The problem lies with us men!

Originally posted by Doglord
Bottom line, anyone who thinks women are "superior" to men, has been drinking the Kool-Aid, and any man who buys into this is an Aunt Tom.

This line gives you a clue about the fact that in this guys mind there is a war between men and women. And he's the victim.

Just pointing out the underlying bias.

Originally posted by Reading
i mean YEARS men had to be aggresive and protective to protect the family unit, But now in TODAYS world it should be run by women, decisions need to be made wisely and not chosen by who has the biggest dick or ego.

I disagree. Strongly. The World should be run by people.

I do not need to you step down so I can step up. I just need you to not stand on my throat.

Originally posted by Aeons
This line gives you a clue about the fact that in this guys mind there is a war between men and women.

Actually I think men and women are naturally complimentary. However I do believe that certain political forces have spent decades claiming that there is a war between the sexes, acting as if there were, and getting legislation passed on the basis of said thesis. I also recognize that as a result of said political movement, the legal structure of the US and other western societies are highly misandrist and inherently biased in favor of women. But thanks for the attempt at dimestore psychology, I always love it when someone exposes their ignorance in an attempt to look smart.

And he's the victim.

Wassa matter honey, afraid of someone cutting into your gig?
relax, I'm not into the victim psychology, you and the sisters can keep hold of your monopoly on that. Besides men just aren't as capable of playing the victim card as women are.

Just pointing out the underlying bias.

Ahh yes, this coming from the "all men are children until 30" chick.



Don't worry, most people will ignore the actual data in favor of the "women are oppressed victims of the bad mens storyline" anyway. Most people enjoy ignorance.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by Doglord]

You can ignore reality. But it is all right there in front of you.

Pretending that you are being oppressed by having women be legally equal just makes you sound weak.

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by AeonsAhh yes, this coming from the "all men are children until 30" chick.

About 23 actually.

And you can look it up yourself. Men's cognitive development doesn't finish developing in some key areas until 23.

And yes, if most of the wars on the planet have been fought by males between 15 and 25, but those same men's brains weren't fully cooked yet it sure explains a lot.

But maybe it took you significantly longer. 23 is probably an average. I can understand that for you personally it might have been thirty. I understand that drinking too much tends to arrest people's cognitive development. That might explain it.

I suggest that the grown men with interest go look up the ages of the solidiers in the wars throughout history, and the ages of the terrorists now. Alexander the Great's army was teenage boys. The average age of death a Roman, any class, was 25. The Roman solidier lived to 25. Maybe.

The world's violence has been, and is being fuelled by under educated teenagers and very young men. That is significant.

It says that MEN, grown men, shouldn't be letting boys who think that getting into fist fight at the bar is fun run the freaking world. That most of the horrors you see don't lay at the feet of GROWN UPS. The world has been being run and defined by overgrown children.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

Originally posted by kilas
God! I might sound to you right now like a raving feminist. But Im a bloke, meat and two veg, the works. . . . I am ashamed for my fellow man kind when I say this , but yes, its us men that seem to be the issue.

WOW! That took some guts. Love your unbiased honesty.

My #1 point - - if men did not go to war and leave the women at home to fend for themselves - - - to become independent out of necessity - - - would we have feminism as it is today?

MEN (not women) - - - created the "stepping stone" for the independent woman.

Women dominated societies tend to be more peaceful and have a lower birth rate.

There was an interesting documentary recently about women in prison compared to men in prison. Where men tend to use Power and Dominance - - - women tend to create nurturing family units.

As we evolve/progress away from animal instincts - - - and embrace a society of intelligence - - - where is the need for a "physical protector"?

Men who continue with a Neanderthal type attitude - - - are heading for extinction.

For that matter - - - why do we need men at all? Science has determined frozen embryos are actually healthier - - and can be checked for defects.

Men really need to wake up to the reality of their necessity or lack of.

Ok lets all take your advice then find out that woman are just as capable as committing genocide,becoming corrupt,starting illegal wars,stripping away your rights etc Woman are no better than men. We need good,just and honest people in power. Whether male or female.

Originally posted by Aeons


And yes, if most of the wars on the planet have been fought by males between 15 and 25, but those same men's brains weren't fully cooked yet it sure explains a lot.

I suggest that the grown men with interest go look up the ages of the solidiers in the wars throughout history, and the ages of the terrorists now. Alexander the Great's army was teenage boys. The average age of death a Roman, any class, was 25. The Roman solidier lived to 25. Maybe.

The world's violence has been, and is being fuelled by under educated teenagers and very young men. That is significant.

YES! I live near a major Marine base. It really is an awakening to go on base - - - and see basically "Children" - - in uniform.

I don't know how real it is - - - but there is something called the "caveman gland or gene". Its been said it activates during teenage years - - making teenagers feel invincible. Which is why they are perfect to send to war.

Originally posted by Aeons
You can ignore reality. But it is all right there in front of you.

Pretending that you are being oppressed by having women be legally equal just makes you sound weak.

Legally equal?
No dear, try legally advantaged in so many areas of the law. Custody, divorce, domestic altercations, employee conduct codes, sentencing for violent crimes, parole rates, average incarceration times, government education subsidies and programs etc, etc,.
But its so cute that you think such legal inequalities makes you equal, its a perfect example of women's entitlement mentality.

Oh and your rather pathetic attempts to challenge my manhood is a textbook perfect example of women's go to tactic for emotional manipulation.

About 23 actually.

And you can look it up yourself. Men's cognitive development doesn't finish developing in some key areas until 23.

Uhuh. Source?
because I've seen studies that show that neither genders frontal cortex, which is used for, among other things, understanding the long term consequences of actions, finishes developing until the early 20's; but no credible study I have ever seen has shown this to be a single gender issue.

And yes, if most of the wars on the planet have been fought by males between 15 and 25, but those same men's brains weren't fully cooked yet it sure explains a lot.

Except most wars throughout history weren't started by those who fought it. I know logic is hard. But attempts at emotional manipulation is easy.

But maybe it took you significantly longer. 23 is probably an average. I can understand that for you personally it might have been thirty. I understand that drinking too much tends to arrest people's cognitive development. That might explain it.

Challenging both my manhood and my intelligence, you're really pulling out all the stops. Shame you haven't actually bothered to think things through.

I suggest that the grown men with interest go look up the ages of the solidiers in the wars throughout history, and the ages of the terrorists now. Alexander the Great's army was teenage boys. The average age of death a Roman, any class, was 25. The Roman solidier lived to 25. Maybe.

And challenging my maturity. Wow you really don't want anyone examining the lack of logic in your thesis do you. Then again, if I was making points as ill thought out as you are, neither would I. What was the average age of Roman generals? Senators? You know,those who actually started the wars?

The world's violence has been, and is being fuelled by under educated teenagers and very young men. That is significant.

No, those young men are being used as tools. Old men have always sent young men to fight wars the young men didn't start. Many times, because some old woman kept hectoring and manipulating the old man to "prove his manhood" and defend the honor of mother state/city, etc.

It says that MEN, grown men, shouldn't be letting boys who think that getting into fist fight at the bar is fun run the freaking world. That most of the horrors you see don't lay at the feet of GROWN UPS. The world has been being run and defined by overgrown children.

What a shame your "theory" doesn't hold up to even the most basic critical analysis.

Let me guess, your next post will be another attempt to insult or challenge my manhood, intelligence, maturity, or other factor in the hope that my hurt pride will blind me to the inanity of your arguments.

< sigh >

Men aren't going anywhere.

Biologically men are more expendable. This is just a factor of men's fertility. Women can in top health with good maternity care, generally have a maximum of 20 children in a lifetime but more likely 5 to 8. One man could have sex with a different fertile woman every day of his life and end up with that many children.

This explains both males early onset sperm readiness, and why men are more biologically favoured as "warriors." You simply don't need as many of them for as long to continue the line.

The fact that we live in a time of human population abundance filters our ability to see that humans have been vastly defined by a series of population reduction events that have left our species on the brink of extinction. Female fertility is vastly important under these circumstances.

Particularly since we have the highest mother mortality rate during and after child birth of any mammal. We also have the highest infant mortality rate. Without modern medicine women die constantly having babies. Babies die constantly from all manner of problems. Our babies are the least developed babies of any on the planet.

In those circumstances, you NEED females. As many as possible, all the time. Just to sustain.

I do not suggest that this is "the way" for a modern society. But these forces have surely molded our species.

Keeping the young men occupied and keeping their numbers down is a benefit to Alpha Males in a tribe. Contribute your seed, then do him a favour and get yourself killed please. Less competition, fewer overall problems.

****

Now as to why men aren't going anywhere in society.

If you want this culture to work, we need men. We need men to work smarter and not harder. Because the human groups that oppress women, they do not count on outcompeting you. They intend to BREED YOU UNDER. That's me and you.

As a group, we need to keep our society and our values by being smart. Incubating good smart children. Not just lots of them. That's a job that will be best done by men and women together.

Many of the societies pre-Christian in Europe were fairly egalitarian between genders, with female and male leaders. We can learn by the fact that they were run down by cultures that were NOT egalitarian.

Short lived and brutal tends to outcompete smart and fair.

To undo that, it is a work best done by us ALL. We need every person.

I will not give up my sons to a regime of weakness, or brutality. I will not bow before an enemy that wants to own my daughters.

There are MORE than TWO options.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

reply to post by Doglord


Calling that "Critical Analysis" would be significantly overstating what it is that you are writing.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Annee


My #1 point - - if men did not go to war and leave the women at home to fend for themselves - - - to become independent out of necessity - - - would we have feminism as it is today?

If men hadn't created a world civilized enough that raw physical power wasn't the source of authority then feminism wouldn't be possible. Furthermore if men hadn't voted for equal rights laws then feminism wouldn't exist. Face feminist's should thank men for their freedoms, we gave them to you.

Women dominated societies tend to be more peaceful and have a lower birth rate.

Source?

For that matter - - - why do we need men at all? Science has determined frozen embryos are actually healthier - - and can be checked for defects.

Because science can make eggs from men's cells, but can't make sperm from women's.
We have an x, you dont have a y.

The science also raises the possibility of 'male eggs' made from men's skin and 'female sperm' from women's skin.

This would allow gay couples to have children genetically their own, although many scientists are sceptical about whether it is possible to create sperm from female cells, which lack the male Y chromosome.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Men really need to wake up to the reality of their necessity or lack of.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Doglord

 

Calling that "Critical Analysis" would be significantly overstating what it is that you are writing.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

What can I say, it didn't take much to bury your thesis. Maybe next time you'll make an argument that actually makes sense.

What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

I'm not sugesting I'm a fan of this.

Originally posted by Aeons
What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

Incorrect.

It's the I'm speaking loud and being nasty and claiming a "Win" method of argumentation. Gosh, I'm convinced.

You know, men have eyes and brains. They can see how most of the World works.

And of course, the only people you've convinced are men who hate women, and driven any other guy away in disgust. From your woman-hate and from your apparent weakness in women having legal protections.

Men don't like looking like they are so weak that strong women scare them.

Brillant style. Carry on.

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Doglord

 

Calling that "Critical Analysis" would be significantly overstating what it is that you are writing.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

What can I say, it didn't take much to bury your thesis. Maybe next time you'll make an argument that actually makes sense.

[edit on 2009/12/2 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons
What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

Incorrect.

Uh.... no it isn't. This method has already been shown to work.

You'd have a society of nothing but females.

Originally posted by Aeons


Its the I'm speaking loud and being nasty and claiming a "Win" method of argumentation. Gosh, I'm convinced.

Well lets see, you can't back up your contention that men, and only men are"still children" until 23, you further can't explain why this would matter since young men don't typically start the wars they fight in, you have yet to refute that women enjoy major legal advantages in many areas of western law, and government policy, and your only attempts to refute anything I have said involve naked attempts at emotional manipulation.

Now, I realize I won't convince you, since you're too invested in the "poor poor women we is so oppressed" narrative, but I am pretty sure anyone reading this thread can see that you have been unable to offer a single logical argument to back up your contention that all the worlds problems are the result of boys in Men's bodies, and that you have been forced as a result to rely on shallow and manipulative personal attacks in order to try and characterize me as a "immature victim" for pointing out that women are no better than men in terms of predisposition to violence, morality, maturity, intelligence etc. In fact in several areas of particularly disgusting crime, the perpertrators are overwhelmingly women, which puts the lie of a "superior morality" to shame.

And of course, the only people you've convinced are men who hate women, and driven any other guy away in disgust.

Brillant style. Carry on.

Of course, because any one who disagrees that women are saintly creatures of perfect temperment and infallible moral clarity that men are beastly children in oversized bodies must hate women.

Sorry "Miss Andry", but the only here with an unnatural dislike of half of humanity is you.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons
What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

Incorrect.

Uh.... no it isn't. This method has already been shown to work.

You'd have a society of nothing but females.

Oh yeah - - I'm so dumb I only froze female eggs.

Duh!

Men who feel threatened by strong minded women are such a turn off.

I really admire those here - who can discuss this with an intelligent concept.

reply to post by Doglord


You make me sad. But hey, hate is way more appealling that actual thought and being able to read. So I'm sure you'll achieve an audience.

You pull to you the stupid angry guys.

I'll continue to woo the smart ones.