Why would a man ever get married?

[cylon]

You're right Dan, feminism was 100% positive, and no negative side effects came from it. Things are either all good or bad, there is never a grey area inbetween. And feminsim and slavery and civil rights are all the same thing, they don't address different issues or different human circumstances.

You've made your point, I doubt you're going to see mine.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by cylon

You made your point, I doubt you're going to see mine.

I can't see your point if you refuse to tell me what your point is.

What do you want to change?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by cylon

You're right Dan, feminism was 100% positive, and no negative side effects came from it. Things are either all good or bad, there is never a grey area inbetween. And feminsim and slavery and civil rights are all the same thing, they don't address different issues or different human circumstances.

There are no gray areas when it comes to equal treatment under the law.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I can't see your point if you refuse to tell me what your point is.

What do you want to change?

I'd like you to change your habit of reframing my argument to something that is easier for you to attack.

If you can't see that with good things can come bad things as well (have you ever heard that expression "it's a blessing and a curse"?) then we're not going to have much common ground to even discuss this.

In the meantime, you can go back and read some of my posts where I said I think it's good for women to have equal rights, or you can not do that, and just assume I'm against it because I dared to use the word "feminism" in a context you didn't like.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'd like you to change your habit of reframing my argument to something that is easier for you to attack.

I am trying to get to the core of the discussion here. Which, I think is that you believe women should be submissive to their husbands as a matter of course. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by cylon

If you can't see that with good things can come bad things as well (have you ever heard that expression "it's a blessing and a curse"?) then we're not going to have much common ground to even discuss this.

Is the "bad thing" you're referring to the idea that woman don't feel comfortable being housewives / being submissive anymore?

Originally Posted by cylon

In the meantime, you can go back and read some of my posts where I said I think it's good for women to have equal rights, or you can not do that, and just assume I'm against it because I dared to use the word "feminism" in a context you didn't like.

You are acting as if I'm using my own personal definition of the word "feminism".


Look it up.

Feminism: A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


When you speak out against feminism, by definition you are speaking out against equal rights for women. That's not my definition, it's what the word means.

[yossarian]

The title of this thread is "Why would a man want to get married?"

Since this question is being asked, obviously, we have a problem. This entire forum is a testament to that problem.

The fatherless rate is a problem. The divorce rate is a problem. The prevalence of psychological disorder caused by upbringing is a problem. The increasing lust in society and total domination of the mind by sex is a problem. The fact that the majority of kids have been involved in oral sex by 9th grade is a problem.

A guy posts a thread in "Social & Relationships" saying "I have a problem"

It's a cry for help.

And a bunch of raging feminists (male and female) who have been indoctrinated by the establishment, pumped up with self-righteousness, spoon-fed a false history by the government school systems, come in here and tell him "THERE IS NO PROBLEM. NOTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!"

Yes there is a problem. We know there is a problem because people make posts like, "Why would a man ever want to get married?"

Personally, I started reading about this topic 7 years ago. 7 years ago I was a dyed-in-the-wool feminist like everyone else who is indoctrinated by the school system and media-industrial-complex. But over 7 years of interest, my opinion slowly changed. Is it an invalid opinion simply because it contradicts the feminist and gay authorities?

Maybe these leaders of our intellectual society are not doing such a great job when you have people asking questions like "Why would a man ever want to get married?"

Maybe there is a problem when girls are graduating university at 150% the rate of boys. Maybe there is a problem when men over the age of 30 are committing suicide at higher rates than ever before, with zero media coverage.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

When you speak out against feminism, by definition you are speaking out against equal rights for women. That's not my definition, it's what the word means.

Yeah, I'm against equal rights for women. Absolutely. Just like when I told my friend that eating too much candy could make him sick, what I really meant was, I think candy should be illegal. By definition.

Dan, you may want to consider making your point without talking down to people. I don't have to look definitions up to understand what you're talking about. I know what the word means. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid, or somehow unaware of the world.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Yes there is a problem. We know there is a problem because people make posts like, "Why would a man ever want to get married?"

Or, maybe people don't want to get married because committing to one person for the rest of your life, regardless of gender, seems inherently non-ideal.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Personally, I started reading about this topic 7 years ago. 7 years ago I was a dyed-in-the-wool feminist like everyone else who is indoctrinated by the school system and media-industrial-complex. But over 7 years of interest, my opinion slowly changed. Is it an invalid opinion simply because it contradicts the feminist and gay authorities?

Is everyone who endorses equal legal rights a feminist?

Originally Posted by yossarian

Maybe there is a problem when girls are graduating university at 150% the rate of boys. Maybe there is a problem when men over the age of 30 are committing suicide at higher rates than ever before, with zero media coverage.

How about the issue that regardless of age, education or field women earn only around 75% of what men do?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by cylon

Yeah, I'm against equal rights for women. Absolutely. Just like when I told my friend that eating too much candy could make him sick, what I really meant was, I think candy should be illegal. By definition.

You can choose be sarcastic instead of using the word feminism properly, but it really doesn't help your case any.

Originally Posted by cylon

Dan, you may want to consider making your point without talking down to people. I don't have to look definitions up to understand what you're talking about. I know what the word means. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm stupid, or somehow unaware of the world.

So you realize when you speak of "negative results of feminism" you are saying "negative consequences from women obtaining equal legal rights."

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Look it up.

Feminism: A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


When you speak out against feminism, by definition you are speaking out against equal rights for women. That's not my definition, it's what the word means.

War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom.

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. - George Orwell

You can't know something by reading the dictionary.

The word "equal" is not clear, and the word "right" is even less clear. These are not simple concepts easily understood. These are so complex they are impossible to pin down. In the end result, they mean whatever the latest ad campaign associates them with. That is way we use them, and when we use them that way we are understood by most. The dialect is not understood by everyone, but it is impossible to be understood by everyone, as I lamented in that earlier post.

I could make the same argument without ever using the word feminist to identify the propagandists. It would take a lot longer though.

[cylon]

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm saying you are deliberately trying to not accept the fact that although equal rights were a good thing, there were side effects that came from that, that were damaging to the way men are perceived in society, and how THEY are now treated under the law. That doesn't mean go back in time and reverse laws giving women equal rights. And it doesn't mean don't ensure that women should continue to fight to get equal pay.

What it does mean is have some intellectual honesty and accept that just because good things came along with it, doesn't mean that damaging consequences didn't come from it as well. Much of this thread has been about those consequences, that are real, today. Them being bad does not mean that women having rights is somehow bad too.

But apparently, you can't even make that point without being against women having equal rights.

[Plato]

Dan, I'm curious too. What do you guys actually want?

Originally Posted by yossarian

Maybe there is a problem when girls are graduating university at 150% the rate of boys.

Why is that a problem?

It wasn't a problem when it was the other way around. And what has it got to do with feminism?

[yossarian]

Or, maybe people don't want to get married because committing to one person for the rest of your life, regardless of gender, seems inherently non-ideal.

That's one option. But that to me seems like a coping mechanism rather than a solution.

Humans have been more or less monogamous for thousands of years. (Even polygamist kings were always in the minority)

The evidence I've seen indicates there is a deep reason for it, a fundamental biological and psychological instinct towards life-long monogamy a.k.a. marriage.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by yossarian

You can't know something by reading the dictionary.

I disagree. We use words to communicate.

Words mean things.

Originally Posted by yossarian

The word "equal" is not clear, and the word "right" is even less clear. These are not simple concepts easily understood.

I would say these are exceedingly clear concepts.


Equal protection of the law: The right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts, and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Plato

Why is that a problem?

It wasn't a problem when it was the other way around.

Depends who you ask, doesn't it?

Some people say that the genders should have equal academic performance, and any difference in academic performance is due to systematic bias.

Apparently though these same people only value females, and to them, some people are "more equal than others" as George Orwell used to say.

And what has it got to do with feminism?

Feminism created the gender gap. This is not debatable - the feminist movement changed the educational styles to ones that favor female psychology rather than male psychology. The feminists claim this as a victory for women. It started in the 70s and the longterm results are being shown now. This single fact is the strongest contributor to the men's rights movement, because nothing calls men to action like seeing their kids being mistreated.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm saying you are deliberately trying to not accept the fact that although equal rights were a good thing, there were side effects that came from that, that were damaging to the way men are perceived in society, and how THEY are now treated under the law.

I accept all of that.

And I keep asking what you'd like to change to improve it.

[Dan.Linehan]

@ Yossarian,

You proclaim to be advocating here on behalf of the women who want to be housewives and submissive -- but who can't be, because they would get made fun of (gasp!) or be made to feel ashamed of that choice.

Is that correct?


Yet, more than 5 million woman make that choice.


How do you reconcile that? Are you saying that all those women are really ashamed and need you to stand up for them?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

When you speak out against feminism, by definition you are speaking out against equal rights for women. That's not my definition, it's what the word means.

Thank you.

A blog article regarding feminism that many of those who have posted in this thread, and probably many who have been following it, would benefit from reading: Yes, you are.

[yossarian]

What you're trying to do is remove the words we use to speak with, with the idea that by removing the words you silence us. If we have no words we can use to refer to those who have caused this whole mess, then we can't criticize the mess, right?

If the dictionary defines "George Bush" as "A kind and saintly man" then by criticizing George Bush we are necessarily attacking a kind and saintly man, right?

Only 40 years ago the dictionary defined "homosexual" as "a person with arrested psychosexual development caused by an overbearing mother and a lack of masculine father figures."

Does that mean that anytime someone said the word "gay" they MUST be referring to that definition?

The dictionary is wrong in this case because many self-identified feminists are not working for equal rights. They are working for females to be more equal than men, or they are working for the destruction of gender norms, or countless other things that have nothing to do with "equal rights" which is itself unclear and has many meanings.

It's not as simple as quoting the dictionary, language never is. As long as the people who are pushing these negative agendas label themselves as feminists, I will call them that.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by yossarian

The dictionary is wrong in this case because many self-identified feminists are not working for equal rights. They are working for females to be more equal than men, or they are working for the destruction of gender norms, or countless other things that have nothing to do with "equal rights" which is itself unclear and has many meanings.

The dictionary is not wrong just because someone misuses a word. And just because a group labels themselves as something they aren't doesn't mean you should too. It's not a game of follow the leader.

What you are describing is women's advocacy, not feminism.

I would think you'd know your mental health terms. That is your field, isn't it?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by cylon

BEAU: I GOT A 'WIFE' BEATING

Im guessing this is my alpha reflection from reading yosarian's post about how most domestic violence is from women against men.

"If I had done it to her, I would have been put in jail immediately," Stefanov told his friend.

This reminds me of when one of my sister's friends was wearing a tank top that said "boy beater" on it.

He'd have been put in jail? Really? Because one line later, he talks about the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident and - excuse me if I'm wrong here - is Chris Brown not walking around free as a bird? So, he wouldn't actually have been put in jail, right? He's just saying that for the drama.

As for the tank top.... do you realise that those singlets are traditionally known as 'wife-beaters'? The slogan was an ironic statement.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by yossarian

What you're trying to do is remove the words we use to speak with, with the idea that by removing the words you silence us. If we have no words we can use to refer to those who have caused this whole mess, then we can't criticize the mess, right?

If the dictionary defines "George Bush" as "A kind and saintly man" then by criticizing George Bush we are necessarily attacking a kind and saintly man, right?

Only 40 years ago the dictionary defined "homosexual" as "a person with arrested psychosexual development caused by an overbearing mother and a lack of masculine father figures."

Does that mean that anytime someone said the word "gay" they MUST be referring to that definition?

The dictionary is wrong in this case because many self-identified feminists are not working for equal rights. They are working for females to be more equal than men, or they are working for the destruction of gender norms, or countless other things that have nothing to do with "equal rights" which is itself unclear and has many meanings.

It's not as simple as quoting the dictionary, language never is. As long as the people who are pushing these negative agendas label themselves as feminists, I will call them that.

But the dictionary does not define George Bush as 'a kind and saintly man'. Further, I would venture to suggest that the dictionary has never described homosexual as "a person with arrested psychosexual development caused by an overbearing mother etc etc". Please feel free to prove me wrong but I think you're just making this stuff up to serve your purpose. The dictionary tends to be a lot less partisan than that. You may wish to differ on what you think the feminist movement has delivered, but the fact is, the central message of it is, and always has been, female equality.

You continue to make these sweeping generalisations: women all want to be rescued princesses deep down, feminism is working for the superiority of women, all feminists regret their actions ... but you actually have no real evidence for these claims. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you because you deal in all/every, and if anyone offers first-person evidence that what you're saying is untrue, your contention is that they're too heavily indoctrinated or deluded into not knowing what they really want. No discussion can stand if one person is working from the viewpoint that any dissenting opinion is a delusion.

[magi13]

I think egos are bruised here. Some men can't accept intelligent women. @,@

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Indiana

He'd have been put in jail? Really? Because one line later, he talks about the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident and - excuse me if I'm wrong here - is Chris Brown not walking around free as a bird? So, he wouldn't actually have been put in jail, right? He's just saying that for the drama.

As for the tank top.... do you realise that those singlets are traditionally known as 'wife-beaters'? The slogan was an ironic statement.

Chris Brown only got away with it because she didn't press charges. I think him being a huge celebrity might have played in as well :P

It's pretty telling that Rihanna went back to him. Society condemns her for it but maybe she recognizes that physical bruises are actually less damaging than emotional and psychological bruises.

Chris Brown himself was abused as a kid and so when he lashed out it was an involuntary response coming from deep psychological wounds. Should we crucify him for not being perfect? Rihanna seems to say no.

Women get away with the most heinous emotional abuse of their husbands. In reality, the physical component of any abuse is less than the emotional damage. If Rihanna is emotionally comfortable enough to return to Chris, then that is a sign that the emotional damage was not nearly as severe as the physical damage made it look. We have no idea what kind of abuse Chris was inflicted with because the media considers it impossible for men to be abused by women.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Indiana

You continue to make these sweeping generalisations: women all want to be rescued princesses deep down, feminism is working for the superiority of women, all feminists regret their actions ... but you actually have no real evidence for these claims. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you because you deal in all/every, and if anyone offers first-person evidence that what you're saying is untrue, your contention is that they're too heavily indoctrinated or deluded into not knowing what they really want. No discussion can stand if one person is working from the viewpoint that any dissenting opinion is a delusion.

I think there are exceptions to everything. I just focus on the majority because that applies to most people. I actually think it's a negative trend that society focuses on what makes minorities happy rather than what makes majorities happy.

5% of the population may be happy by having sex with their same gender. That's great. But I'd much rather focus on the 95%.

10% of those 95% may want to switch gender roles. That's ok as well, and they are currently free to do that in modern society. But I still think the majority of people are instinctual driven to desire traditional gender roles.

The scientific evidence for the instinctual gender role is overwhelming.

My evidence, like any evidence, is based on hundreds of anecdotes and synthesis of diverse materials. I don't expect to convert life-long feminists with one thread, lol.

[yossarian]

Just for posterity, I'll post the scientific consensus again about psychological gender differences:

Masculine Traits:
Active
Adventurous
Aggressive
Ambitious
Competitive
Dominant
Independent
Leadership qualities
Likes math and science
Makes decisions easily
Mechanical aptitude
Not easily influenced
Outspoken
Persistent
Self-confident
Skilled in business
Stands up under pressure
Takes a stand

Feminine Traits:
Aware of other's feelings (empathic)
Considerate
Creative
Cries easily
Devotes self to others
Emotional
Enjoys art and music
Excitable in a crisis
Expresses tender feelings
Feelings hurt
Gentle
Home oriented
Kind
Likes children
Neat
Needs approval
Tactful
Understanding

Ruble, T. L., (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 70s. Sex roles, 9, 397-402.

Ruble's science was done in 1983, and 25 years later it has only been confirmed. Ruble's work is wholly accepted as fact by the scientific community and has been confirmed with literally thousands of other studies. It has undergone extreme scrutiny specifically because it is an inconvenient truth to feminists. The extreme scrutiny has only confirmed that these traits are true for the majority of the population.

These traits are based on hormones. Change the hormones and you change the gender.

There are always exceptions.

[Indiana]

Okay, so just to clarify, in future when you say 'all' or 'every', you actually mean 'some' or 'most'. And by 'some' or 'most' you actually mean 'the proportion I have decided on, based on my interpretation of ancedotal evidence that you will just have to take my word for.'

[Indiana]

I'm glad you noted that Ruble's work is over 25 years old. Would you mind posting some contemporary sources that back up your assertion that it has 'only been confirmed'?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I'm glad you noted that Ruble's work is over 25 years old. Would you mind posting some contemporary sources that back up your assertion that it has 'only been confirmed'?

Wayne Weiten, it's in all his psychology textbooks, and his texts are used in thousands of universities. This stuff isnt controversial among psychologists. Having said that, many psychologists still actually think homosexuality is caused by overbearing mothers and absent fathers. It's not exactly a politically correct field. Anthropology isnt politically correct anymore either, now that the media has made out all non-Western cultures to be evil. Modern anthropology says the opposite, while feminist anthropology studies cultures so it can condemn them as oppressive to women, lol.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by yossarian

It's pretty telling that Rihanna went back to him. Society condemns her for it but maybe she recognizes that physical bruises are actually less damaging than emotional and psychological bruises.

Right. "Physical bruises" are "less damaging than emotional and psychological bruises".

__________

"Brown was driving a vehicle with Robyn F. as the front passenger on an unknown street in Los Angeles. Robyn F. picked up Brown's cellular phone and observed a three-page text message from a woman who Brown had a previous sexual relationship with.

"A verbal argument ensued and Brown pulled the vehicle over on an unknown street, reached over Robyn F. with his right hand, opened the car door and attempted to force her out. Brown was unable to force Robyn F. out of the vehicle because she was wearing a seat belt. When he could not force her to exit, he took his right hand and shoved her head against he passenger window of the vehicle, causing an approximate one-inch raised circular contusion.

"Robyn F. turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand. He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand. The assault caused Robyn F.'s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the vehicle.

"Brown looked at Robyn F. and stated, 'I'm going to beat the s--t out of you when we get home! You wait and see!' "

The detective said "Robyn F." then used her cell phone to call her personal assistant Jennifer Rosales, who did not answer.

"Robyn F. pretended to talk to her and stated, 'I'm on my way home. Make sure the police are there when I get there.'

"After Robyn F. faked the call, Brown looked at her and stated, 'You just did the stupidest thing ever! Now I'm really going to kill you!'

"Brown resumed punching Robyn F. and she interlocked her fingers behind her head and brought her elbows forward to protect her face. She then bent over at the waist, placing her elbows and face near her lap in [an] attempt to protect her face and head from the barrage of punches being levied upon her by Brown.

"Brown continued to punch Robyn F. on her left arm and hand, causing her to suffer a contusion on her left triceps (sic) that was approximately two inches in diameter and numerous contusions on her left hand.

"Robyn F. then attempted to send a text message to her other personal assistant, Melissa Ford. Brown snatched the cellular telephone out of her hand and threw it out of the window onto an unknown street.

"Brown continued driving and Robyn F. observed his cellular telephone sitting in his lap. She picked up the cellular telephone with her left hand and before she could make a call he placed her in a head lock with his right hand and continued to drive the vehicle with his left hand.

"Brown pulled Robyn F. close to him and bit her on her left ear. She was able to feel the vehicle swerving from right to left as Brown sped away. He stopped the vehicle in front of 333 North June Street and Robyn F. turned off the car, removed the key from the ignition and sat on it. iReport.com: Chris Brown fans: Share your reaction

"Brown did not know what she did with the key and began punching her in the face and arms. He then placed her in a head lock positioning the front of her throat between his bicep and forearm. Brown began applying pressure to Robyn F.'s left and right carotid arteries, causing her to be unable to breathe and she began to lose consciousness.

"She reached up with her left hand and began attempting to gouge his eyes in an attempt to free herself. Brown bit her left ring and middle fingers and then released her. While Brown continued to punch her, she turned around and placed her back against the passenger door. She brought her knees to her chest, placed her feet against Brown's body and began pushing him away. Brown continued to punch her on the legs and feet, causing several contusions.

"Robyn F. began screaming for help and Brown exited the vehicle and walked away. A resident in the neighborhood heard Robyn F.'s plea for help and called 911, causing a police response. An investigation was conducted and Robyn F. was issued a Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order."

At the end of his statement, Andrews said Brown sent a text message nine days later apologizing.

__________



Next you'll be saying that she went back to him because women aren't submissive enough.


Actually, Rihanna went back to him for the exact fairy-tale reason you endorse:

"All she’s ever wanted was to be with him forever," a source tells Star. "Rihanna is looking for the husband-and-two-kids deal before she turns 25. She believes in fairy tales, and she wants to live hers with Chris. She was totally up front and confessed to him, 'I can’t live without you.'"