stop blocking the threads

Started by foldedintobeauty, Mar 14, 2008, 02:49 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

julie


I do not advocate socialism when I advocate that men do not have to be a bread winner and work crappy jobs to support families. That's not their "job" anymore. I advocate that maybe a man can take a less paying, more rewarding job than take a piss job that pays more because he had to get married and ahd to take care of kids like a good man should.


Men don't have to have shitty jobs. Men don't have to be the breadwinner. Men don't have to get married nor take care of kids. These are optional.

Quote
Men are 5 times more likely to work 2 jobs and routinely work 60 to 80 hour weeks, usually in jobs they hate because they are obligated by society to provide for a family. Yes feminism broke to social rules for women so they went out and got jobs but men's hours haven't decreased.


Exactly. Society DOES have to change it's mind set. This is the same thing that happened when women wanted to work. The man was looked down upon as if he was a loser. He was considered less a man because she worked. He was supposed to be the sole breadwinner and provider. (Mind you this was not the reality for all women. Some or many did already work)

Quote
yes why can't men redefine themselves and women cannot have a say in that? Why do women get to have a say in how we men are redefined? One of the things men are resisting is exactly this redefinition by women to suit women's purposes. If men wish to change they should change and women should have no say in it.


Of course you are right. I am not sure why feminists were intrusive to men's groups? Maybe some form of fear of losing their power.

I do hear that this is an important want from men's groups. And yet there are some that I know of that have no involvement of women at all. Men are complaining in these groups. There are not enough feminists to control the amount of men's groups that exist and are popping up.

Quote
Think about it. Did feminist actually protest against males or did they protest pro women?
Both. In some cases pro-women meant stepping on men.


I have not been aware of anti male protests but I am aware of the anti male attitude out there.

Quote
I don't see men even wanting to cash in like feminists did.


Every thing gets corrupted with power. And everyone to some extent.

Quote
I doubt most MRAs want to be men-firsters. They simply want the unfair laws changed and some of the unfair social rules to be recognized that work against men. For decades we hear about how everything hurts women yet the vast history of men working dangerous, shitty, boring and horrible jobs or the fact millions of us men die in wars to defend women is ignored. The vast majority of men never had it sweet either. I don't have a super model wife. Where's my patriarchy? The lie needs to be exposed.


I am not sure what to answer you. Men have always known from my understanding that they have it tougher than women. That is Patriarchy.

We are moving away from that. You are making that move by what you do.

Quote
I really doubt men want to go down the same route and blame women for every worldly problem.


I am not sure of that.

Quote
They were on the other end of that stick and they know it doesn't work.


Sure, but that is what the old school feminists thought until the next and the next generation of women came forward.

Quote
There is a difference between being a firster and merely asking for fair consideration and treatment. And there is a difference between ripping on women and simply asking women to stop blaming men for everything.


Sure.

Quote
History won't be ignored. We have a modern age of media now. every Stienem and Dowd will be recorded. Sad thing is, along with feminist accomplishments WILL COME the Steinems and Dowds. What's sad is those parts of history cannot be erased. Maybe what concerns you is modern feminism maybe described as a selfish Martha Burke demanding access to a snooty private golf club while women in other countries are being honor killed. Shouldn't that part of history ALSO be taught?

Don't be fooled either than men won't wake up and realize that if women can change, so can men.


Sounds great to me. The more men that step forward, the sooner men's rights get taken care of.

Ignorance is the Oppressor, Vigilance the Liberator.

foldedintobeauty

does anyone in here watch wife swap? the other week they showed two families who were polar opposites. one family the father was the typical head of household, dominating, bla bla and the wife was the homemaker, bible quoting mother. the other family i liked soooooooooo much. the mom was super educated, and the father stayed at home and debunked every single bible quote the swapped wife in his house would throw at him because he studied theology. totally cool and i love it when men and women do what makes them happy and not what society tells them to do. let me find a clip if i can...
when would jesus floss?

julie


ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


I agree with this. And I also think that chidcare is an important thing to give women a break.

I just don't understand why we have to force it on to everyone. I am anti radical feminists and their social engineering. I am anti the state telling us how to raise our children. I think some of the things that are traditional are very important to keep.

BTW, your last comment hits on this. And yes, I like wife swap, the TV show.

Ignorance is the Oppressor, Vigilance the Liberator.

Tigerman

#63
Mar 16, 2008, 04:03 PM Last Edit: Mar 16, 2008, 04:08 PM by Tigerman

ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


They would be better PARENTS if they had the fathers back in their and their childrens lives. Now don't you go hitting me with your own personal anecdotal stories about how this guy or that guy that you know or knew is or was a 'bastard' - YOUR personal circle is not the whole of society and it is on THAT scale that most of our discussions here take place. It is also on that scale that you need to look at what feminism together with a system operating with apparent misguided institutionalised 'chivalry' has done to heterosexual relationships especially the institution of marriage and the nuclear family - both of these are flawed of course... but in the absence of better alternatives it has been a socially INSANE thing to do to undermine the very structures which has helped keep our society in relative harmony and stability. Reform the family courts and the misuse of restraining orders, reform the way that custody issues are settled to give fathers a fairer deal (one or two rights wouldn't go amiss to help balance out the responsibilities for example!), Don't treat them as meal tickets for life irrespective of how they have behaved towards their husbands... and who knows men worth marrying might actually get tempted back into the 'game' once more.  :sunny:

foldedintobeauty



ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


They would be better PARENTS if they had the fathers back in their and their childrens lives. Now don't you go hitting me with your own personal anecdotal stories about how this guy or that guy that you know or knew is or was a 'bastard' - YOUR personal circle is not the whole of society and it is on THAT scale that most of our discussions here take place. It is also on that scale that you need to look at what feminism together with a system operating with apparent misguided institutionalised 'chivalry' has done to heterosexual relationships especially the institution of marriage and the nuclear family - both of these are flawed of course... but in the absence of better alternatives it has been a socially INSANE thing to do to undermine the very structures which has helped keep our society in relative harmony and stability. Reform the family courts and the misuse of restraining orders, reform the way that custody issues are settled to give fathers a fairer deal (one or two rights wouldn't go amiss to help balance out the responsibilities for example!), Don't treat them as meal tickets for life irrespective of how they have behaved towards their husbands... and who knows men worth marrying might actually get tempted back into the 'game' once more.  :sunny:


not just my circle, it's everywhere. you're on crack if you think fathers don't abandon their children or their families. just check out eliot spitzer. what a loser! there are thousands more just.like.him. now his daughters are going to be fucked for life on how they few men. they will never trust again until maybe one day they do. plenty of guys impregnate a girl or woman and then leave her to fend for herself...and you want to whine about mothers abusing their children and complain about letting fathers back into their children's lives? 'scuse me, but plenty choose not to be in their lives in the first place. yes, fathers make families so much better and children USUALLY grow up more well-rounded and all that jazz, but even when they ARE presently living with their family they're gonna be away so much that the mother is STILL going to be the no.1 child rearer!
when would jesus floss?

Cordell Walker


ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


bullshit................"doing something to make thier lives easier so they can be better fuckin mothers".....................like there aint at least a milllion "single moms" right now sittin on their ass on housing, feeding the family off a ebmt card or tanniff, with $120 worth of horsehair in her hair and another $60 worth of weed in her purse, not to mention the designer jeans, all courtesy of the taxpayers...............awwww the plight of single momma's :bawl:
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

foldedintobeauty



ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


bullshit................"doing something to make thier lives easier so they can be better fuckin mothers".....................like there aint at least a milllion "single moms" right now sittin on their ass on housing, feeding the family off a ebmt card or tanniff, with $120 worth of horsehair in her hair and another $60 worth of weed in her purse, not to mention the designer jeans, all courtesy of the taxpayers...............awwww the plight of single momma's :bawl:


if you're so concerned about their leaching off their government why don't you just advocate for abortions more?
when would jesus floss?

Galt



if you're so concerned about their leaching off their government why don't you just advocate for abortions more?


I got a better idea: Why don't we advocate for women to not get a penny unless they work for it. That means girls don't live off their dads, women don't live off their husbands and the rest of them don't live off the government. No more net transfer of taxes from men who work to entitlements for women who don't work. The women who are upright and who work for their money are fine.

Then, the women who are parasites in life (and their numbers are not few) would grow up. Don't you think? Less childlike women = less problems.

Are you against that?

Galt

Oh, and by the way, "women's studies professors" as an example, are not working for it. They are complaining about men - just like women a hundred years ago sitting in a quilting bee - except that today these women have forced through a "pretend position" and chivalrous university people have given it to them. They get paid for passing around poorly-researched rumors and complaining.

I'm talking about real work in my post above.

Cordell Walker

if it were up to these women's studies prof's, "baby-momma" would be a career track with a degree :toothy9:
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

BRIAN


if you're so concerned about their leaching off their government why don't you just advocate for abortions more?


You see thats the thing, these women don't want abortions they are professional baby mills. Currently the government effectively subsidizes the removal of fathers from the family.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

foldedintobeauty



if you're so concerned about their leaching off their government why don't you just advocate for abortions more?


You see thats the thing, these women don't want abortions they are professional baby mills. Currently the government effectively subsidizes the removal of fathers from the family.


yes because raising someone for 20 years at the poverty level is every poor woman's dream!
when would jesus floss?

CaptDMO

Quote
bullshit................"doing something to make thier lives easier so they can be better fuckin mothers".


How ever did those ladies do it BEFORE their lives were "made easier"?

Electric lights
TV
Radio
Dishwashers
Clothing stores
Automobiles-with auto trannys and power stearing
Oil/gas/electric heat
Spinning wheels
Looms-with treadles
Running water
Indoor plumbing
Public schools
Post-Crusades chivalry
Grocery stores
Pre-spun yarn by the skein
Washers
Driers
Fabric by the bolt
Vacuum cleaners
Disposable diapers
School lunch program
Pre-made clothes
Permanent press fabric
Refrigeration
Air conditioning
Credit cards
Day spas
Beauty salons
Taser/tupperware/avon/sex toy parties
Pharmacology-on demand
Emergency rooms
No-fault Divorce
Orders of protection-on demand
WIC
Early childhood (up to 36mos."programs"
Mandatory kindergarten and pre-kindergarten.
Mandatory public school until 18
(these last two recently in NH where public school administration obviously sucks)
NO home schooling.(in Ca.) THAT ought to take a load off.
Canned meat
Frozen peas
TV dinners
Microwave dinners
Abortion on demand

Yep, maybe NOW all mothers, lives are easy enough, with enough free time to raise children.




 




gwallan


Men don't have to have shitty jobs. Men don't have to be the breadwinner. Men don't have to get married nor take care of kids. These are optional.


In case you haven't noticed julie - they do.

With more and more women going into the cushy, air conditioned, ergonomic, affirmative action driven jobs and boys being treated like evil potential patriarchs in the education system more and more men are marginalised into the shitty jobs that are left over.

Men are expected to be a breadwinner whether or not they have responsibility to family. They don't have any plan B which entitles them to reproduce and live off somebody else's earnings.

I don't even have kids but I'm paying bucketloads for the kids of others.


Quote
Exactly. Society DOES have to change it's mind set. This is the same thing that happened when women wanted to work. The man was looked down upon as if he was a loser. He was considered less a man because she worked. He was supposed to be the sole breadwinner and provider. (Mind you this was not the reality for all women. Some or many did already work)


Glad you mentioned that women did already work.

In the sixties in Australia one average income could support a family. Now it requires more than two. We were well on the way to creating a society where even that one breadwinner wouldn't have to work full time. What changed? Think supply and demand.


Quote
Of course you are right. I am not sure why feminists were intrusive to men's groups? Maybe some form of fear of losing their power.


Maybe they fear their dishonesty being exposed.

Quote
I do hear that this is an important want from men's groups. And yet there are some that I know of that have no involvement of women at all. Men are complaining in these groups. There are not enough feminists to control the amount of men's groups that exist and are popping up.


Which is why they attempt other ways of shutting the mens groups down. See the Canadian free speech situation. Australian examples are the glossy news magazine portrayals a few years back of men's groups as being Nazi brown shirts. Or articles such as Stephen Fisher's Are Men Evil. Fisher, by the way is the director of welfare studies at one of our colleges. Imagine the prejudice he creates in the minds of future welfare workers.


Quote
I have not been aware of anti male protests but I am aware of the anti male attitude out there.


The seriously anti male stuff, with some exceptions, didn't really start till the early eighties by which time feminism was becoming part of the establishment.

I'll jump the rest of your post as it's mostly meaningless.

You keep refering to the "patriarchy". I know I sometimes do this myself but truth is I don't believe there was ever such a beast. I see it as a misrepresentation of "heirarchy".

@foldedintobeauty

Spitzer DID NOT abandon his children or family.


ok so anyway julie, damn, you write way too much for me to read right now, but you said something i've been wanting to say for the last few days now and haven't had a chance. the claim that women abuse children more than men would only be because women are usually the caregivers and it is a full-time job - no breaks, no naps, no downtime, no sleeping through the night. it's a full-time job 24/7 and for lower-income families, and single mother households it's even worse. so, maybe people should stop crying about women abusing children and start doing something to make their lives easier so they can be better fucking mothers. the end.


What utter bullshit. Compare the outcomes for single mothers against those of single fathers. The children of single fathers fare no worse than those from intact families. Single mothers produce outcomes multiple times worse for every single negative social indicator.


yes because raising someone for 20 years at the poverty level is every poor woman's dream!


It's much easier than working for a living. Subsidised housing. Four thousand dollars for every birth. Thousands each year per child in family allowances. Plus a full pension which itself increases according to the number of children.

I live about half a mile from a housing commission estate littered with single mothers. I'm also a volunteer at the local community house so I see and hear much of the interaction between those folk. They all have reasonably new cars, wide screen TVs, all the drugs you can eat - you name it.

I work, they don't, but most of them have more than I. Tough life for some.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Galt


Men don't have to be the breadwinner.


That is truly a statement from a privileged person. Men have to at least be the breadwinner for themselves. The alternative, I guess, is jail. Was your reflex thought that people can just live off their husband or society? Men are in a different situation. Really.

Go Up