The Misandry Bubble

[woob]

Originally Posted by fotze

You just did the same thing. Then Lisa Lampanelli, overweight and unattractive attacks Jeffrey Ross.

If Ross was tall and hot, it would have been alright for him to make fun of Adele? This makes no sense.

Haha, I was going to call her out on that too but you beat me to it.

Also, to provide an opposing view to your 8/10 wife example, witty: How many times in a movie where some shy girl pines after a guy, is he an average joe skinny dude? Typically, he's some jocky football player stud or what not. The angle goes both ways in Hollywood.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Ethics and morality have very little bearing in the process. Knowing a couple women who have gone through abortions, neither thought it was an ethically preferable option; more that it's a necessary action, regardless of the ethics. I'm all for couples talking through their opinions, viewpoints, and all options available to them. But when a decision needs to be made, it has to be the woman's.

I'm curious to know whether for you, this is really about equality, or about pro-life. Would you say that if a woman wants to carry it to full term, a man should be able to appeal this decision and demand an abortion? If not, then why should a man have the right in the opposite instance?

From a legal standpoint, I am sure ethics and morality have no bearing as you say. But the decision to terminate a pregnancy, regardless, should not solely belong to the woman, unless the man waives his responsibility in the matter. I definitely agree that the reverse situation (Man wanting to terminate) should be able to be appealed as well. Dialogue and mediation in a situation such as this is 1000 times better than a brash decision.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

And 2/3) Thank you for reinforcing my points! Men don't care about a woman's mind, only where she lands on the 1-10 scale. And then they want to nail her, of course. But that would ruin her purity! So the woman has a choice--if she refuses to sleep with the man, she's a prude or a tease, how dare she refuse a man something that he wants? But if she DOES sleep with him, she's a slut, and obviously not worthy of a long-term relationship. Do you not see the issue here? Honestly?

As for how are men and women not equal? Who gets paid more? Who pays more for healthcare in the US? Whose reproductive rights are constantly being debated and impeded? Who are used merely as visual stimulation in advertisements? Who are constantly told to "get over it" when someone offends them? When a woman is raped, how often is it said "she was asking for it"?

Purity? A woman is considered a tease if she leads a man on and indicates she will sleep with him, but does not follow through. A tease is not when a woman simply says no.
If said woman sleeps with the man shortly after meeting him at a bar (is not a challenge) than he will most likely put her into the short term category, and rightly so. It's a trust thing.

The pay gap is a myth. Women get paid less because they choose certain professions and work less hours. In the 20-30 age range, women are actually starting to make more money than the men.

-Who has no reproductive rights?
-Who is constantly told to "get over it" when someone offends them? - this can apply to both sexes
-Who experiences more workplace fatalities/injuries? That's not equal!
-Who gets favourable treatment in the divorce court/custody arrangements?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If I were to guess, I think it is (atleast)2/3 nature and 1/3 nurture.

It's unfortunate you've formed your world-view around guesses like this instead of the actual scientific facts.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

One leads to the other...

So by this logic, any man with an above-average number of sexual partners should be considered a bad investment as well because he's more likely to cheat?

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If I were to guess, I think it is (atleast)2/3 nature and 1/3 nurture.

There you have it. Put down your clipboards, scientists, time to call it a day.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

It's unfortunate you've formed your world-view around guesses like this instead of the actual scientific facts.

I've read plenty of science regarding the nature/nurture topic over the years, and I formed my own personal opinion based on it. It's mostly nature. The ratio is debatable. Sorry you don't have the balls to form your own opinion.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So by this logic, any man with an above-average number of sexual partners should be considered a bad investment as well because he's more likely to cheat?

You would have to ask a woman if he's a bad investment.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by troutman

Off the top of your head, who can name the winner of the women's 100 m race in London?

Honestly? This is an example of sexism persisting? There are many examples I would agree with, but this one I hope was a joke.

I can't name the winner of the men's 100 m race either for what its worth (nothing).

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I've read plenty of science regarding the nature/nurture topic over the years, and I formed my own personal opinion based on it. It's mostly nature. The ratio is debatable. Sorry you don't have the balls to form your own opinion.

Sigh.

Opinion has nothing to do with it. Objective fact does. It's clear you have no understanding of what science is or what its purpose is meant to be. Not surprising coming from an ideologue.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Who are used merely as visual stimulation in advertisements? Who are constantly told to "get over it" when someone offends them?

There are a million ways that women are treated unfairly, and until you actually have a vagina, you have absolutely zero right to say that sexism doesn't exist.

Just wanted to take a little issue with both statements. I don't disagree with everything you said, but I think these two points deserve a bit.

Men are used as visual stimulation a fair amount. Most actors have quite a bit of sex appeal just like their actress counterparts. I agree that this happens more with women for sure, but let's not pretend it only goes one way.

As for you only have the right to say that sexism doesn't exist if you have a vagina...I hope you were just getting a little worked up with the end bit because that doesn't make sense at all. Sexism clearly goes both ways. Women are victimized by parts of it, and men are victimized by others. It isn't a perfect 50-50 split, very few things are in this world. But it also isn't a game of who has more instances and examples to prove that they are more hard done by either....it should be a collaborative effort on both parts to show where things need to change and work together to change them. It shouldn't be women vs men, or men vs women....This is the part that drives me nuts.

Sexism debates and topics always devolve into a competition to show which sex has the tougher time when really...who cares? Instead of arguing endlessly about poor me, why not take issues from both sides as they come up and try to fix them? The pissing contest solves nothing, and those people who dismiss one side because one side has it "worse" are just as bad.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Sigh.

Opinion has nothing to do with it. Objective fact does. It's clear you have no understanding of what science is or what its purpose is meant to be. Not surprising coming from an ideologue.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yes, only HPLovecraft understands what science is....

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Sigh.

Opinion has nothing to do with it. Objective fact does. It's clear you have no understanding of what science is or what its purpose is meant to be. Not surprising coming from an ideologue.

He did say it was just his opinion.
This place would be hella boring if we were forced to state only facts with no opinions whatsoever.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Pot, meet kettle.

Yes, only HPLovecraft understands what science is....

You keep saying pot meet kettle, but I still don't know what you mean . . . what's my ideology, mikey?

Lots of people besides me understand science and evolutionary psychology, and understand it much better than I do. Unfortunately, you don't number among those.

Forming an opinion from a guess you've made, then claiming it as fact, while being something that starts with an s, is most definitely not scientific.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

He did say it was just his opinion.
This place would be hella boring if we were forced to state only facts with no opinions whatsoever.

Something being your opinion doesn't excuse you from when it's wrong and misleading.

He first comes into the thread stating hypotheses as if they're fact, then makes a guess that contradicts the science of the field he's discussing -- even though he's apparently read plenty of material on it -- states it's his opinion, then follows that up by stating it as if it's fact: "it's nature".

If someone is going to make a hackneyed post misrepresenting the facts and masquerading it as opinion, they will and should be called out for it. I'd hate for CP to be any different.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You keep saying pot meet kettle, but I still don't know what you mean . . . what's my ideology, mikey?

Lots of people besides me understand science and evolutionary psychology, and understand it much better than I do. Unfortunately, you don't number among those.

Forming an opinion from a guess you've made, then claiming it as fact, while being something that starts with an s, is most definitely not scientific.

You're the poster boy for contemporary liberalism and political correctness.

I made an estimation based on what I have read on the subject. Get over it already....

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You're the poster boy for contemporary liberalism and political correctness.

I made an estimation based on what I have read on the subject. Get over it already....

Says the poster boy for ignorant, intolerant, reactionary nonsense.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You're the poster boy for contemporary liberalism and political correctness.

I made an estimation based on what I have read on the subject. Get over it already....

I estimate that the CBA will be signed on (at least) October 14th, 2012. I formed this opinion based on what I've read on the subject.



The statement is as useless as tits on a 2x4, as was yours.

Edit: perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase given the thread, but I'm sticking with it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The father has a choice at any time to stop being a parent. He can walk away at any point, and avoid all responsibilities except for his financial responsibilities. This is consistent with other laws: financial obligations are almost always upheld. Lots of men do make the choice to stop being a parent, and many more attempt to shirk their financial obligations as well.

Between the time of conception and birth a women can decide not to have the responsibilities of being a parent. A man cannot. This is in the best interests of society but it is fundementally unequal

And as stated before the correlary is that if the man wished to be a parent he does not have that choice. (this time in the best interests of the indvidual rather than of society)

So reproductive law from the time the time of conception until the time of birth is unequal. A man cannnot opt out of financial responsibilities of being a birth father a women can.

[SebC]

Gentlemen, this will be our answer to the pill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversi...under_guidance