This is a Sexist Thread! (Men's Rights)

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Originally posted by bastet11
I was willing to listen to your point of view until I got to this part:

Despite these compelling figures, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors.

"Most effective protectors"..dude, there is no force more formidable in nature then a Mother with kids. Go to a store and watch a mother walking with children. Just try and get between her and her brood.

Then watch a dad. Even my husband admits defeat in this department. He notices all the time that mothers naturally keep their children directly in sight, while fathers get distracted. It is not an insult, it is probably simply because moms are more in tune with their offspring. After all, we carried them in our wombs for nine months..they were attached to us, shared our life system.
Just tonight I was watching a guy in Target busy looking at action figures while his 3 year old was out of sight, pulling down pool chemicals.
And the 55% of mothers data is misleading. It makes it seem like moms are just sitting around, offing their kids. Most mothers would give their very lives for the children. It just sadly happens that in 55% of child murders, it happens by the mother. Since often this is a situation where the dad is nowhere to be found

Keep telling yourself that there's no "formidable force in nature" than a mother with kids.PLEASE.If anyone messed with my daughter I guarentee you I'd be MORE formidable than you.And I'd do a heck of a lot more damage than you,too.Please,if you husband isnt watching his kids than well guess what? He's not a very good father.No offense.And I don't buy your Target story.How do you know the 3 year old was his if he was out of sight? Were you stalking them? Nice try.

edit on 7-6-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)

Not going to bother arguing with you. Okay, Mr. Scary Man..you can do more damage.

And the kid was 3 because I intervened before he pulled chemicals on himself. I asked him where his parents were and he walked over two aisles and pointed at his dad. I told the dad where I found him and he was looking at Halo action figures when we were talking. He made a sheepish comment about keeping a better eye out. I asked him the age and he said he was 3. Nothing mysterious about it.

reply to post by tw0330


No argument to be killed. Just personal experience that happens every day showing why some of us still feel the struggle.

Originally posted by tw0330
Ok, I will just flat out say it.

If you feel that men should not get the same chances and legal and ethical rights as women than that makes you sexist. So yes many of those opposed to my post is sexist themselves, but since society feels sexism is against men and not women, the don't see it.

It might help if you understood that the entire terminology/vocabulary of "equal rights," is yet another byproduct of Marxist mind control.

Does this mean that I'm advocating that people should treat each other like crap? No. It means that people need to recognise that we live in a society which brainwashes people to view themselves as victims, and to try and take advantage of others in any way they can. Contrary to what you might think, that doesn't only happen in a Capitalist context, either.

The difference between Marxists abusing each other and Capitalists doing it, is that a demoniac like Friedman will likely cite the evolutionary imperative as justification. A Marxist, on the other hand, adopts the same stance as the proverbial rape victim lying on the side of the road. That is how they not only want other people to view them, it's how they want to view themselves, because they think that being a victim means they get a free moral pass to screw over other people in turn. In fact, someone with a full blown Marxist victim complex will generally assume that they are incapable of doing anything wrong at all; that the enemy is someone else, and so therefore, their behaviour is justified, irrespective of what it is.

This thread has done nothing but prove to me that sexism against men exists and is worse than I thought.

reply to post by tw0330


I am a woman, and I agree with you 100%. The cancer research funding is just really unfair. Plain and simple.
Sorry man -

Originally posted by torque
reply to post by tw0330

 

Never said all men look bad in my eyes. I love men. They're funny, resourceful and a lot of fun. Same can be said about women. But there are exceptions to that and those are the stumbling blocks to us all.

Same here. I love men. They are endearing, honestly. They have their quirks of course.
They love to say "Get in the kitchen and make me a sammich" and I say "No problem, sweetie! When will you be home from work?"
Half and half! You go out and work two jobs like my hubs, I am more than happy to make anything you want! Tonight he came home at 10pm after teaching his evening course and I had (literally) his sandwich, Minestrone, whole wheat toast and peanut butter cookies all ready for him. It is how I show my love and appreciation. He may not say it back all the time but being that he works and supports the family, I don't need to hear it to know it.
I LOVE being a woman. You respect me, I respect you. It is equal give and take. Nothing I love more on this earth then being a mom and housewife. All I ask for in return is protection, loyalty and support. I know he is going to have his moments, but I just chalk it up to his meriods and don't talk it personally. Of course I would never stand for physical abuse (believe me I have been in those shoes before). But if someone is home late and a bit crabby, I just let him blow off his steam and then we can talk later. Life is much simpler if you have clear expectations of each other.

reply to post by bastet11


I'm a fan of traditional roles and enjoy the domestic side of things as well. I think that is something that causes confusion though. The women who come down on domestically inclined women and view them as tools are a problem. I think nowadays men don't have a clear course of action when dealing with women. The message is mixed. "Treat me equal, but treat me like a lady.".

I hear women lamenting about the shortage of "real men" but when asked for clarification, they cannot specify their complaint. Where does the problem start? Seems if the majority of kids are raised by women, and people act as they are raised to act, then the "fault" would lie with women. Are we our own worst enemy?

reply to post by torque


I was taught to be exercise my manners, especially around women. I have been rebuffed more than a handful of times for opening a door for a female. I must say when in a professional situation it is very difficult to decide if I should hold the door from the meeting room for a lady or to walk out ahead of the woman because we are "equals" in the workplace. I am honestly trying to be a "gentleman" (as I understand the definition), but I do not want to upset the female for whom I am holding the door. A Catch-22...

Originally posted by unknOWNmirAGE
reply to post by tw0330

 

Slightly agree, but it's because we view woman as the one who brings life subliminally as well as we (men) have reaped the benefits for far too long. Is it not their turn? It could go deeper but I'd rather not.

It doesn't help anyone to knock things out of balance either way. But maybe the pendulum needs to swing hard to the left before coming to rest in the center.

reply to post by tw0330


Prostrate cancer is generally slower growing and more survivable.

Right to choose-

I'm sorry, but a man does not have the right to dictate to me that I will be the host for a parasite. It's my body, not his, so *I* have the rights, not him.

As for the child support issue, I don't believe that men should be held responsible for children they have no control in deciding whether to keep or not, but, at the same time, we must have some kind of factor that will keep a man from impregnating woman after woman and burdening society like that.

University:

We do need to do away with Women's, African American, Gay, Pony, and whatever else studies.

Child Custody:

Child custody is a place where the laws are pure garbage, especially when it comes to older boys, who would be better placed with the father most of the time.

JURY BIAS:

Men are more likely to be murderers in the general population by far, so does it not make sense that this would carry over to a subset of that like spousal murder?

COURT BIAS:

Murder is murder and should be sentenced the same. Legitimate complaint.

JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS:

When a father gets custody, it's probably going to be because the mother is a useless pile and not making much (if anything). Combine this with the general tendency of men to make more, and maybe this accounts for how men have to pay more. As for the default rates, let us go back to the comment about the mother being a useless pile.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

Women, in general, are going to do much less damage to a man than vice-versa, leaving less evidence for a case. That said, though, there does need to be more support for male domestic violence victims. I know plenty of women who could eat your average guy for breakfast.

CHILD VIOLENCE:

Women are more likely to murder their kids, but it is quite an uncommon thing. More to the point is physical and sexual abuse. While women are slightly more likely to physically abuse their children, fathers are far more likely to be the sexual abusers. Especially when you take into account that women are more likely to be the caretakers, it seems that the overall picture on child violence is about the same.

General Schooling:

Schooling has been primarily done with lectures for centuries.

CHILD VIOLENCE: Mothers commit 55% of all child murders and biological fathers commit 6%. NIS-3 indicates that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households. Despite these compelling figures, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors.

To say that, you should look up the statistics on which parent who, when given sole custody, is most likely to kill that child. Mothers versus fathers in that situation.

Some of these mothers killed their children whilst the father was still in the home sharing custody, and some mothers were not awarded custody, and then killed their child.


Some, if not most, of your statistics are outdated.

Nowadays a judge has to rule in favor of the parent he feels is in the best interest of the child, and the gender has no bearing.

Yes the father can receive child support from the mother. Support is based on who has the most income. If she does, she has to pay.

A father can take a mother to court to stop an abortion. Good luck with that one.

Originally posted by torque
reply to post by bastet11

 

I'm a fan of traditional roles and enjoy the domestic side of things as well. I think that is something that causes confusion though. The women who come down on domestically inclined women and view them as tools are a problem.

It would help if the feminists who came down on domestically inclined women, were willing to be honest with themselves about the fact that misandronistic homosexuality is probably a large part of their motivation. At the risk of being seriously politically incorrect, I'm going to say that I believe heterosexual feminism largely (although not totally) doesn't exist; or at the very least, that feminism's origins as a movement were overwhelmingly lesbian.

I think nowadays men don't have a clear course of action when dealing with women. The message is mixed. "Treat me equal, but treat me like a lady.".

Yep. The other problem is the fact that women of the last few generations, have fairly consistently suffered from scumbag paternity, and so even though they will say that they want a decent man, if they really look at themselves, they won't be able to understand why callous, abusive, emotionally unavailable assholes are who they are really attracted to. There's a reason why the pickup artist subculture is so successful, and also a reason why what it teaches men to become, is a sociopathic, womanising slimebucket of the first order.

It's because most of the time, that's who Dad was, and so women learned what to expect and be attracted to in men, from that experience. The "alpha male," is almost always a younger version of Richard Cheney. If her father wasn't an abusive jerk, though, the "game," approach is unlikely to be effective.

I hear women lamenting about the shortage of "real men" but when asked for clarification, they cannot specify their complaint.

I could tell you exactly what said complaint means, but doing so would probably get me banned.

Basically you have loads of feminist groups pushing the pendulum in one direction and virtually no men pushing it back, this is alright up until it reaches neutrality, then either the women have to stop or the men have to push back.

Part of me thinks women should be allowed some time to dominate to make up for all the time spent suppressed... But the rest of me thinks no sex should dominate the other.

There's a quote out there somewhere "All movements go too far"... the feminist movement included it seems

Originally posted by polarwarrior
Basically you have loads of feminist groups pushing the pendulum in one direction and virtually no men pushing it back, this is alright up until it reaches neutrality, then either the women have to stop or the men have to push back.

Like I said, I think there is probably a very large number of hard core feminists in the closet. If they came out, not only would they likely be happier, but the rest of society definitely would be as well.

I do not condone repressed or denied homosexuality. I've known probably four people who to me were obviously closet gay. One of them eventually came out, and he was much happier after doing so. He was angry virtually all the time until he did so. The two women were both aggressive feminists, and both had extremely submissive male partners.

It is obvious many women want more power over men instead of equality. Sort of common sense for men. This is why women are a complete turn off. They are nothing but burdens now days and a nuisance. That is probably why Marriage rates have dropped dramatically. They are nothing but Gold diggers with what little Gold you have.

I am not gay , but to hell with me having a woman if they are nothing but nuisances.

Dont even get me started on this topic
Source:
www.smh.com.au...

digitaljournal.com...

and for those that have some spare time, read some of these case profiles that i found on these lovely ladies!
eprints.qut.edu.au...

I find it interesting that being male you would post such nonsense. I do believe if you were on the other side of the coin your post and sources would reflect a much different view.

It is quite easy to find a source to back up an opinion these days. Lets look at the legal system for example. I find it quite abominal that a person can be paid to express their opinion to state the obvious. Yet these people make a living off of it and who cares? It is as if the lawyers know that the people of the jury are imbeciles. Ohhh.......sorry yes...they are...because that is who they chose to serve as your "peers"...really?

Hmmmm....It is amazing that after centuries of sexism against women that somehow a person of this day and age would think that a woman (who I will say not only does what was and is expected of her and then some) should not uphold her ability to be a person.

Originally posted by unknOWNmirAGE
Slightly agree, but it's because we view woman as the one who brings life subliminally as well as we (men) have reaped the benefits for far too long. Is it not their turn? It could go deeper but I'd rather not.

This is the heart of the matter, it also the biggest lie ever created ... apart from God.

You have to read history, between the lines ... it's not enough to just go and read the political propaganda that is being spewed out, and that applies today as well as before.

Majority of wars, were because of women ... women are very cruel, far more cruel then men are. Men are basically stupid muscle monkeys. Women, are the "initiator" of the violence that men perform ... with exceptions, some of these exeptions being the two world wars ... which are "wars to end all wars". Meaning, by creating a single victorer ... wars could be ended.

Women do not believe in a "court" system. Equality is not amongs their vocabulary ... a woman will judge you, and sentence you and execute you in the same instance. And she will not alter her decision ... hence the term "women's logic". If you have women against you, they will not discuss it with you ... nor give you a chance to defend yourself. They will not tell you, what their grievance is ... hence the term, "no hell hath its fury as a woman scorned". In this instance, the term "scorned" applies to a woman who feels a man didn't do what she wanted him to do. Has nothing to do with you having harmed her ... a woman lies, cheats and uses her superior psychological intellect to force men into what they want them to. A woman is the weaker sex, muscle to muscle ... but she is the stronger, more cruel and evil, mind to mind. Women have always, through history, been the primary rulers ... hence the term "behind every great man, there is even a greater woman". Because it's woman who pulls the strings ... even in the case of Bill Clinton, it's still the woman who pulls the strings.

A womans mind, is not the mind of liberty ... or of liberal motives. A woman talks, and even if you talk back ... she doesn't hear what you say. She isn't interrested in what you have to say ...

No, it isn't time for "women" ... because women are the reason for why we have these problems. Women aren't getting their jobs, because they are qualified ... but because they are women. Women get all the money positions, all the desc positions ... because in their minds, it's the muscle monkey ... the man, who should be outside and shovel dirt. A womans though of equality ... is not equality.

reply to post by Egyptia


Completely agree with you 100%
The world wasn't always patriorical however, it used to be matriarical when the world was more of a rainforest and a more sustainable climate. Geological changes came in and it became survival of the fittest, men being the hunter became the conquerer and so civilisation tipped towards the patriorical. The patriorical tribes then killed off the maternal based tribes for resources and of course were met with little resistance. This is how this whole culture started.

Now, living in a world that is completely fulled by the concept of ownership we are tricked into thinking that there is always some form of scarcity even though we are living in the western world in a world of abundance and thats why we are male dominated. Other cultures that aren't as well off such as africa are still patriorical as thats how their ancestors were and it become culture.

Of course over time there will be a complete backlash and like as when you try to balance scales it dips dramatically to one side to the other until it reaches equilibrum. This is where all this extreme feminism is coming from and its all going to go on until it inevitably cancels each other out ( i hope ) and we all live as equals. No woman aren't generally as strong as men and men usually aren't as empathetic but we are both a part of a two piece jigsaw puzzle, one isnt complete without the other.

Men are at disadvantage in some areas however in majority it is the woman that is the most troubled. Look at china they have 40 million missing women that should be in the country and so there is now a massive gap in gender balance and it happened because in the culture there a woman was a burden to the family.
Not saying that men shouldn't complain though and there is some things that are unjust, my poor father got welcomed home one day to a punch in the face by my mum because he came home late however history proves that woman had and still have it alot worse.

I agree on everything you've written save one argument... and that's the right to force a woman to carry a child full term if she so decides not to (under certain conditions of course)

By your logic, a rapist that knocks up a woman should have the right to tell that woman that she must have the child, and she must pay him child support.. (now I am well aware of the reverse happening as well where women rape men, and I find that just as dis-tasteful as the former). I've always made this comment, whether it be PC or not, the minute you can give birth, is the minute you an tell me how to handle it... Crass, probably, Nasty, most certainly, Politically Correct, Not a chance....

But that is the only divergent point i have on your topic, otherwise you make some great points, and I know plenty of men who did not get custody in child cases that should have over the mother, they were just better suited to handle the child, and didn't get it solely on gender bias.. that's wrong.. it should be who is the better person, not whom is the better gender.

I was unaware of the cancer stats, I agree, if they are that close in number, then just as much money needs to be spent on Prostate Cancer as Breast Cancer, hands down, good for one, good for the other..

I've also told people and get flack for it... If you want equal treatment then you must be prepared to give equal treatment, the laws as written tend to not do that, and society has been semi-programmed not to give equal consideration when all black and white details are equal save gender...

I have never asked for special consideration because I'm a woman, I will go out and get my hands just as dirty, I've been shot, stabbed and otherwise roughed up and never finally just said "Hey I can't take it, you're not supposed to hit a girl" You want equality, practice equality.. well everywhere but in my body