A Civilized Discussion on Gender Issues

[chenGOD]

 

how about you just deal with it. men have given women a systematically fuckin shitty time, for about the last 2000 years. even if what you are saying is slightly true (i dont believe your arguement for shit by the way, but im not gonna waste my time argueing with you) then maybe its about fuckin time men got their arses handed to them on a cream platter.

 

 

 

tl dr; = deal with it and stop being a wee fuckin bitch

"Deal with it"

"The actions of your demographic in the past mean you deserve retribution in the present"

"I don't believe you"

 

Wow aren't you a real thinker

 

It's not retribution, it's called a level playing field.

[zlemflolia]

 

Don't be ridiculous

 

Men were and still are treated as chattel. It wasn't women working in the mines or being buried in the Hoover Dam and Great Wall of China was it?

 

And in the US women did not work for the right to vote, they were given it after protesting. Men had to EARN the right to vote, and still do today!

 

Women are the only gender that is born with the right to vote at age 18 in the US

 

Men have to earn it through registration with the selective services, and if they don't they will be heavily fined and jailed

 

And your wanton disregard for all the institutionalized sexism against men being insignificant is extremely biased and unfounded. Any of these qualities, if attributed to women, would be viewed as sexism by you and most people no doubt

 

Legal disadvantages men face are basically petty complaints in your eyes? That's a ridiculous position to hold and in comparison to many of the views feminists hold so dear (objectification through media) it is far less petty.

 

If a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant he has absolutely NO legal say in whether he will be responsible for that child for the next 18 years. She has ALL the say. That is objectively institutionalized legal sexism, period. And to deny this is petty and biased in favor of feminism.

 

 

the women's rights movement is based on perceived slights that a bunch of bitchy cunts with low self-esteem and a sense of entitlement think they are being subjected to.

Say what you will Zeff, but I'm inclined to agree with this statement.

 

Yeah me too.

LOL women were busy being kept in the house. Do you know what chattel means?

 

You should read up on the history of the right to vote:

http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/history/

Men have to register with selective service regardless of their desire to vote - if you have issue with that, you should address that particular issue!

 

Be responsible with your johnson and choosing your partners!

 

What legal disadvantages? what institutionalized sexism? You haven't presented any yet.

 

 

Chattel means slave and property. Which low class men have acted as for the majority of history. So have women but not in as much of a physically intense way where men's lives are viewed as worthless and women's as precious. Have you seen the Titanic's survival ratio for men to women?

 

And if you do not register for the selective services you are imprisoned and cannot vote, so registering for the selective services is therefore a requirement for men to vote. Can't really see how you missed that.

 

Your logic is effectively the same as past justifications used for literacy tests blocking African Americans from voting.

 

"You can doA, but as long as you can pass this requirement B also." That's not a free right to do A, that's the right to do A only if you do B. But women don't have to do B. So they have more voting rights than men.

 

And as for your responsibility claim the same could be said to women for many of these issues you claim they face yet you choose not to tell THEM to just deal with it and be responsible. Why not, I ask?

 

That's the issue here

 

I've already presented my case clearly, you are just not going to accept even a few of my points because of your prior held biases.

 

Even if you disagree with MRA ideas in principle it's ignorant to deny the fact that there IS institutionalized legal sexism against men in the US. Like the predominant aggressor claws in domestic dispute regulations. And the selective services alone in addition to their voting rights implications.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

how about you just deal with it. men have given women a systematically fuckin shitty time, for about the last 2000 years. even if what you are saying is slightly true (i dont believe your arguement for shit by the way, but im not gonna waste my time argueing with you) then maybe its about fuckin time men got their arses handed to them on a cream platter.

 

 

 

tl dr; = deal with it and stop being a wee fuckin bitch

"Deal with it"

"The actions of your demographic in the past mean you deserve retribution in the present"

"I don't believe you"

 

Wow aren't you a real thinker

 

It's not retribution, it's called a level playing field.

 

It's retribution by his wording. "It's about fucking time men got their asses handed to them" that isn't asking for a level playing field that's asking for retribution and punishment for the past actions of men

 

Level playing field my ass

 

Women have the upper hand legally as it stands and that is unjust.

 

I hope you get divorced some day so your wife can lie and say you beat her, then she can take your children and house and car and half of your bank account and salary for the rest of your life, and half of your pension. And I hope you sit back and think "Well I deserve this for the years of oppression my gender caused on women before I was born!"

[zlemflolia]

This is not a civil discussion you are having here

 

You are legitimately ignoring facts I have presented that ARE legal discrimination against males and you won't admit that it is so

 

Even if you don't post in this thread admitting your bias please think about your views and consider that maybe you aren't being as rational as you may think, disregarding factual evidence like this in favor of your own previously held personal beliefs. That's not what people do in a civil discussion that's what creationists do when confronted by a biologist.

[rixxx]

 

 

 

how about you just deal with it. men have given women a systematically fuckin shitty time, for about the last 2000 years. even if what you are saying is slightly true (i dont believe your arguement for shit by the way, but im not gonna waste my time argueing with you) then maybe its about fuckin time men got their arses handed to them on a cream platter.

 

 

 

tl dr; = deal with it and stop being a wee fuckin bitch

"Deal with it"

"The actions of your demographic in the past mean you deserve retribution in the present"

"I don't believe you"

 

Wow aren't you a real thinker

 

It's not retribution, it's called a level playing field.

 

It's retribution by his wording. "It's about fucking time men got their asses handed to them" that isn't asking for a level playing field that's asking for retribution and punishment for the past actions of men

 

Level playing field my ass

 

Women have the upper hand legally as it stands and that is unjust.

 

I hope you get divorced some day so your wife can lie and say you beat her, then she can take your children and house and car and half of your bank account and salary for the rest of your life, and half of your pension. And I hope you sit back and think "Well I deserve this for the years of oppression my gender caused on women before I was born!"

 

 

 

 

Ohhh so this is the issue, you we're divorced?

[zlemflolia]

No

 

I don't have any issues

 

I just am not alright with legal discrimination against my gender

Edited April 20, 2013 by Zeffolia

[Guest cqueberel]

This is not a civil discussion you are having here

 

It is not even a discussion, it's more like chasing a chicken. I mean, when someone is refuting a simple logical argument with "syllogistic logic is so passe", there really exists no basis for any kind of reasonable discussion.

I am a long time-lurker on these forums and read it for music-related/art-related stuff, but the level of idiocy displayed by many posters makes me want to avoid it now. I guess I have to find another source of IDMz and batcock.

[goDel]

I think we've found our chicken!

[rixxx]

 

This is not a civil discussion you are having here

 

It is not even a discussion, it's more like chasing a chicken. I mean, when someone is refuting a simple logical argument with "syllogistic logic is so passe", there really exists no basis for any kind of reasonable discussion.

I am a long time-lurker on these forums and read it for music-related/art-related stuff, but the level of idiocy displayed by many posters makes me want to avoid it now. I guess I have to find another source of IDMz and batcock.

 

 

 

If you've lurked here for along time then surly you would be aware of the sort of people that post here?

[goDel]

Welcome to watmm, cqueberel. I see you're already perfectly accustomed to our tradition of not liking things (even not liking that tradition itself).

 

Enjoy your (active) stay, you faceless/judgmental lurker.

[RichieBees]

zeff is my hero, finally someone standing up for the mans!

[goDel]

Silly idea perhaps, but we could ask a number of transsexuals whether they feel they're position has changed to to their new sex.

 

Also, I've read a book about a woman who dressed up like a man for one year and wrote about her experiences being a man through the eyes of a woman. Interesting stuff. Even those supposedly irrelevant anecdotal stuff like when she noticed that walking on the street as a man on itself is completely different to walking on the street as a woman. In short, women get plenty attention. Men on the other hand obtain their recognition on the streets by being completely ignored. Or rather, they're being "accepted" with silence.

[Guest Thaddeusz]

Silly idea perhaps, but we could ask a number of transsexuals whether they feel they're position has changed to to their new sex.

There are some interesting articles from Ben Barres, a transsexual scientist who used to be a woman. This is somewhat limited to academia but insightful nonetheless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html

And if you have access to nature magazin:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7099/full/442133a.html

[eugene]

i love this forum.

[goDel]

 

Silly idea perhaps, but we could ask a number of transsexuals whether they feel they're position has changed to to their new sex.

There are some interesting articles from Ben Barres, a transsexual scientist who used to be a woman. This is somewhat limited to academia but insightful nonetheless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html

And if you have access to nature magazin:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7099/full/442133a.html

 

Good article!

[LimpyLoo]

"Men understand real, spiritual love, better than any woman. Men have already learned to love spiritually, whereas women are emotional (human-animal-emotion). This is proved, by the fact, that when a marriage breaks-up, the woman can have sex with someone else, fall madly (emotionally) in love with them, and never give her husband a second-thought, whilst it takes an average man, between 3 and 5 years to get over the hurt: if he ever does."

 

- http://JAHTruth.net/twh.pdf

 

oh great another sexist religion

 

thanks n00b

[Friendly Foil]

Threads don't get much more civil than this.

[Npoess]

Watmm is having it's greatest midlife crisis ever.

[chenGOD]

zeff - been divorced once, working on the second at the moment. way to keep the discourse civil by the way.

 

the selective service issue is bigger than the right to vote. from what i understand historically the ss is a recrnt thing, prior to that there was no draft and thus no registration necessary.

 

your ideas of chattel are ludicrous. men worked dangerous jobs but they got paid. wimen could not wirk those jobs. they simply didnt have the option.

 

anyways im on my phone and supposed to be enjoying my weekend so have at it.

[pcock]

 

how about you just deal with it. men have given women a systematically fuckin shitty time, for about the last 2000 years. even if what you are saying is slightly true (i dont believe your arguement for shit by the way, but im not gonna waste my time argueing with you) then maybe its about fuckin time men got their arses handed to them on a cream platter.

 

 

 

tl dr; = deal with it and stop being a wee fuckin bitch

"Deal with it"

"The actions of your demographic in the past mean you deserve retribution in the present"

"I don't believe you"

 

Wow aren't you a real thinker

 

what do you propose we do to stop women terrorising, mentally abusing and raping men all the time, out of interest?

[ambermonk]

Threads don't get much more civil than this.

lol

 

Watmm is having it's greatest midlife crisis ever.

lol

 

 

I am a long time-lurker on these forums and read it for music-related/art-related stuff, but the level of idiocy displayed by many posters makes me want to avoid it now. I guess I have to find another source of IDMz and batcock.

 

Like where? XLTronic?

 

Honestly I think WATMM is the best it's gonna get. I know from experience.

[pcock]

im not even gonna do this...

 

 

• 1225 posts
• 10 topics
• Joined 23-June 12

edit: woops

[Guest cqueberel]

Honestly I think WATMM is the best it's gonna get. I know from experience.

 

Sigh. Maybe I should just avoid reading the General Banter subforum, then.

[Guest cqueberel]

I see two major problems that make the discussion about present day feminism, masculism and gender equality so heated. First, it is a discussion about the fairness of treatment about two absurdly large, heterogeneous groups: 'men' and 'women'. It should be obvious that any discourse that is based on such a sweeping generalization is bound to run into all sorts of trouble and misunderstandings. If I am a woman or a man, and feel treated unfairly, it does not matter to me that men in general have advantages A, B, and C, and women have disadvantages X, Y, Z, and vice versa. What matters is my individual situation, and that situation is likely to be significantly different from the general 'men' and 'women' categories constructed through population-wide statistics (or, even worse, some sociological hypotheses not rooted in any empirical evidence at all).

 

Secondly, the discourse is quite ignorant of how quickly the parameters of gender equality have changed and are still changing.

In my country, only 30-40 year ago a husband was allowed to go to the employer of his wife and tell the employer that the wife needs to be fired, because her job is getting in the way of household duties. Such things would be unthinkable nowadays, and in fact, the only legal discrimination between sexes are to the great disadvantage of men (such as mandatory military service, or men being able to go into pension only years later than women, even though they have a far shorter life expectancy). The negative discrimination of women in the past does not seem like a good reason for the negative discrimination of men in the present. If you think it IS a good reason, please explain why.

Edited April 20, 2013 by cqueberel

[Glunk]

i just want all the shit to stop