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
 

Gorfias:
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.

Because they clearly aren't. Who runs the government of the US? Who are its religious leaders, its heads of industry, its financiers, its industrialists, its military leaders? They are overwhelming men (and a certain type of man). Men are also more likely to get hired, to get promoted, to get paid more. Again, certain types of men are favoured.

Yes, Nixon's wife may have ran the household. If he didn't care to take an interest himself, which he could do. Hell, he chose to marry her in the first place. In regards to US foreign policy, his wife gets one vote, or can stand for office herself, and that's it.

Now, if you want to make the argument that our society should allow/encourage men to take more interest in running their households, sure, I'd agree with that. But that men are generally uninterested in doing something doesn't mean they are lacking in power.

(Also, the quote system isn't working for me)

Gorfias:

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).

Our government is adamantly against passing a paid maternity leave law and is trying everything in its power to ban (but-not-technically) abortion. You're just freaking wrong there. There's approximately 2% more women than men in the United States, and that's because men die younger.

That's it. That's the whole thing. Meanwhile, most of the government at all levels is male, and conservative at that.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
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.

Because they clearly aren't. Who runs the government of the US? Who are its religious leaders, its heads of industry, its financiers, its industrialists, its military leaders? They are overwhelming men (and a certain type of man). Men are also more likely to get hired, to get promoted, to get paid more. Again, certain types of men are favoured.

Yes, Nixon's wife may have ran the household. If he didn't care to take an interest himself, which he could do. Hell, he chose to marry her in the first place. In regards to US foreign policy, his wife gets one vote, or can stand for office herself, and that's it.

Now, if you want to make the argument that our society should allow/encourage men to take more interest in running their households, sure, I'd agree with that. But that men are generally uninterested in doing something doesn't mean they are lacking in power.

(Also, the quote system isn't working for me)

Very sad about the quote and this site. I can't believe I've been coming here for 9 years and the place is dying. I try polticalforum.com. It's OK. Not as good as this (though I wish this place had a like button). But, back to it:

In answers to who runs the Government and industries, it is men. But again, I argue, they work for women. Even Trump has a wife, ex - wife... and what was Marla Maples? That's 3 women right there enjoying the perks of his power. A woman at top:
Sometimes, ala John Kerry, a guy is being taken care of;
Few weird ones. Giselle is worth 3 times what G-d among men, Tom Brady is for letting people take pictures of her;
Most times, women look to marry up. A man being a good support object is like a woman being pretty. I think even Melania, when asked if she would love Trump were he not rich, responded, would he love me if I wasn't beautiful?" (About 35 years ago, Paul Newman played a real life governor that had the same conversation and results with his paramour).
Finally: I'm sure most of the rest of these women have cats.
Good question about getting men to be more autonomous. I would like to end joint filing of taxes of marrieds in the hopes of forcing men to be more involved in household finances. Maybe require direct deposit into separate accounts for each partner. I think women would lose their shit. I know mine would

altnameJag:

Gorfias:

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).

Our government is adamantly against passing a paid maternity leave law and is trying everything in its power to ban (but-not-technically) abortion. You're just freaking wrong there. There's approximately 2% more women than men in the United States, and that's because men die younger.

That's it. That's the whole thing. Meanwhile, most of the government at all levels is male, and conservative at that.

Men 75-18 is 57 years of voting

Women 81-18 is 63

75/81 .904 or about 10%? More to confuse the issue: newborns slightly more likely to be male: not exactly 50-50.

And the the convicts thing?

Gorfias:
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.

Sure, but that argument requires deliberate ignorance and manipulation of basic facts about the world. It's not a good faith argument, and you can't argue with someone who won't argue in good faith.

Gorfias:
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.

What you're saying is the fraud. It's an absurd misrepresentation.

In a minority of cases, women (and some men, because it's not a gender specific defence) have been able to legally defend themselves against charges of criminal violence, including homicide, by citing the effects of battery and demonstrating that they were subject to a pattern of coercive control which impaired their normal judgement.

The prevalence of DV in same sex couples in no way impacts on what we know about the effects of battery, because we know that those effects can apply to people of all genders. It has nothing to do with the genders of those involved, and everything to do with the pattern of coercive control.

It just so happens that, in heterosexual relationships, men are vastly, vastly more likely to engage in coercive control against women than the reverse. This is not to say that the reverse does not happen, and because both the law and policy research are gender neutral it is perfectly capable of responding to those situations, but they are comparatively rare. Now, the fact that it's comparatively rare doesn't mean noone cares about it. Ask anyone who works in domestic violence prevention and they will probably tell you that there is no such thing as a typical case of abuse, and that it's important to be open minded and vigilant and not to rely on stereotypes. But you need to face the basic statistical inequality, and if you can't do that then you aren't capable of the level of good faith needed for a productive discussion.

And no, this is almost certainly not because men are "naturally" more violent, aggressive or power hungry than women, there is no evidence of that. The fact that men tend to be bigger and more muscular on average plays a role because it creates relative vulnerability, but there are plenty of cases of coercive control in which both partners are evenly matched or even in which the victim is stronger. It's not mental illness. Both sexes experience mental illness, although the fact that men are less likely to seek treatment or help for mental illness may play a role. Overwhelmingly, coercive control in heterosexual relationships is correlated with misogyny, with men having negative or pejorative attitudes about women which necessitate control, and with a belief or expectation that this kind of control is "normal" in heterosexual relationships.

There is a cultural expectation for domestic violence. It is the only explanation which makes sense and which fully explains what we see. Furthermore, it's an explanation people are perfectly willing to accept when it is applied to, say, middle eastern or African cultures. We live in a culture which, like those cultures, is also traditionally patriarchal, and which has also traditionally asserted men's right to ownership or control over women's domestic labour or sexual functioning. It should surprise noone that the same violence we obsess about when it comes to "honor killings" or "immigrant rape epidemics" also crops up among a minority of men in our own, traditionally patriarchal culture.

Gorfias:
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.

So, why don't women earn the same amount of money as men?

I mean, you think we live in a "female dominated" society, right? If that's the case, why aren't women earning all the money? Why aren't men the ones having to appeal to the courts to ensure they have enough money to live or as compensation for the income lost by getting married or having children? Why does women's earning potential tend to go down in marriage or long term relationships while men's does not?

Do you think that earning money is a straightforward or linear assessment of a person's worth to society or to a household? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't men (instead of hiding in their basements and grumbling about women being allowed out of the kitchen) be seeking out and trying to marry the most financially successful women (who are naturally the ones who can contribute the most to their household?) Or do you think there are other criteria in which a person can be a good spouse or a useful member of society beyond pure financial earning power?

I mean, imagine if you genuinely could use exogenesis to have a child on your own without the need to be "enslaved" by a woman. What do you think would happen to your income?

Gorfias:
In answers to who runs the Government and industries, it is men. But again, I argue, they work for women. Even Trump has a wife, ex - wife... and what was Marla Maples? That's 3 women right there enjoying the perks of his power.

By that logic, if any of those people also have children, children are the ones in power. God forbid any of them have pets...

I'm sure most of the rest of these women have cats.

Oh my god, the world is being run by cats using the all-powerful woman as a proxy! Who will save the men?! We'll spend the rest of our days in tiny caverns mining catnip and jamming it into tiny mouse-shaped cotton sacks for our feline overlords! What overwhelming woe it is to have the worst possible position in society, below women, below cats!

Baffle2:

Gorfias:
In answers to who runs the Government and industries, it is men. But again, I argue, they work for women. Even Trump has a wife, ex - wife... and what was Marla Maples? That's 3 women right there enjoying the perks of his power.

By that logic, if any of those people also have children, children are the ones in power. God forbid any of them have pets...

I'm sure most of the rest of these women have cats.

Oh my god, the world is being run by cats using the all-powerful woman as a proxy! Who will save the men?! We'll spend the rest of our days in tiny caverns mining catnip and jamming it into tiny mouse-shaped cotton sacks for our feline overlords! What overwhelming woe it is to have the worst possible position in society, below women, below cats!

Of course it is the cats. It has always been the cats.
image
image

evilthecat:

In a minority of cases, women (and some men, because it's not a gender specific defence) have been able to legally defend themselves against charges of criminal violence, including homicide, by citing the effects of battery and demonstrating that they were subject to a pattern of coercive control which impaired their normal judgement.

The prevalence of DV in same sex couples in no way impacts on what we know about the effects of battery, because we know that those effects can apply to people of all genders. It has nothing to do with the genders of those involved, and everything to do with the pattern of coercive control.

It just so happens that, in heterosexual relationships, men are vastly, vastly more likely to engage in coercive control against women than the reverse. This is not to say that the reverse does not happen, and because both the law and policy research are gender neutral it is perfectly capable of responding to those situations, but they are comparatively rare. Now, the fact that it's comparatively rare doesn't mean noone cares about it. Ask anyone who works in domestic violence prevention and they will probably tell you that there is no such thing as a typical case of abuse, and that it's important to be open minded and vigilant and not to rely on stereotypes. But you need to face the basic statistical inequality, and if you can't do that then you aren't capable of the level of good faith needed for a productive discussion.

And no, this is almost certainly not because men are "naturally" more violent, aggressive or power hungry than women, there is no evidence of that. The fact that men tend to be bigger and more muscular on average plays a role because it creates relative vulnerability, but there are plenty of cases of coercive control in which both partners are evenly matched or even in which the victim is stronger. It's not mental illness. Both sexes experience mental illness, although the fact that men are less likely to seek treatment or help for mental illness may play a role. Overwhelmingly, coercive control in heterosexual relationships is correlated with misogyny, with men having negative or pejorative attitudes about women which necessitate control, and with a belief or expectation that this kind of control is "normal" in heterosexual relationships.

There is a cultural expectation for domestic violence. It is the only explanation which makes sense and which fully explains what we see. Furthermore, it's an explanation people are perfectly willing to accept when it is applied to, say, middle eastern or African cultures. We live in a culture which, like those cultures, is also traditionally patriarchal, and which has also traditionally asserted men's right to ownership or control over women's domestic labour or sexual functioning. It should surprise noone that the same violence we obsess about when it comes to "honor killings" or "immigrant rape epidemics" also crops up among a minority of men in our own, traditionally patriarchal culture.

Gorfias:
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.

So, why don't women earn the same amount of money as men?

I mean, you think we live in a "female dominated" society, right? If that's the case, why aren't women earning all the money? Why aren't men the ones having to appeal to the courts to ensure they have enough money to live or as compensation for the income lost by getting married or having children? Why does women's earning potential tend to go down in marriage or long term relationships while men's does not?

Do you think that earning money is a straightforward or linear assessment of a person's worth to society or to a household? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't men (instead of hiding in their basements and grumbling about women being allowed out of the kitchen) be seeking out and trying to marry the most financially successful women (who are naturally the ones who can contribute the most to their household?) Or do you think there are other criteria in which a person can be a good spouse or a useful member of society beyond pure financial earning power?

I mean, imagine if you genuinely could use exogenesis to have a child on your own without the need to be "enslaved" by a woman. What do you think would happen to your income?

EDIT: Sorry, you deserve a more considered response. Will do when I get back.

Lil devils x:

Of course it is the cats. It has always been the cats.
image
image

And we ever thought it otherwise?

Man Feeds dog
Dog: Man must be like a g-d!

Man Feeds Cat
Cat: That hairless monkey fed me. I must be a g-d!

Thaluikhain:

Because they clearly aren't. Who runs the government of the US? Who are its religious leaders, its heads of industry, its financiers, its industrialists, its military leaders? They are overwhelming men (and a certain type of man).

Hey you know that politician Im thinking of? The one whos old, white, male and christian? Surely thats enough descriptors to narrow it down to who I am thinking of... ;)

I didn't know we males are under oppression from the feminazis!

I get the sense that the kind of men that are offended that they need women to bear children are the kind of men that probably shouldn't have children.

McMarbles:
I get the sense that the kind of men that are offended that they need women to bear children are the kind of men that probably shouldn't have children.

More like unequal than "offended." and they are but, from what I'm reading in this thread, most don't care about this particular inequality.
It is what it is.
If I ever run for anything, I don't think making this a platform plank will help.

Meh. The further we as Homo Sapiens remove ourselves from the natural order of things, the more screwed up things get. We in our grand sense of arrogance seem to have forgotten our place in the world.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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