26465 replies to this topic

[TheoConfidor]

Your ignorance is hardly my problem.

I find your attempts at mockery much more amusing when you're shooting in the dark. They might become rather dull if they actually began to resemble reality.

[mooniniteG]

Both of you need to put each other on ignore. It's not likely that you're ever going to say anything of value to each other.

[Kirk]

guys, you can get 10s in the mail from Russia.

[weener]

Your ignorance is hardly my problem.

I find your attempts at mockery much more amusing when you're shooting in the dark. They might become rather dull if they actually began to resemble reality.

Both of you need to put each other on ignore. It's not likely that you're ever going to say anything of value to each other.

You might be correct, but I do enjoy reading Theo's ruminations on virgins, "Game," and why men are at a disadvantage in our society. And it sounds like he finds my ability to quote these ruminations just as entertaining.

[Sam]

Not my fault if you don't keep the Shizz updated on your wheelings and dealings. You've explicitly stated that you are two of those and definitely seem like the third. If you've had a change of heart or gotten married then I've missed it.

I am proudly a virgin, and will remain so until I am married to a wonderful woman.

Obviously, as a devout Christian, I am firmly opposed to all forms of extramarital sex on grounds of it being immoral.

Rant about misandrist family laws:

Spoiler

misandrist family laws

No such things exist.

Sadly, that is untrue.

Ok, while I'd love to continue this enlightening debate of "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is", please realize that if you guys are the ones making these radical claims that you should point to some evidence of it being so.

Here you go, for starters. This is taken from here.

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

2. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

5. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

6. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

I imagine that you have your opponents' posts copied and cataloged somewhere, always nearby, just waiting for a chance to use them.

Spoiler

Because that way, I won't feel quite so awkward about it.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[weener]

Good memory + search function is all I use. Good idea though.

[Xplo]

I dunno, that rant about misandrist family laws seems pretty spot-on to me. All of those things are very clearly unfair to men.

Of course, feminists like weener don't really care about promoting equality or eliminating oppression; they just want to reverse the power relationship they perceive, making themselves the oppressors and men the oppressed, which is why they heap scorn and derision on men's rights advocacy. Not because there's anything wrong with advocating for men's rights (there isn't), or because women are the only ones who suffer from inequality (they aren't), but rather because they don't want anyone talking about that.

The ideal for them is that you'll just go along with it because you're afraid you'll look bad if you don't. The only rational answer to this kind of social manipulation is to identify it for what it is and reject those who use it.

[Daemon9623]

Weener, stop hating on men so much all the time. More like, Vaginer, am I right?

Spoiler

married man stuff coming, I know you single GIRLS! threaders don't like it

Spoiler

Every time I read this thread it makes me so happy I'm married.

Spoiler

and she's super hot.

[weener]

I dunno, that rant about misandrist family laws seems pretty spot-on to me. All of those things are very clearly unfair to men.

Of course, feminists like weener don't really care about promoting equality or eliminating oppression; they just want to reverse the power relationship they perceive, making themselves the oppressors and men the oppressed, which is why they heap scorn and derision on men's rights advocacy. Not because there's anything wrong with advocating for men's rights (there isn't), or because women are the only ones who suffer from inequality (they aren't), but rather because they don't want anyone talking about that.

The ideal for them is that you'll just go along with it because you're afraid you'll look bad if you don't. The only rational answer to this kind of social manipulation is to identify it for what it is and reject those who use it.

Actually, I agree that men can be at a disadvantage when it comes to custody rights, and that's a problem, but it's a case of building a house and then whining when you have to live in it. Most of the people who whine about this issue are gender essentialists who say that women are born with a talent to cook, clean and raise kids, and men are born with a talent for math and moving heavy things. If you want to change custody laws, you first have to make it the norm for men to take a very active role in raising their kids. This means more fathers staying home with the babies while their wife works to support the family, which is starting to happen (thanks to men who are doing it out of love, not a sense of entitlement). You can't dump all the child rearing onto your wife and then expect to be rewarded with custody if you split up. You can't have centuries of strict gender roles and then expect everyone to hand babies over to the people you have deemed least qualified to care for them.

Remember, whining on a message board isn't activism. What have you done to get these things changed? The key to changing society is to be the change you want to see. Sort of like the way women are 57% of college graduates now. I'm pretty sure they're not getting degrees because they think it will help them oppress men.

[Xplo]

I dunno, that rant about misandrist family laws seems pretty spot-on to me. All of those things are very clearly unfair to men.

Of course, feminists like weener don't really care about promoting equality or eliminating oppression; they just want to reverse the power relationship they perceive, making themselves the oppressors and men the oppressed, which is why they heap scorn and derision on men's rights advocacy. Not because there's anything wrong with advocating for men's rights (there isn't), or because women are the only ones who suffer from inequality (they aren't), but rather because they don't want anyone talking about that.

The ideal for them is that you'll just go along with it because you're afraid you'll look bad if you don't. The only rational answer to this kind of social manipulation is to identify it for what it is and reject those who use it.

Actually, I agree that men can be at a disadvantage when it comes to custody rights, and that's a problem, but it's a case of building a house and then whining when you have to live in it.

No, it really isn't. It's a case of "oh hey, here's some blatant injustice that should be fixed". And that's pretty much it. You don't get to call it whining, because really, if you want to argue that men are just whining when they have to live in the society that we (and our forebears) collectively created, then the same can be said for women and every one of their issues.

Most of the people who whine about this issue are gender essentialists who say that women are born with a talent to cook, clean and raise kids, and men are born with a talent for math and moving heavy things.

Men do have a talent for moving heavy things, relatively speaking. Sexual dimorphism is real.

Aside from that, your statement is factually unsupported, and it doesn't even make sense; gender essentialists generally see asymmetric burdens like alimony as part of "natural" gender roles. Even supposing that you were right, though, their gender essentialism would be irrelevant to the validity of their observations about unfair treatment - in other words, you are arguing ad hominem.

You can't have centuries of strict gender roles and then expect everyone to hand babies over to the people you have deemed least qualified to care for them.

We had centuries of strict gender roles and then women expected everyone to hand jobs, education, political and moral agency, and other such things over to them, though they were deemed least qualified to have them. I fail to see how that's any different.

What I can expect, at least from the people who insist that feminism is an equality movement and that despite the name it's not solely for, by, or about women, is that they would show more concern for these issues, rather than disdain. And a handful of feminists do, but far more follow your example and mock men's rights advocacy.

Feel free to explain how fighting for decades to be taken seriously, to identify the ways that women are silenced and devalued, and to advocate for their own rights and empowerment, and then systematically silencing and devaluing men who are advocating for THEIR own rights and empowerment so that they won't be taken seriously isn't grossly hypocritical.

What have you done to get these things changed? The key to changing society is to be the change you want to see. Sort of like the way women are 57% of college graduates now. I'm pretty sure they're not getting degrees because they think it will help them oppress men.

Does it occur to you at all that "being the change" that has more men staying at home to take care of the kids, in a society where men are overwhelmingly expected to be (and primarily valued as) breadwinners and there's very little in the way of a social safety net to support making such a choice, is kind of a batshit idea, and not even a little bit like going to college to acquire marketable skills?

I'm pretty sure the women going to college didn't do it to change society by example, either. I'd guess most of them got their degrees for strictly personal reasons (i.e. getting a career or at least a better-paying job). That's not feminism, it's just the ratrace.

[weener]

No, it really isn't. It's a case of "oh hey, here's some blatant injustice that should be fixed". And that's pretty much it. You don't get to call it whining, because really, if you want to argue that men are just whining when they have to live in the society that we (and our forebears) collectively created, then the same can be said for women and every one of their issues.

No, like I said, there are men (and women) working hard to fight this harmful stereotype, and as far as I can tell, you're not one of them. They're the men who work hard to be excellent husbands and fathers who love and take great care of their kids, and the women who encourage their partners to take an active role in parenting if they're hesitant to go against ingrained gender roles. The more this happens, the harder it will be to just assume that the woman is the more capable parent in the case of divorce. You can stamp your foot and whine that you want it nowwww all you want, but that's not going to fix it. This is not something that women can fix for you. This is not something that is fixed by lashing out at women. It's something that can only be fixed by taking a hard look at established gender roles and choosing to change them.

We had centuries of strict gender roles and then women expected everyone to hand jobs, education, political and moral agency, and other such things over to them, though they were deemed least qualified to have them. I fail to see how that's any different.

Actually, women worked hard for a chance to earn those things. No one suddenly demanded to be given a job as a scientist or a CEO with no education or qualifications, they gradually gained (and continue to gain) equal access to education and opportunities that men had enjoyed for centuries so that they could start doing those things, and then worked their asses off to excel at them.

What I can expect, at least from the people who insist that feminism is an equality movement and that despite the name it's not solely for, by, or about women, is that they would show more concern for these issues, rather than disdain. And a handful of feminists do, but far more follow your example and mock men's rights advocacy.

When did I show disdain for this issue? I do think it's a problem. I show disdain for guys who claim that women are naturally more nurturing and better with children than men (usually because they don't value this role and would rather not do it themselves) and then play the victim when mothers are given custody of their children.

Does it occur to you at all that "being the change" that has more men staying at home to take care of the kids, in a society where men are overwhelmingly expected to be (and primarily valued as) breadwinners and there's very little in the way of a social safety net to support making such a choice, is kind of a batshit idea, and not even a little bit like going to college to acquire marketable skills?

Yeah, sucks, doesn't it? And a lack of safety net is one of the sacrifices that women have always been expected to make to stay home with their children. This is the reason alimony exists in the first place. Yes, being a stay-at-home dad involves making the same sacrifices women have been making for decades, and not every guy has the balls to take that risk, but fixing this problem that is apparently so near and dear to your heart is going to require that.

I'm pretty sure the women going to college didn't do it to change society by example, either. I'd guess most of them got their degrees for strictly personal reasons (i.e. getting a career or at least a better-paying job). That's not feminism, it's just the ratrace.

Yup, women fought to get better jobs to support themselves and their families. The personal is political, and making that change is feminism. Are you saying that the fact that women wanted to improve their own lives (rather than just stick it to the establishment) means it's not feminism? I'm not sure I understand.

[Demonstray]

hand jobs

lol

[Xplo]

No, it really isn't. It's a case of "oh hey, here's some blatant injustice that should be fixed". And that's pretty much it. You don't get to call it whining, because really, if you want to argue that men are just whining when they have to live in the society that we (and our forebears) collectively created, then the same can be said for women and every one of their issues.

No,

Yes.

What I can expect, at least from the people who insist that feminism is an equality movement and that despite the name it's not solely for, by, or about women, is that they would show more concern for these issues, rather than disdain. And a handful of feminists do, but far more follow your example and mock men's rights advocacy.

When did I show disdain for this issue?

Here, where you lump men's rights advocacy in with other qualities that you quite clearly think devalue TheoConfidor:

I doubt he is. Virginal Christian supermodels who are willing to marry/submit to the whims of a virginal Christian MRA who thinks she shouldn't be allowed to vote are probably like needles in haystacks.

And later when you refer to men's rights advocacy as "male entitlement".

Look, I know we don't get along because I'm a whiny weirdo who has trouble with people with vaginas, and you're a vagina-wielding feminazi, but I am really not fantastically stupid, and pretending that you've said nothing wrong when you have isn't going to fool me (although it might fool some of the audience).

Does it occur to you at all that "being the change" that has more men staying at home to take care of the kids, in a society where men are overwhelmingly expected to be (and primarily valued as) breadwinners and there's very little in the way of a social safety net to support making such a choice, is kind of a batshit idea, and not even a little bit like going to college to acquire marketable skills?

Yeah, sucks, doesn't it? And a lack of safety net is one of the sacrifices that women have always been expected to make to stay home with their children. This is the reason alimony exists in the first place.

I think you've missed my point. Women were generally valued for their beauty (and are even more so today) and for domestic servitude. If they gave up domestic servitude to pursue an education and a career, at least they would be able to support themselves with their career - and failing that, those who were actually pretty (or failing that, easy) could fall back on that.

Men's worth has, and still is, based on their ability to make money. If they give up working to take care of kids, then they have no perceived value at all. There are some families where the woman is the breadwinner and everyone is happy with that, but they're comparatively rare - and in any case, a single man's prospects of finding a single woman who will provide him with financial security in exchange for domestic service or child care are practically nil, and society would in no way feel compelled to support him either, because he's a man, and men are supposed to work for their living.

In short: women walked away for something. If men walked away, they would get nothing.

I'm pretty sure the women going to college didn't do it to change society by example, either. I'd guess most of them got their degrees for strictly personal reasons (i.e. getting a career or at least a better-paying job). That's not feminism, it's just the ratrace.

Yup, women fought to get better jobs to support themselves and their families. The personal is political, and making that change is feminism. Are you saying that the fact that women wanted to improve their own lives (rather than just stick it to the establishment) means it's not feminism? I'm not sure I understand.

Women fought for better jobs to support themselves and their families during the 20th century. Today, most of the glass ceilings are either gone or a lot higher than they used to be. There are female doctors, female senators, female CEOs. Even the STEM fields have women in them (although they are still primarily male). Things are still not quite equal, but there's nothing political about going to school anymore; it's simply expected.

So no, a woman going to school to get a better job isn't feminism, any more than it's masculism when a man does it.

[Sindra]

Whoa, this has certainly shifted drastically from talk of Nario's "battles of the heart".

[Xplo]

Whoa, this has certainly shifted drastically from talk of Nario's "battles of the heart".

Maybe he'll hook up with a sexy quadriplegic. Ooo, ooo, or an underage hooker!