves. Thankfully, in at least 1 of these cases, the family of the male victim was able to publicize that it was the killer woman that was the abuser. The powers that be were simply eager to look the other way as long as a killer woman had an excuse.

Recently a woman asked a "hitman" to kill her estranged husband. The "hitman" was actually an undercover cop and she was criminally charged. She created enough sympathy and doubt by saying she did this because he beat her to avoid the rap. But he LEFT her. Dunno how on Earth she would then think he needed killing as a defensive measure.

Gorfias:
But, OK. Ensure men have the same shelter options and maybe female death stats will go down. Instead, 2000 to 1.

No, the overwhelming majority of female DV deaths aren't because she's been abusing him. A woman is most likely to be killed when trying to leave, it doesn't work the same both ways.

Gorfias:
Male homelessness: 10 to 1.

A separate issue, homeless shelters and violence shelters are not the same thing. Though, a very serious issue that really needs to be addressed, but again won't adequately be.

Gorfias:
Can men just get separate funding for their issue? Experience so far is no.

Because there isn't the will for it. Feminists got funding for female issues by fighting for it. MRAs haven't got funding for male issues by fighting feminists fighting for funding for female issues.

There absolutely should be a hell of a lot more interest and funding for male issues. The MRM is in the way of that happening, because that's not, on the whole, what they are interested in. Far too many people only care about men's issues during discussions of women's issues, and will cheerfully ignore the problems otherwise.

1. Your simply restating observations made by self serving interests that will happily distort the truth for power.
2. Please see 6:30 as Paul Elam tells you about an MRA that spent decades trying to get funding to help men. After decades of effort, the Government sent him a check for $800. He then hung himself.

Gorfias:
There is a lot of rage out there. I do expect MRAs to talk about women and Feminists the way I expect Democrats to talk about Republicans and vice versa. They?re the opposing team.

So democrats are "going their own way" and "liberating" themselves from Republicans?

Again, this political opposition makes sense if and only if there are actual stakes involved. That doesn't imply it's just a private matter of personal autonomy or space.

Gorfias:
Example: We have a Violence Against Women (But Men Do Not Matter) Act.

You have a violence against women act because women are disproportionately more affected by domestic violence than men, particularly adult men. They are vastly more likely to die or be hospitalized, they are vastly more likely to suffer repeated or sustained violence, they are vastly times more likely to suffer sexual violence. The fact that MRA's overtly seek to manipulate these figures in order to pretend that there is an equivalence of domestic violence between men and women is perhaps the best illustration of how thoroughly, thoroughly repugnant their position is, and how little it actually has to do with actually helping or protecting anyone.

It's like being angry because the government dedicated relief money to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. It is a position motivated either by complete ignorance of what we're up against and the scale of the problem, or by wilful and deliberate malice and a desire for people to literally die in order to appease some absurd vanity.

Gorfias:
If you have a child with a woman or even a long term relationship with her, you have exposed your assets to her. You have exposed yourself to exploitation.

This definition of exploitation is so incredibly feeble that my only response is to point out that if you have a child with a woman, statistically you've exploited her. You've irreparably harmed her earning potential and deprived her of potential income, particularly since much of the US does not ensure paid maternity leave. You got your child, and statistically she will pay for it.

You've also assumed, bizarrely, that every man on the planet is wealthier than every woman on the planet in order to present deliberately gender neutral legislation as specifically anti-male.

Gorfias:
What sounds equitable is that each owns what they had at the start of the relationship.

That is literally already true. Both systems of asset division used in the US only apply to marital property, that is to say to assets acquired during the marriage itself.

Gorfias:
But the "women kill defending themselves" trope? They get that stat by asking women, "why did you kill him" and women saying, "because I was defending myself."

No they don't. That's an absurd and revolting accusation.

A major part of the goal of a murder or manslaughter trial is to figure out the nature of someone's motivation. A court will look for evidence of reciprocal violence, or of a pattern of coercive control indicative of domestic abuse. They will consider the testimony of other people, like responding police officers, children and neighbours.

In DV statistics, if we're looking for a pattern of coercive control we look for things like repetition of violence, we look for the presence of multiple forms of abuse (physical, emotional and sexual and economic) in the same case, we look for evidence of vulnerability. We've learned to look for these things because they are the biggest warning signs that abuse may escalate or become fatal.

You're also equating the legal arguments of "self-defence" and the effects of battery. Self-defence is the use of proportionate force (although US states often have a weird idea of proportionality) in response to a direct threat of violence. The effects of battery is the idea that a pattern of coercive control can function as a provocation to violence.

For example, let's say a person is in an abusive relationship with another person who repeatedly hurts them and their children to the point that they are afraid for their lives. The abuser comes home one day in a bad mood, which the abused partner picks up on, so they deliberately start a fight in order to draw attention away from and thus protect the children. Many abusers experience an emotional release from violence (it's part of why they do it) so preempting a fight may also be perceived as a way to limit the severity of the abuse itself and to vindicate the abuser's feelings of justification. Essentially a person who has been subject to coercive control may well be hypersensitive to their partner's behaviour (they need to be, it keeps them alive) and may experience forms of provocation which are not immediately obvious unless seen in the context of that coercive control.

Domestic violence cannot be judged purely on the basis of "who started it", it requires us to consider things like emotional state (is one person frightened of the other) and overall power dynamics (does one person force the other to do things against their will, do they withhold things they need or threaten them) and the degree of danger to each partner. If a 140lb woman is repeatedly "starting fights" with a 200lb man and being sent to hospital or coming away with bruises and minor injuries to show for it, then we need to ask ourselves what her motivation might be.

DV is hard to understand if you haven't experienced it, but there's no excuse for believing that being slapped in the face once during a mutual spat is the same as being raped constantly for a decade, or forced into prostitution, or not being allowed to leave your own house and having all your money and documentation taken away to ensure you can't escape, or being tortured and humiliated in front of your children while they are forced to join in, or being genuinely afraid for your life on a daily basis, or any of the other horrific, horrific shit that causes women to wind up in shelters. There's a point at which ignorance becomes malice.

Silentpony:
Likewise when a man is accused of rape, he's innocent until proven guilty, and if he is proven innocent I hate when he's referred to as 'alleged rapist X' instead of 'falsely accused X'.

So, just to point out, what you've said is technically wrong.

There is a big difference between being found not guilty and being proven innocent. Being found not guilty means there isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, or the case was withdrawn or thrown out before a verdict could be reached.

By accusing people of making false accusations, you're actually accusing people of a crime. A very serious crime, in fact. If you're claiming to take the presumption of innocence as a personal yardstick for someone's personal merit (which you don't have to do, you're totally allowed to think or say that someone is guilty of a crime even if they were found not guilty or never taken to court) then accusing people of making false accusations is hypocritical. You're claiming that people are guilty of a crime for which they were never convicted, and for which (if it went to court) they would be presumed innocent.

There are cases when people can actually prove their innocence. But you don't need to be able to do so to be not guilty.

Gorfias:

1. Your simply restating observations made by self serving interests that will happily distort the truth for power.
2. Please see 6:30 as Paul Elam tells you about an MRA that spent decades trying to get funding to help men. After decades of effort, the Government sent him a check for $800. He then hung himself.

Paul Elam is probably the worst possible source for that info, being a grifter who runs a for-profit blog and fundraises substantially more for self-promotion than any sort of actual help.

altnameJag:
Paul Elam is probably the worst possible source for that info, being a grifter who runs a for-profit blog and fundraises substantially more for self-promotion than any sort of actual help.

The information he shares is helping. It?s raising awareness that, inspite of what the MGTOW hold, is having an impact. That women, for instance, are even acknowledging that men have some issues is progress. Example:

evilthecat:

Again, this political opposition makes sense if and only if there are actual stakes involved. That doesn't imply it's just a private matter of personal autonomy or space.

You have a violence against women act because women are disproportionately more affected by domestic violence than men

This definition of exploitation is so incredibly feeble that my only response is to point out that if you have a child with a woman, statistically you've exploited her. You've irreparably harmed her earning potential and deprived her of potential income, particularly since much of the US does not ensure paid maternity leave. You got your child, and statistically she will pay for it.

You've also assumed, bizarrely, that every man on the planet is wealthier than every woman on the planet in order to present deliberately gender neutral legislation as specifically anti-male.

That is literally already true. Both systems of asset division used in the US only apply to marital property, that is to say to assets acquired during the marriage itself.

No they don't [come up with the stat that when 1/3 of DV deaths are men killed by women who are only defending themselves or responding to traumatic syndrome caused by male vilence]. That's an absurd and revolting accusation. *snip*

Stakes? Stakes are huge. Feminism, by definition, is about the social, political, and economic equality of women to men. There is an argument that they already have supremacy in all 3. Getting back to equal for men who buy this argument, as a political demographic minority, is going to be a hell of a task.

And yes, the stat that finds most of the time, when women kill, it is in defense, is bullshit. It flies in the face of every other stat we know, including DV in same sex couples.

It is a fraud tailored to make a false narrative that finds it is OK to ignore male pain.

You say I have stated/implied that all men have more money than women. Not all. I think men tend to create more wealth and tend to be paid more. By operation of law, social custom, government programs and policies and court decisions, money is transferred from men who earn it to women who did not.

As for cash and prizes that may be involved in divorces, example of how predatory things can appear to be, https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-janet-jacksons-billion-dollar-divorce-singer-tired-of-being-the-obedient-muslim-wife

Gorfias:
That women, for instance, are even acknowledging that men have some issues is progress.

Well, excepting that women have said that the patriarchy hurts men more or less since people started used the term "patriarchy". Yes, you can link to some random woman spouting rubbish about that, or about how the Earth is flat or that water shouldn't cause rainbows.

Gorfias:
There is an argument that they already have supremacy in all 3.

Sure there's an argument, just as there's an argument that the Jewish space lizards run the world. They just happen obviously not to be true.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
That women, for instance, are even acknowledging that men have some issues is progress.

Well, excepting that women have said that the patriarchy hurts men more or less since people started used the term "patriarchy". Yes, you can link to some random woman spouting rubbish about that, or about how the Earth is flat or that water shouldn't cause rainbows.

Gorfias:
There is an argument that they already have supremacy in all 3.

Sure there's an argument, just as there's an argument that the Jewish space lizards run the world. They just happen obviously not to be true.

Disagree. For instance, political equality. Do you deny that in the USA, women make a demographic majority of eligible voters in a representative republic? EDIT: Economics... women have more wealth now http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4

EDIT: I can appreciate that women have, for a long time, been saying men are hurt by not being subordinate to women but we are seeing new things such as even this nutcase admitting men have problems, even if her solution is for men to be subservient to women. Ema Watson largely did the same thing in her "He For She" speech. Just saw a major feminist website now includes links for male victims of DV. Course, it also has "men bad, women good" aspects to it.

Gorfias:

Disagree. For instance, political equality. Do you deny that in the USA, women make a demographic majority of eligible voters in a representative republic?

Uhhh...yes, there's slightly more women alive with the legal standing to vote than there are men. And our government is overwhelmingly male, so what's your point?

Gorfias:

EDIT: Economics... women have more wealth now http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4

So, I read the link, and I'm not entirely sure how they're calculating that stat. They also say things like "Women are the primary breadwinners in over 40 percent of American households but only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes" and "Two thirds of primary caregivers are women". I think this bank report is just saying that family bank accounts are often in the woman's name, which doesn't mean a whole lot.

altnameJag:
So, I read the link, and I'm not entirely sure how they're calculating that stat. They also say things like "Women are the primary breadwinners in over 40 percent of American households but only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes" and "Two thirds of primary caregivers are women". I think this bank report is just saying that family bank accounts are often in the woman's name, which doesn't mean a whole lot.

To add to this, back when I was solidlyworking class, I knew heaps of men also in the army that had joint accounts with their wives. Breadwinners or no ... I also knew a fair number of them take advantage of selective maternity/paternity leave to rear newborns prior to daycare because theirwives may have earned more than them, but that was the exceptionrather than the rule.

Admittedly, that is Australia ... not the U.S. ... but I imagine fora whole lot of working class couples whether here or there, they have money in a joint account, or under the name of their partner, because it depends on who is often going to be the primary caregiver or simply who is most likely to be buying groceries.

It's no real mystery why this is the case, either.

If family costs such as housing, utilities, vehicle costs, groceries and more are going to chew up 60%+ of their accumulated pay cheques then it's no mystery why you have shared accounts.

Christ ... how out of touch with the baseline life expectations and realities of your country do you have to be to think that that alone is somehow proof women have more money? That you can't possibly imagine that situation happening?

Working class people pool their resources to subsist ... shock horror.

altnameJag:

Gorfias:

Disagree. For instance, political equality. Do you deny that in the USA, women make a demographic majority of eligible voters in a representative republic?

Uhhh...yes, there's slightly more women alive with the legal standing to vote than there are men. And our government is overwhelmingly male, so what's your point?

Those males are like chauffeurs. They go where told. And the person in the back seat doing the directing is disproportionately female... more in a sec...

Gorfias:

EDIT: Economics... women have more wealth now http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4

So, I read the link, and I'm not entirely sure how they're calculating that stat. They also say things like "Women are the primary breadwinners in over 40 percent of American households but only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes" and "Two thirds of primary caregivers are women". I think this bank report is just saying that family bank accounts are often in the woman's name, which doesn't mean a whole lot.

Bank account is in a woman's name. But who does the discretionary spending? Women at about 85%. Example of link but there are plenty: http://janverhoeff.com/women-make-85-purchasing-decisions/

Supposedly Pat Nixon said, "I let my husband choose to recognize China or not. I choose where our family lives, where my children go to school and where we take our vacations". Who had the power in that relationship? Dick or Pat? Sure reflects my life.

We can argue about who has power where but my point is Thaluikhain was dismissive of the very thought that women might be socially, economically and politically superior to men. He shouldn't be.

Gorfias, I think it's silly to be worried about a slight demographic lead for women voters when candidates are generally chosen from lists curated by our various oligarchs. We'd need to be a lot more democratic than we are for that to be anywhere close to an important power imbalance.

But if you really want to address the demographics, get rid of convict disenfranchisement.

Seanchaidh:
Gorfias, I think it's silly to be worried about a slight demographic lead for women voters when candidates are generally chosen from lists curated by our various oligarchs. We'd need to be a lot more democratic than we are for that to be anywhere close to an important power imbalance.

But if you really want to address the demographics, get rid of convict disenfranchisement.

I've heard it is those same oligarchs that want a gynocentric government for reason but that sounds paranoid, so I'd rather have mentioned the demographics (though if the difference is more than 5%, and I don't know that: hard to find exact stats, 5% swings elections these days).

As for convict disenfranchisement I'd rather create a more just society in which there are far fewer convicts. Convicts are disenfranchised for a reason. Simply giving them back the vote to solve an inequality is like Trudeau hiring 50/50 men/women to end discrepancies, even if this was achieved through overt discrimination against men.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here