[quote]csulli wrote:
Unless you want to start giving black people special privileges for their delayed rights.
[/quote]
I’m listening.
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Are men being told by women what they can and can’t do with their body and trying to make it against the law to do with it as you see fit?
[/quote]
Yeah when she’s horny.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
That said, the small amount of material that I read in the link in the OP just struck me as way to shrill to seem like a credible appeal for social/legal reform. Also, IMO, any philosophy that can be summed up in the word “NO” (from the about page) leaves a little to be desired.[/quote]
“It is the manifestion of one word: â??Noâ??. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a â??manâ?? is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didnâ??t.”
I’m assuming you are referring to this paragraph. Let’s break it down:
How does culture define a “MAN”? There is a nice series on misandry in the media:
Just watch it for a few minutes - one minute in, we have all men are pigs… How would that commercial go over if we had all the women represented as COWS? and the men pushing them away. Think THAT would get air time?
As a student of social dynamics, evolutionary psychology/biology and as a man with over 25 years of experience (most of it “pre-game”) of fucking women, I can tell you with 100% certainty that most social interaction between men and women is driven by the social cues given off by THE WOMAN. That’s because most men put a woman on a pedestal in an infantile desire to sleep with them (even if the reality of that is so far fetched it borders on impossibility, most men “act as if” and convey undue privilege to attractive women). This sentence merely means don’t put women on a pedestal.
Summed up nicely here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/disposable-male/
and here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/men-dont-exist/
http://www.mgtow.com/video/george-clooney-going-his-own-way/
None of this would be considered “shrill” if the shoe were on the other foot. NONE OF IT. It’s a double standard. And if you have a penis, it is biased against YOU.
My girlfriend and I had a discussion on (what I consider) a related topic.
It had to do with abortion, and I said that it shouldn’t just be a woman’s decision, because it takes two.
She said, but the woman has to carry it, so she gets to decide.
I said, that doesn’t matter, being that it’s just as much his as it is hers.
So then I came up with this scenario. If the man wants the baby, and she doesn’t, she gets inconvenienced for lets say 9 months.
Shoes on the other foot, she wants it and he doesn’t, he’s on the hook for the next 18 years.
Yeah, real fuckin’ fair, lol
That pigs as men commercial looked pretty funny tho. A parody with cows is definitely due
A lot of bitching in that video about the double standard in media.
I just laugh that sort of stuff off.
I would think all the commercials of men doing stupid shit is because we have a better sense of humour than women.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
That pigs as men commercial looked pretty funny tho. A parody with cows is definitely due[/quote]
That’s why he was saying he isn’t crying for them to stop making the clumsy/dumb men commercials or sitcoms, because he is capable of understanding it’s a) a joke and b) not a depiction of all men; he just wishes there for more fair game in the media.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
That said, the small amount of material that I read in the link in the OP just struck me as way to shrill to seem like a credible appeal for social/legal reform. Also, IMO, any philosophy that can be summed up in the word “NO” (from the about page) leaves a little to be desired.[/quote]
“It is the manifestion of one word: â??Noâ??. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a â??manâ?? is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didnâ??t.”
I’m assuming you are referring to this paragraph. Let’s break it down:
How does culture define a “MAN”? There is a nice series on misandry in the media:
Just watch it for a few minutes - one minute in, we have all men are pigs… How would that commercial go over if we had all the women represented as COWS? and the men pushing them away. Think THAT would get air time?
As a student of social dynamics, evolutionary psychology/biology and as a man with over 25 years of experience (most of it “pre-game”) of fucking women, I can tell you with 100% certainty that most social interaction between men and women is driven by the social cues given off by THE WOMAN. That’s because most men put a woman on a pedestal in an infantile desire to sleep with them (even if the reality of that is so far fetched it borders on impossibility, most men “act as if” and convey undue privilege to attractive women). This sentence merely means don’t put women on a pedestal.
Summed up nicely here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/disposable-male/
and here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/men-dont-exist/
http://www.mgtow.com/video/george-clooney-going-his-own-way/
None of this would be considered “shrill” if the shoe were on the other foot. NONE OF IT. It’s a double standard. And if you have a penis, it is biased against YOU.
[/quote]
DIvorce and custody favours the woman because of patriarchy not misandry.
Again divorce laws were created at a time when women could not vote or work. This meant the men in society deemed it necessary a man provide for his ex wife and children who should naturally be with the mother as it was deemed their only legitimate role in society.
Women did not create these things. Men and a male dominated society did. They are a product of patriarchy, women did not push for this. It lis from a time women were not able to enjoy many rights and were deemed the husbands responsibility as not being able to work the husband had to provide for her and she and to take custody of the children, patriarchy deemed it insane that a husband would have children, that was after all a womans job.
if you look at most feminists who are prominent in main stream feminist movements, they unanimously want an end to the unfair treatment of men in courts. However womens groups are dealing with overwhelming female problems like rape, domestic abuse, victim blaming, working discrimination etc. Womens groups who have limited funding and time obviously do not focus on the one side effect of patriarchy that has benefited them.
Also courts in divorce generally favour the one without money. Quite a few famous rich women have had men take them for millions. However custody is fucked and courts do unjustly favour women, but agin that is due to patriarchal laws and history.
Definitely a whiner in the video AC, at ~9:10
That totally sounds like some whiny, bitchy feminist to me.
Like this one
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
That said, the small amount of material that I read in the link in the OP just struck me as way to shrill to seem like a credible appeal for social/legal reform. Also, IMO, any philosophy that can be summed up in the word “NO” (from the about page) leaves a little to be desired.[/quote]
“It is the manifestion of one word: Ã?¢??NoÃ?¢??. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a Ã?¢??manÃ?¢?? is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didnÃ?¢??t.”
I’m assuming you are referring to this paragraph. Let’s break it down:
How does culture define a “MAN”? There is a nice series on misandry in the media:
Just watch it for a few minutes - one minute in, we have all men are pigs… How would that commercial go over if we had all the women represented as COWS? and the men pushing them away. Think THAT would get air time?
As a student of social dynamics, evolutionary psychology/biology and as a man with over 25 years of experience (most of it “pre-game”) of fucking women, I can tell you with 100% certainty that most social interaction between men and women is driven by the social cues given off by THE WOMAN. That’s because most men put a woman on a pedestal in an infantile desire to sleep with them (even if the reality of that is so far fetched it borders on impossibility, most men “act as if” and convey undue privilege to attractive women). This sentence merely means don’t put women on a pedestal.
Summed up nicely here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/disposable-male/
and here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/men-dont-exist/
http://www.mgtow.com/video/george-clooney-going-his-own-way/
None of this would be considered “shrill” if the shoe were on the other foot. NONE OF IT. It’s a double standard. And if you have a penis, it is biased against YOU.
[/quote]
DIvorce and custody favours the woman because of patriarchy not misandry.
Again divorce laws were created at a time when women could not vote or work. This meant the men in society deemed it necessary a man provide for his ex wife and children who should naturally be with the mother as it was deemed their only legitimate role in society.
Women did not create these things. Men and a male dominated society did. They are a product of patriarchy, women did not push for this. It lis from a time women were not able to enjoy many rights and were deemed the husbands responsibility as not being able to work the husband had to provide for her and she and to take custody of the children, patriarchy deemed it insane that a husband would have children, that was after all a womans job.
if you look at most feminists who are prominent in main stream feminist movements, they unanimously want an end to the unfair treatment of men in courts. However womens groups are dealing with overwhelming female problems like rape, domestic abuse, victim blaming, working discrimination etc. Womens groups who have limited funding and time obviously do not focus on the one side effect of patriarchy that has benefited them.
Also courts in divorce generally favour the one without money. Quite a few famous rich women have had men take them for millions. However custody is fucked and courts do unjustly favour women, but agin that is due to patriarchal laws and history.[/quote]
Um, you need to check your facts. But one thing we can agree on is that these laws were created to address issues THAT NO LONGER EXIST, correct? Any woman is capable of getting a job if she becomes qualified, yes? Shouldn’t take a LIFETIME of support for a woman to become qualified, yes?
But the problem is that these laws are still being APPLIED TODAY, as if it were impossible for women to do anything on their own…
So why dismiss the “movement”, if you can call it that, to level the proverbial playing field?
and please SHOW ME some main stream feminists who want an end to the unfair treatment of men in courts.
The fundamental question is this: Are ALL WOMEN in 2014 helpless victims that need protection and support for the rest of their lives? Especially if they cheat on their husbands in a no-fault state and he doesn’t want her anymore, but is required by law to give her HALF HIS SHIT because she was a whore who couldn’t keep her legs closed? How can that be justified?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Definitely a whiner in the video AC, at ~9:10
That totally sounds like some whiny, bitchy feminist to me.[/quote]
Personally, I’m a little thicker skinned than the guy narrating the video. BUT, his POINT is valid. I suppose that if we live in the “PC world” with rules and shit that WE, as MEN, have to follow, is it really being whiny and bitchy to demand the same standard IN THAT WORLD? I’d be a happy camper if all that PC bullshit went away and people came to their senses. But that ain’t gonna happen any time soon. So if that’s the world being thrust upon me, would it not behoove me to adopt those tactics and turn in around on the “oppressor”? I mean turnabout is fair play, after all…
If we can get some traction in the MEDIA, then perhaps that will affect public opinion and eventually trickle down into the courtroom. So while I agree with you and find this distasteful to act like a whiny bitch, that’s the ammunition we have to work with at the moment. It’s the only thing they will RESPOND to… Brute force wont work… Logic wont work… What other alternative would YOU suggest?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Like this one
Agreed! Bill Burr is funny as shit!
When you bring up laws/legislation that are outdated, I read somewhere that it was suggested to put expiry dates on new laws, in order to test their validity, and if they don’t work as they’re supposed to, then they are scrapped.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
That said, the small amount of material that I read in the link in the OP just struck me as way to shrill to seem like a credible appeal for social/legal reform. Also, IMO, any philosophy that can be summed up in the word “NO” (from the about page) leaves a little to be desired.[/quote]
“It is the manifestion of one word: Ã??Ã?¢??NoÃ??Ã?¢??. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a Ã??Ã?¢??manÃ??Ã?¢?? is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didnÃ??Ã?¢??t.”
I’m assuming you are referring to this paragraph. Let’s break it down:
How does culture define a “MAN”? There is a nice series on misandry in the media:
Just watch it for a few minutes - one minute in, we have all men are pigs… How would that commercial go over if we had all the women represented as COWS? and the men pushing them away. Think THAT would get air time?
As a student of social dynamics, evolutionary psychology/biology and as a man with over 25 years of experience (most of it “pre-game”) of fucking women, I can tell you with 100% certainty that most social interaction between men and women is driven by the social cues given off by THE WOMAN. That’s because most men put a woman on a pedestal in an infantile desire to sleep with them (even if the reality of that is so far fetched it borders on impossibility, most men “act as if” and convey undue privilege to attractive women). This sentence merely means don’t put women on a pedestal.
Summed up nicely here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/disposable-male/
and here: http://www.mgtow.com/video/men-dont-exist/
http://www.mgtow.com/video/george-clooney-going-his-own-way/
None of this would be considered “shrill” if the shoe were on the other foot. NONE OF IT. It’s a double standard. And if you have a penis, it is biased against YOU.
[/quote]
DIvorce and custody favours the woman because of patriarchy not misandry.
Again divorce laws were created at a time when women could not vote or work. This meant the men in society deemed it necessary a man provide for his ex wife and children who should naturally be with the mother as it was deemed their only legitimate role in society.
Women did not create these things. Men and a male dominated society did. They are a product of patriarchy, women did not push for this. It lis from a time women were not able to enjoy many rights and were deemed the husbands responsibility as not being able to work the husband had to provide for her and she and to take custody of the children, patriarchy deemed it insane that a husband would have children, that was after all a womans job.
if you look at most feminists who are prominent in main stream feminist movements, they unanimously want an end to the unfair treatment of men in courts. However womens groups are dealing with overwhelming female problems like rape, domestic abuse, victim blaming, working discrimination etc. Womens groups who have limited funding and time obviously do not focus on the one side effect of patriarchy that has benefited them.
Also courts in divorce generally favour the one without money. Quite a few famous rich women have had men take them for millions. However custody is fucked and courts do unjustly favour women, but agin that is due to patriarchal laws and history.[/quote]
Um, you need to check your facts. But one thing we can agree on is that these laws were created to address issues THAT NO LONGER EXIST, correct? Any woman is capable of getting a job if she becomes qualified, yes? Shouldn’t take a LIFETIME of support for a woman to become qualified, yes?
But the problem is that these laws are still being APPLIED TODAY, as if it were impossible for women to do anything on their own…
So why dismiss the “movement”, if you can call it that, to level the proverbial playing field?
and please SHOW ME some main stream feminists who want an end to the unfair treatment of men in courts.
The fundamental question is this: Are ALL WOMEN in 2014 helpless victims that need protection and support for the rest of their lives? Especially if they cheat on their husbands in a no-fault state and he doesn’t want her anymore, but is required by law to give her HALF HIS SHIT because she was a whore who couldn’t keep her legs closed? How can that be justified?[/quote]
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
Secondly yes these laws are outdated any all mainstream feminists from Greer to Brown etc all openly say they are sexist and unjust laws. However again they have more pressing issues like rape and domestic abuse to address than women getting favour in the courts as a byproduct of a time men had total domination of women.
The reason these MRA idiots are complete and utter wankers is because they ignore the historical process that brought these laws about (patriarchy and a time women could not vote or work but were deemed to only be mothers and housewives) and instead say its because women control society.
These laws need to be done away with, but focusing on these laws and advocating mens rights groups while at the same time downplaying the balance between men and women and power in the culture is just silly. Women getting favoured in courts for already stated patriarchal reasons does not mean we have a society where women are not overwhelming discriminated against.
I would be totally on board for a movement combatting these injustices men face int he courts if:
2A) This movement did not deny systemic injustices against women, it upheld the right to abortion and other womens rights. It could accept the root of these laws that affect men were rooted in patriarchy and not some proof of women controlling society.
2B) I would support the existence of MRA, IF they were not comprised of completely idiotic viciously woman hating men who have such a chip on their shoulder. I mean seriously if the MRA groups were comprised of regular guys who accepted women were the less powerful in society and men have it a lot better and only wanted to address the specific issues you raise I would whole heartedly support it and I think most men and women would too.
But this is not the case.
I wonder if that could be made retroactive for laws that haven’t served their purpose or are unjust
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
[/quote] What planet do YOU live on? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827162413AAyCL1U
So, you’re a feminist. How’s that working for you? I’m not interested in arguing with a liberal idealist, cuz I’m wasting my time. How old are you?
Talk to me in a few decades and we’ll see how your opinion has evolved.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
[/quote] What planet do YOU live on? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827162413AAyCL1U
So, you’re a feminist. How’s that working for you? I’m not interested in arguing with a liberal idealist, cuz I’m wasting my time. How old are you?
Talk to me in a few decades and we’ll see how your opinion has evolved.[/quote]
No I am not a feminist. I just acknowledge historical and current realities.
You have no desire to debate because there is nothing to debate, women have been and are currently systematically discriminated against. That isn’t a debatable point;
Rape
Domestic abuse
Pay gap
Work harassment
Abortion (only winning the right recently in history, shaming people who use this medical procedure, attempts to ban it
Slut shaming
Victim blaming
ETC
ETC ETC
Let me guess racism isn’t a problem anymore either?
Edit.
Just saw your first response you sourced from yahoo answers, quite fitting.
If you can prove someone cheated you have no financial responsibility to them only to any child you are responsible for.
The same as you can’t be sent to prison for a crime without proof. Also an answer on the yahoo answers post you linked a woman describes her female boss and her cheating husband getting half.
So it’s not a gender issue but a shitty court one.
Also unless you want courts sending people to prison without proof why would they decide divorce settlements without proof?
Pay gap a myth
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
[/quote] What planet do YOU live on? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827162413AAyCL1U
So, you’re a feminist. How’s that working for you? I’m not interested in arguing with a liberal idealist, cuz I’m wasting my time. How old are you?
Talk to me in a few decades and we’ll see how your opinion has evolved.[/quote]
No I am not a feminist. I just acknowledge historical and current realities.
You have no desire to debate because there is nothing to debate, women have been and are currently systematically discriminated against. That isn’t a debatable point;
Rape
Domestic abuse
Pay gap
Work harassment
Abortion (only winning the right recently in history, shaming people who use this medical procedure, attempts to ban it
Slut shaming
Victim blaming
ETC
ETC ETC
Let me guess racism isn’t a problem anymore either?[/quote]
You have such a nice list of talking points.
Can you lend me some in order to further patriarchaaayyyy?
Because frankly, there are not enough wimmenz who are either:
Barefoot, pregnant or in the kitchen.
Also, whereever you are working, watch out, because I am gonna go against my patriarchal instincts and only hire those “wimminz” because I hear they do the exact same shit, just for less.
Imma gonna bury you, all your bases are belong to me.
Ja.