Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

[Buttsack]

It depends on how you define power.

I would definitely recommend considering Warren Farrell's position on this before you assert one way or the other. His premise is to redefine power as "control over one's own life". When you define power like this, rather than as "most money earned", or "highest position in the workplace", or some such, you get a very different perspective.

To give one example, the simplistic view would be to say that if men are more often principles and women are more often teachers, men have more power because they are in more positions of power and earn more money. Here is Dr. Farrell's take:

From this discussion about his book "The Myth of Male Power":

If you look at what fraction of CEOs and politicians are men, it definitely appears that men have more power. But this is a tiny fraction of the population. I, as an individual, do not have power by proxy simply because there are more male CEOs than female. I've already mentioned this before, but I think it's worth reiterating. If, instead of looking at which gender holds most positions of power, you look at which gender holds the least powerful positions in society, you get a very different perspective. The majority of homeless people are men. This does not seem like a position of power to me, and constitutes a much greater percentage of the population than do CEOs and politicians.

 

Let's not overcomplicate words here just to get a point across.

Dictionary meaning; Power - The ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.

To me the person in 'power' is whoever is in control. Whoever is in control has more resources to do something or act in a particular way. These few men in power you talk about have the power and resources to affect millions of people. Look at power as how many people these men have control of (power over). If you look at the big picture and calculated the amount of people each man has power over then that would tip the scales ridiculously to the men having more power. Not many woman have the power to make decisions that affect millions of people. Plus look at what those men do with their power. I don't see much good come from wars that men have power over. I don't know of any women war lords or dictators.

You can be impowered yourself but that doesn't mean you have power over others. I have power over my own thoughts and body but I don't have power over anyone else. Whoever controls the money has power over me. I need money to trade for food and shelter. This is why Australia has centrelink. If we didn't have dole payments Australia wouldn't be classed as a free country since the only method of trade that is widespread is money. If I wan't to trade without money whoever I trade with has the power. This is because they have somehting I want or need so they control the price and situation. If I was to get violent and bash them to get what i want that briefly puts me in power. But the repercussions soon take that power away from me.

The reason women are mostly given custody of children is because they are better carers by default. There may some mothers who don't care much for their children but if the mother isn't caring then a theres a good chance the father is equally as bad since those type of people usually attract each other. Mother and father should be both given equal opportunity to look after their children but it's unfair to put children in a tug of war between parents. People fight over money enough in a divorce so children parent shouldn't be given the same opportunity to fight over children. IMO giving the woman custody is the best way to go until a better solution is available. Could you imagine how many resources there would need to be to access each father to make sure they are fit to care for their kids. If the father works then that throws another sum into the equasion.

I know blokes who love their kids but don't get to see them much because the woman uses the kids as power. On the other side of things these blokes don't really go out of their way much to see their kids since their ex-missus makes it too hard. A lot of the time this is just an excuse. I know if I had kids and my ex wouldn't let me see them I would do whatever I could to be a part of their lives. If travel was an issue then I would move closer. This would solve the problem though which most people don't like to do. What we most suburban people have to do if they didn't have other to whinge about. Plus our legal system isn't fair with most things. e.g. you can be a top ceo and earn lots of corrupt money and only get a few years jail.

You are attempting to tout equality by promoting tired old stereotypes. It's this sort of mindset (men can't cook, women can't do handywork) that keeps expected gender roles in the dark ages. It hardly validates whatever point youre trying to make.

 

Old stereotypes? Where do you live and what do you do for a job? I have done work in both construction and retail. Women in retail do all the cooking and cleaning still but are baffled when it comes to changing a tire and handyman work. The men in construction still do all the male stereotype stuff because that's all they have learn't. All of my knowledge on this subject is from real world experience. No matter what TV tells me or a lecturer says will not change what I see in the real world. So I don't see any point in basing what my opinion on someone elses opinion. They might come from a differnt place from me where things differ completely.

Why are people so scared of change. Look at history and how much damage and destruction is caused by male leaders. I would much rather take my chances with the whole world be run by women. It can't be much worse than things are now. At least everyone would be well fed :D

[Psylo]

Uh, most of the world's top chefs are men. And um, that involves cooking, right?

Fact is, post baby-boomer women often can't prepare satisfying food to save their life. They can present some flavour unbalanced slop to tick a few nutritional boxes but there's no passion in it. Maybe this is that big scary cloak of ultra-feminism in play, they cook like crap as a femi-protest, in the hope that their man will step into the kitchen. Those clever, clever bitches.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Psylo

[whitewind]

My 2 cents on the whole thing is that men and women are actually fundamentally different - neither are superior or inferior, just two different sides of the same coin.

There is definitely crossover, and it's not black and white by any means...but when it comes down to it masculinity and femininity are two different groups of qualities. Men are masculine, and women are feminine. Which is why I think trying to make everybody equal is doomed to failure

 

I personally think that men and women are fundamentally the same, and it is this obsession with finding differences between things that causes so much conflict. If people see other members of the same species as being fundamentally different, then how different must other species appear? Apes and monkeys quite weird and frightening, and trees and flowers utterly alien. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating with spirits that we discover during our journeys to other dimensions! It's almost impossible for us to even accept their existence, let alone communicate in any meaningful way.

We are so easily trapped in our own worlds, believing that so much is outside of our grasp, it's sad. I would expect more from explorers of the mind, the psychedelic travellers. If we can't see this, then how can those who have never experienced psychedelics have a hope in hell of figuring out what's going on?

[whitewind]

Let's not overcomplicate words here just to get a point across.

Dictionary meaning; Power - The ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.

 

And certain laws allow women to act in the way they want, especially when it comes to custody of the children, and to survive in society without having to work as much as men. That's power, even if you can't see it! Imagine the uproar if the laws were changed to favour men in this way. Uproar = power. Men that can't see the power that women have in society are disempowered simply because they believe that they have power that they don't have.

To me the person in 'power' is whoever is in control. Whoever is in control has more resources to do something or act in a particular way. These few men in power you talk about have the power and resources to affect millions of people. Look at power as how many people these men have control of (power over). If you look at the big picture and calculated the amount of people each man has power over then that would tip the scales ridiculously to the men having more power. Not many woman have the power to make decisions that affect millions of people. Plus look at what those men do with their power. I don't see much good come from wars that men have power over. I don't know of any women war lords or dictators.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Julia Gillard has a fuck sight more power than I do, as did Margaret Thatcher, Nicola Roxon has just made you and I criminals - again, you or I will never have this much power, and Penny Wong had the power to affect generations of people worldwide with her position of power as Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Decisions she made regarding tackling climate change could kill as many people as any physical war over resources.

You can be impowered yourself but that doesn't mean you have power over others. I have power over my own thoughts and body but I don't have power over anyone else. Whoever controls the money has power over me. I need money to trade for food and shelter. This is why Australia has centrelink. If we didn't have dole payments Australia wouldn't be classed as a free country since the only method of trade that is widespread is money. If I wan't to trade without money whoever I trade with has the power. This is because they have somehting I want or need so they control the price and situation. If I was to get violent and bash them to get what i want that briefly puts me in power. But the repercussions soon take that power away from me.

While some men may control vast amounts of money, in general society - the areas that you and I inhabit, and which the vast majority of people in our society inhabit, women have more spending power than men. Your focus on the extreme ends of society is slightly weird, but if you must, take a look at Gina Reinhardt, and ask yourself whether you and I or 99% of the male population have much more power than she does.

The reason women are mostly given custody of children is because they are better carers by default.

Women are better carers than men by default? So the fact that I go out and work my guts out to pay for the family expenses means that I don't care, and that I'm not capable of looking after my family as much as my partner? Women get custody because they are not expected to work to pay for the family, whereas men are expected to continue to work (care) even if they don't get to see the kids. This is really sad, unfair thinking and it makes me angry.

EDIT: Which is why I have edited the post to remove some of the more aggressive personal responses. Sorry!

Edited November 25, 2012 by whitewind

[ballzac]

Let's not overcomplicate words here just to get a point across.

Dictionary meaning; Power - The ability to do something or act in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality.

 

It's not about overcomplicating words. It's about taking the dictionary definition and actually working out how it applies to the complexities of the real world. It's similar to looking at success in life. You might say someone is successful because they earn a lot and are well known in their field. But if they are working very long hours in a job that they do not really enjoy, and are not happy, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to describe this as success. A more appropriate definition of success may be that a person has managed to achieve a well-balanced life that provides them with happiness, and you might find there are many low earning people who are very successful under this definition.

These few men in power you talk about have the power and resources to affect millions of people. Look at power as how many people these men have control of (power over). If you look at the big picture and calculated the amount of people each man has power over then that would tip the scales ridiculously to the men having more power. Not many woman have the power to make decisions that affect millions of people.

This is totally irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the population, both male and female. In saying that men have more power, there is an implication that the power from politicians somehow propagates through male members of the community. This is basically the theory of patriarchy that I am so against. The assumption is that society has been set up by men, is controlled by men, and is designed to benefit men at the expense of women. It is the third part of this that I have the most problems with. There is absolutely no evidence that the men in power provide any benefits to male members of the community over female members.

[whitewind]

This is totally irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the population, both male and female. In saying that men have more power, there is an implication that the power from politicians somehow propagates through male members of the community. This is basically the theory of patriarchy that I am so against. The assumption is that society has been set up by men, is controlled by men, and is designed to benefit men at the expense of women. It is the third part of this that I have the most problems with. There is absolutely no evidence that the men in power provide any benefits to male members of the community over female members.

 

In fact, keeping the nicer parts of "patriarchal" society - such as greater protection of women compared to men in society - while allowing them to choose which "beneficial" traditionally male roles they want while men don't have the same choices in return, clearly allows women more choices and helps them more than men. Unless you subscribe to the thinking that women need more help than men because they are weaker and / or less capable, which doesn't much sound like equality to me.

Equality is helping those who need it, whether male or female, indigenous or non-indigenous, young or old, while allowing the same possibilities for everyone. Not giving more benefits to some out of a perceived guilt or belief that they need it more despite any evidence to the contrary.

It's part of the problem with society, making blanket rules that are supposed to make things better, rules that may appear necessary and helpful to start with but create long term problems because they are inflexible and aren't well thought out in the first place. Modern medicine works like this too - the benefits of traditional medicine systems are that they take every individual as they come on a unique, personal basis - rather than assuming that everyone responds the same way to the same methods of treatments. Modern agriculture too, with it's obsession with gene fascism - we have wiped out millions of gene combinations to provide the perfect GM crop, which fails but a few generations down the track. Even capitalism, which assumes everyone has the same starting conditions to make it "fair" - whereas so many people are clearly unable to budget effectively, or find difficulty in trading, or planning, or start with millions whereas others start with parental debt.

Our genes are much more complex than this, and so is our sociology, and our rules should take notice of this fact, otherwise people like Gina Reinhardt have greater protections (which she clearly doesn't need) than your average man on the street.

[Buttsack]

Uh, most of the world's top chefs are men. And um, that involves cooking, right?

Fact is, post baby-boomer women often can't prepare satisfying food to save their life. They can present some flavour unbalanced slop to tick a few nutritional boxes but there's no passion in it. Maybe this is that big scary cloak of ultra-feminism in play, they cook like crap as a femi-protest, in the hope that their man will step into the kitchen. Those clever, clever bitches.

 

Huh....What does the top chefs being men have to do with anything? Top chefs that own their own chain of restaurants doesn't mean they are the best cooks. Owning lots of restaurants may not be the main goal of a woman. If everything else that I'm saying about power is to be true then the fact men are tops chefs in western societies celebrity world is no surprise. Since men get more oportunities in business to get there name out there. So therefore they would have an easier time getting famous and being thought of a "top chef".

Even if men are better at everything there is to do in this world that does not mean that the majority of men cook or cut hair. From what your saying since some of the best hair dressers in the world are men, then there must be more male hair dressers?

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Julia Gillard has a fuck sight more power than I do, as did Margaret Thatcher, Nicola Roxon has just made you and I criminals - again, you or I will never have this much power, and Penny Wong had the power to affect generations of people worldwide with her position of power as Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Decisions she made regarding tackling climate change could kill as many people as any physical war over resources.

While some men may control vast amounts of money, in general society - the areas that you and I inhabit, and which the vast majority of people in our society inhabit, women have more spending power than men. Your focus on the extreme ends of society is slightly weird, but if you must, take a look at Gina Reinhardt, and ask yourself whether you and I or 99% of the male population have much more power than she does.

 

I think you are greatly misunderstanding what I wrote. If you read what I said with an open mind you will hopefully see that I'm talking about the majority of people. Julia Gillard is a spokesperson for the labor party. It's not whatever she says goes, they have to have a vote before any major changes are made in government. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing then I'm not bothering with trying to change your view on anything. Picking apart my post and picking one or two women from society that have money or are in power does not make that the majority.

I'm sticking by what I said in my first post. This is based on real world experience and my view on this seems to work best for me. I get a lot of respect from both men and women in the society I live with the attitude I have. Even for the people who disagree with me at first I have found to come around in the end. I like to think my thought process can solve any problems I face. I have done a lot of traveling and seen how a lot of different societies function.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who does the cooking or earns the most money. No society in the world is truly free. We are all controlled by government and government is controlled by money. Whoever controls the money controls us and limits us. The few people who control the money are men.

http://www.rba.gov.a...rd-members.html

http://www.federalre...dmembership.htm

The men are in power where it matters. This might be irrelevant to our country but during the US presidential elections there was a debate between obama and romney. They were asked about women having equal oportunity in the workplace and both candidates just wanted to talk about how many female staff the have. So because romney has more female staff than any other electorate in the country I'm meant to believe he cares for womens rights as a whole. A few women in government doesn't make them in power.

http://www.smh.com.a...1005-166dj.html

Triple J did a program on hack a while back about womens equality in the workplace, especially as board members of a company. From memory the government is pushing for big business to employ more women in board positions and management positions. Which sounds great except the women that get the jobs still don't have much of a say. Plenty of women called in saying they think they got the job because of pressure on the companies image. So they needed to hire more women to improve their image. Which is why they thought they got the job. Plus they also mentioned what they said didn't really have much affect on what happened within the company. The male board members had control of her job so she was limited to what she could say in her position. So in the end this leaves her with 0 power to make any real change to help her own sex. It's just smoke and mirrors to give the company a better image.

Women are better carers than men by default?

 

Yes women are naturally better carers by nature than man. This is the case in most mammals. The mother bears the children and has a closer relationship to the child more than any father could. She has more of a connection to the child therefore she has more reason to care than any male does.

So the fact that I go out and work my guts out to pay for the family expenses means that I don't care, and that I'm not capable of looking after my family as much as my partner?

 

Wow that's a massive assumption and you have totally misunderstood what I said. Comprehend what I say before you jump to conclusions. Refer to what I said above.

Women get custody because they are not expected to work to pay for the family, whereas men are expected to continue to work (care) even if they don't get to see the kids. This is really sad, unfair thinking and it makes me angry.

 

That's one opinion. Although it differs from mine who's to say we are both right or wrong.

EDIT: Which is why I have edited the post to remove some of the more aggressive personal responses. Sorry!

 

Please don't edit out your aggressive responses in future posts. This allows me to see your true side. Maybe being aggressive my put me into line ay. That's usually how most men deal with there problems. Show some spirit and don't let your ego control who you are. There is nothing you can say to me that would make me upset or change my emotions. Only I can do that and I have complete control over who I am and my emotions. So I invite whatever you have to say and I will read it with an open mind.

Don't let your ego control you and don't fear anything. Fear is a weak emotion.

EDIT: Oh and Gina Rinehart is not much of a woman in my eyes. She shows more male traits than a woman. She is overpowered by her ego, hence why she is so fiesty about her money and will do anything to keep it from her children. The fact that she was used as an example of a woman in power shows the sheepish nature of some people. She was bombarded by the media to make women in power look bad. There are plenty of wealthy males in power who are like her but we never hear about them in commercial news. What makes her so special beside the fact she is a woman. It's a shame so many people fall for the medias tricks and use her as cannon fodder in debates such as this.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Buttsack

[Psylo]

[whitewind]

Huh....What does the top chefs being men have to do with anything? Top chefs that own their own chain of restaurants doesn't mean they are the best cooks. Owning lots of restaurants may not be the main goal of a woman. If everything else that I'm saying about power is to be true then the fact men are tops chefs in western societies celebrity world is no surprise. Since men get more oportunities in business to get there name out there. So therefore they would have an easier time getting famous and being thought of a "top chef".

Even if men are better at everything there is to do in this world that does not mean that the majority of men cook or cut hair. From what your saying since some of the best hair dressers in the world are men, then there must be more male hair dressers?

I think you are greatly misunderstanding what I wrote. If you read what I said with an open mind you will hopefully see that I'm talking about the majority of people. Julia Gillard is a spokesperson for the labor party. It's not whatever she says goes, they have to have a vote before any major changes are made in government. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing then I'm not bothering with trying to change your view on anything. Picking apart my post and picking one or two women from society that have money or are in power does not make that the majority.

I'm sticking by what I said in my first post. This is based on real world experience and my view on this seems to work best for me. I get a lot of respect from both men and women in the society I live with the attitude I have. Even for the people who disagree with me at first I have found to come around in the end. I like to think my thought process can solve any problems I face. I have done a lot of traveling and seen how a lot of different societies function.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who does the cooking or earns the most money. No society in the world is truly free. We are all controlled by government and government is controlled by money. Whoever controls the money controls us and limits us. The few people who control the money are men.

http://www.rba.gov.a...rd-members.html

http://www.federalre...dmembership.htm

The men are in power where it matters. This might be irrelevant to our country but during the US presidential elections there was a debate between obama and romney. They were asked about women having equal oportunity in the workplace and both candidates just wanted to talk about how many female staff the have. So because romney has more female staff than any other electorate in the country I'm meant to believe he cares for womens rights as a whole. A few women in government doesn't make them in power.

http://www.smh.com.a...1005-166dj.html

Triple J did a program on hack a while back about womens equality in the workplace, especially as board members of a company. From memory the government is pushing for big business to employ more women in board positions and management positions. Which sounds great except the women that get the jobs still don't have much of a say. Plenty of women called in saying they think they got the job because of pressure on the companies image. So they needed to hire more women to improve their image. Which is why they thought they got the job. Plus they also mentioned what they said didn't really have much affect on what happened within the company. The male board members had control of her job so she was limited to what she could say in her position. So in the end this leaves her with 0 power to make any real change to help her own sex. It's just smoke and mirrors to give the company a better image.

Yes women are naturally better carers by nature than man. This is the case in most mammals. The mother bears the children and has a closer relationship to the child more than any father could. She has more of a connection to the child therefore she has more reason to care than any male does.

Wow that's a massive assumption and you have totally misunderstood what I said. Comprehend what I say before you jump to conclusions. Refer to what I said above.

That's one opinion. Although it differs from mine who's to say we are both right or wrong.

Please don't edit out your aggressive responses in future posts. This allows me to see your true side. Maybe being aggressive my put me into line ay. That's usually how most men deal with there problems. Show some spirit and don't let your ego control who you are. There is nothing you can say to me that would make me upset or change my emotions. Only I can do that and I have complete control over who I am and my emotions. So I invite whatever you have to say and I will read it with an open mind. :lol:/>

Don't let your ego control you and don't fear anything. Fear is a weak emotion.

EDIT: Oh and Gina Rinehart is not much of a woman in my eyes. She shows more male traits than a woman. She is overpowered by her ego, hence why she is so fiesty about her money and will do anything to keep it from her children. The fact that she was used as an example of a woman in power shows the sheepish nature of some people. She was bombarded by the media to make women in power look bad. There are plenty of wealthy males in power who are like her but we never hear about them in commercial news. What makes her so special beside the fact she is a woman. It's a shame so many people fall for the medias tricks and use her as cannon fodder in debates such as this.

 

[whitewind]

Please don't edit out your aggressive responses in future posts. This allows me to see your true side. Maybe being aggressive my put me into line ay. That's usually how most men deal with there problems. Show some spirit and don't let your ego control who you are. There is nothing you can say to me that would make me upset or change my emotions. Only I can do that and I have complete control over who I am and my emotions. So I invite whatever you have to say and I will read it with an open mind. :lol:/>

 

I am clearly a polite person who occasionally uses aggressive language when someone insults me, but tends to regret it later. Surprised you had trouble figuring that out ;)

[Bigred]

my girlfriend use's me hit's me and i put up with it she is a psycho but i love her so much so i put up with it . If the shoe was on the other foot i would

be classed as a wife beater and my friends say do something but what can i do ,

Edited November 26, 2012 by bigred82

[chilli]

...

meh, I swore I would not get involved in this thread

Edited November 26, 2012 by chilli

[Mr. Bowser]

Women are better carers than men by default? So the fact that I go out and work my guts out to pay for the family expenses means that I don't care, and that I'm not capable of looking after my family as much as my partner? Women get custody because they are not expected to work to pay for the family, whereas men are expected to continue to work (care) even if they don't get to see the kids. This is really sad, unfair thinking and it makes me angry.

 

Yes, this stereotypical view is sad, considering I know plenty of men who are the primary caregivers (wives.partenrs are doctors, lawyers etc.) and they are just as caring as female counterparts. Any decent college level cultural anthropology class would demonstrate (to the astute student) that the woman as the "better" primary caregiver is simply an outdated stereotype.

There is ample scientific evidence proving that children raised without a strong male role model are significantly less proficient in school, controlling for all other social/economic factors. Women as better carers by default? Well, that's the stereotypical assumption that stacks the odds against fathers in nearly all custody disputes (in the US at least). Any scientific evidence to support the theory that children raised by single mothers are ANY better off than children raised by single fathers???

And yes, I'm appalled that at least in America, if a man is physically assaulted by his female partner, the police show up over 1 hour later, whereas if a female is assaulted by a male, the police will be there in 10 minutes tops. Sure men on average are stronger, but whose to say guns, knives, chairs, other blunt objects aren't capable of instantly leveling or dramatically reversing the upper hand.

[whitewind]

EDIT: Oh and Gina Rinehart is not much of a woman in my eyes. She shows more male traits than a woman. She is overpowered by her ego, hence why she is so fiesty about her money and will do anything to keep it from her children. The fact that she was used as an example of a woman in power shows the sheepish nature of some people. She was bombarded by the media to make women in power look bad. There are plenty of wealthy males in power who are like her but we never hear about them in commercial news. What makes her so special beside the fact she is a woman. It's a shame so many people fall for the medias tricks and use her as cannon fodder in debates such as this.

 

So you request that I don't edit but you just did? Anyway, this paragraph shows such convoluted "reasoning" that I don't really know where to start. It's very hard to argue with someone who arbitrarily shifts the goalposts (Gina Reinhardt isn't really a woman so we can't use her as an example). Gina Reinhardt is feisty, greedy, paranoid, she inherited money, she acts like a psychopath - in your reasoning that makes her more of a man than a woman, therefore she doesn't count. Don't you realise how ridiculous that is?

I think you are greatly misunderstanding what I wrote. If you read what I said with an open mind you will hopefully see that I'm talking about the majority of people. Julia Gillard is a spokesperson for the labor party. It's not whatever she says goes, they have to have a vote before any major changes are made in government. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing then I'm not bothering with trying to change your view on anything. Picking apart my post and picking one or two women from society that have money or are in power does not make that the majority.

The men are in power where it matters. This might be irrelevant to our country but during the US presidential elections there was a debate between obama and romney. They were asked about women having equal oportunity in the workplace and both candidates just wanted to talk about how many female staff the have. So because romney has more female staff than any other electorate in the country I'm meant to believe he cares for womens rights as a whole. A few women in government doesn't make them in power.

So you think Obama has more power than Julia Gillard... hang on, it's only men who have power when they are in government. Your logic is, well illogical. I don't understand your reasoning.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who does the cooking or earns the most money. No society in the world is truly free. We are all controlled by government and government is controlled by money. Whoever controls the money controls us and limits us. The few people who control the money are men.

Can I replace the descriptive term for money controllers with the term psychopaths as opposed to men please? Most men are not psychopaths with heaps of money. I do not associate myself with those psychopaths, they behave nothing like me.

The vast majority of men do not behave like that.

The same way that the vast majority of women do not behave like Gina Reinhardt.

Get it?

Yes women are naturally better carers by nature than man. This is the case in most mammals. The mother bears the children and has a closer relationship to the child more than any father could. She has more of a connection to the child therefore she has more reason to care than any male does.

You ignored my post. Your inability to see that care takes different aspects is part of the problem with society. I was out of work for a couple of months and ended up at home as the "primary carer". After the first week or so, after the panic was over, and despite the stress of losing my job, I began to love being a stay at home dad. I would much prefer to do it than go out to work every day; but now the roles have reversed and my misses is at home all day. Damn those society rules that say that this is the best way! Now my care involves me staying away from home, stressed out and unable to see my family as often as I would like. Wouldn't you say that I am fulfilling my duty of care, to the detriment of my own well-being? Isn't that worth anything? I tell you what, if I didn't give a shit about my family, I sure as hell wouldn't be doing what I'm doing, that's for sure.

Please don't edit out your aggressive responses in future posts.

Just a quick reminder, I edited some mildly aggressive stuff out because this is actually an interesting discussion and I don't want it to descend into a moronic shitfight. I value the discussions on SAB, and don't want this to end up in bitches and gripes, so if I cross the line, I will uncross it or apologise. If you don't value that, my respect for you is diminished.

[whitewind]

In other news, Nicola Roxon pushed through new laws which makes tens of thousands of Australian men and women criminals overnight.

Buttsack from Queensland confidently states that women in politics have no power, and that if Nicola Roxon was indeed, a woman, then she is an aberration and that we shouldn't be concerned, because women are "more caring" than men, and clearly, Nicola Roxon cares.

Do not fear, he says, fear is a weak emotion. Just keep cooking boys, everything will be just fine

[ballzac]

More footage from the recent protest outside the talk given by Dr Warren Farrell, including comments from both protestors and people trying to enter the event. I posted the talk that was given by Dr Farrell at this event on the previous page (post #94).

 

[incognito]

Everything else aside, they have boobs.

Let's here someone make a list of 5 things they hate about boobs. I dare thee come up with one. I'd fight a war for a pair of perky breasts.

[ballzac]

Let's here someone make a list of 5 things they hate about boobs. I dare thee come up with one. I'd fight a war for a pair of perky breasts.

 

1. I don't have any of my own to play with

2. Significant others can be very protective of theirs, and only provide access on special occasions

3. They can draw attention involuntarily, and said attention can cause significant awkwardness in some situations and lawsuits in others.

4. They are usually unnecessarily covered up.

5. They come in so many beautiful shapes and sizes, and most of us end up with only one pair that we have access to on a regular basis.

P.S. I chose to start the feminism discussion in this thread because it seemed like a joke thread that would lead nowhere, and was somewhat relevant, but in hindsight I realise that people reading the topic title and then my comments here might get the wrong idea about who/what I have issues with. I should have really started a separate thread. I think I've said it before already, but most women I've met are wonderful people, as are most men. I personally think I usually prefer the company of women, but that's just a personal preference that has nothing to do with the value I see members of each gender as having. What I want to see is a society based on true equality between the sexes, not victim mentality from some members of one gender, and assumptions or accusations of oppression and privilege aimed at all members of the other. I also want to see gender studies move towards evidence based social science, rather than the current dogmatic approach where everything begins with dogma and is framed in a poorly defined and untestable 'theory' like patriarchy.

To those who call themselves feminists, if your definition of feminism is about equality, then that is something I support, but be aware that if you align yourself with people who are claiming a particular injustice, then it is your responsibility to find out if that injustice, indeed, exists. If you hear a group of feminists yelling "hate speech" and holding signs protesting an event like that presented by Warren Farrell, and you think "Feminism is about equality. This must be a good cause." and you pick up a sign and join in without questioning the basis for this, or actually reading literature by the person being protested against, then you are aiding in the prevention of spaces for men and women to talk about men's issues in a way that is relevant, meaningful, and helpful, for them. The contention of every feminist group that I have ever heard of, is that men's issues must be discussed in terms of patriarchy theory and the oppression of women, and the real issues that a lot of men face that lead them to homelessness, depression, suicide, and poor education, will always be ignored in this paradigm.

[incognito]

I definAtely agree with point 4.

One thing I need clarified, do bras REALLY stop boobs from sagging? Or is this a myth? I mean I guess it aids in stifling the laws of gravity, but to what extent?

IMO zac the feminist movement had an important role to play in our society, and IMO they achieved it. It's a somewhat level playing field until you get Into the top level of the corporate, govt world where you will find the ratio of guys to gals is well lop sided in favour of shlongs. I still think its a mans world when one gets into the top eschalons of high $ jobs. But hey I could be wrong. I still think the "boys club" is still in effect.

Woman suffer greatly around the world still, where a feminist movement or 1000 would be of benefit I they aren't buried up to their necks and pelted to death with rocks first after they have had their clits torn from their bodies.

I think you have a lot of great stuff to say

Mate don't get me wrong, but as far as a totally equal playing field in Australia I still feel that those awesome females are still a wee bit behind the 8 ball.

Oh yeah those protesting diks, u have tools no matter what sex, colour or religion or sexual preference and unfortunately extremists are oft the most stupid ones.

Edited December 6, 2012 by incognito

[whitewind]

IMO zac the feminist movement had an important role to play in our society, and IMO they achieved it. It's a somewhat level playing field until you get Into the top level of the corporate, govt world where you will find the ratio of guys to gals is well lop sided in favour of shlongs. I still think its a mans world when one gets into the top eschalons of high $ jobs. But hey I could be wrong. I still think the "boys club" is still in effect.

 

But why this is something to consider important or be achievable is something that is way beyond me, in understanding why it is important but also how to achieve it myself. It's like saying "but you can be an evil freak, whereas women find it soooo much harder therefore it isn't fair". Stupid. Feminism fails because the categories it uses for success are warped and twisted, and aligned to society. It would be much more attractive as an ideal if it worked for genuine equality for all people, but by promoting "success" in this way it's actually promoting inequality even among the people it most favours (women). Stupid.

[whitewind]

Wow, feminism has really lost it's way in Toronto. Those people protesting are really violent and vicious

.

[ballzac]

Wow, feminism has really lost it's way in Toronto. Those people protesting are really violent and vicious

 

Toronto does seem to be a significant hotbed for feminist angst, but even at universities in melbourne I have seen posters advertising talks or workshops relating to men's issues defaced or ripped down. I can't imagine who might be responsible

There's an interesting case from a slutwalk in brazil. A man was chased down by the protestors and eventually arrested because he exposed himself. What I find interesting is that, to me, it's not as simple a case as you would normally consider when a man exposes himself, and I'm open to lots of different perspectives on this. IMO, what he did was wrong, because it was clearly intentionally inflammatory. But, I also think this should not be considered a sex offense, because he was clearly making a statement, however stupid that statement is, not trying to attack anyone.

But then if you think a little deeper, you have a protest that is about the fact that a woman should never be blamed for being attacked because of how much skin she is showing. Many of the women at these slutwalks often go topless. Yet when a man decides to expose a similarly 'private' part of his anatomy, according to the majority of these protestors, he deserves to be attacked, and then we are all inclined to blame him for the attack because, well, he had it coming. It's difficult to overcome the instinctive response that the situation is different when it's a man, because he exposed himself to be offensively provocative rather than sexually provocative, but it would be difficult to argue that the response was not hypocritical.

The one thing that I don't think is debatable, is that there is a massive number of women who are marching because they believe that men are violent, and that society condones that violence, and then when a single man, outnumbered enormously, does something they don't like, they act like a pack of fucking wild animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_Qa__jydQ

[incognito]

Why is it important or achievable..... Jeez zac ur starting to cross into chauvinism waters now old friend. I dunno if it's ur word smithery but it's starting to walk and quack like a duck.

I am involved in the dads in distress organization. You would be surprised at how many women are pro-active volunteers.

As many extreme fruit loop feminists out there I could almost guarentee there are equal amounts of fuk tard male chauvinist pigs who deem makes superior.

I think we

Could

Come to the

Conclusion that human beings are intact not very sane, male and female.

Edited December 7, 2012 by incognito

[ballzac]

Jeez zac ur starting to cross into chauvinism waters now old friend. I dunno if it's ur word smithery but it's starting to walk and quack like a duck.

 

Maybe you could give a specific example of something I've said that is chauvinistic.

I am involved in the dads in distress organization. You would be surprised at how many women are pro-active volunteers.

 

I personally wouldn't be surprised. Look at any of the men's and boys' issues talks and see how many women are in the audience. Most women care about these issues if they are aware of them.

As many extreme fruit loop feminists out there I could almost guarentee there are equal amounts of fuk tard male chauvinist pigs who deem makes superior. Ur chasing ur tail.

 

Yes, but we don't live in a society that says that is okay. We don't have funding going to support the causes of 'chauvinist groups'. My problem is that feminism is always seen as the 'right' approach, and is always given the benefit of the doubt. It means that people who call themselves feminists can pretty much get away with anything. None of this changes the fact that there are other types of bigots out there. But if I was here saying "the KKK are bigots", there would be no discussion, because everyone would say, "no shit". Feminism is the discussion that needs to be had to expose what the majority of this movement (at least in the modern day) is about, and this is something that I think most people who are interested in human rights and social justice are completely unaware of.

[incognito]

We do have a lot of funding going into men's health right now, in particular mental health and bringing about equality within the legal system.

I don't think further segregation of the sexes is a move forward, which from what I can see this thread is all about. It's an ugly thread title

And it's getting like a long whine.

I'm not sure that feminism is always deemed a right approach. I guess it's the context in which u see "feminism". Sounds like a buzzword to me. I mean women supporting women's rights is fine yeah? I mean we all should be supporting woman's rights, as much as we all should support men's rights.

Edited December 7, 2012 by incognito