Yeah my mistake, that should have been posted from my Kevin Airs account.

Nice try though.

Even if those links even remotely said what you say (they don't, you twat, certainly not to anyone able to read), you're of course inconsistent in your arguments after basing your objection of a few bad apples not spoiling the bunch.

If you can't see what these people are saying, I weep for the deterioration of your already damaged mental state.




I'm not even going to get started on 'The Archetypal modern woman'. An article attacking a woman for deciding to settle down. That's the very definition of pathetic.

And despite the fact that for years you've been attacking the catholic church for the antisocial behaviour of a few, you condone this movement despite equally antisocial behaviour.

Like I said, anyone that can read will see your pathetic contextual cherry picking for what it is.

Nice try though. Really.

It's amazing how every time someone says something bat about TRP they're "Contextual cherry picking". It happens an awful lot for a group that's apparently so infallible.

@afroman. Whether you like it or not there is a push against feminism. (And please don't play the "what is feminism" game.)

Contrary to what you might think, that movement isn't about promoting misogyny.

Its about promoting issues which are important to men, the role of men and the recognition of the enormous value to society of the contributions of men.

All of which are things that feminism has eroded over time, despite the rhetoric from feminists that feminism is good for both men women.

If you want a glimpse of the future, the Nordic states are the poster nations for what feminism and affirmative action can achieve. Highest taxing, most expensive to live in, high school and tertiary education favouring females. The Swedish government on its own web page admits they have problem of reverse-sexism!

Not sure if you have kids of your own, but I've raise a boy to the age of 18, and I can say categorically that the education system is designed to meet the needs of girls over boys. And as a young adult male, he is then subject to relationship laws that grossly favour females. As a married man who one day may be a father, he has very little protection and rights in the family unit under the law.

So fuck yeah, the backlash and the re-setting of the pendulum is well over due, and good on these guys who despite having the odds stack against them are trying to change things.

I've noticed this as well. Whenever someone brings up the fact that they're a feminist, the general consensus is an eye-roll and "what a whiny c*unt".

Feminism has become a dirty word nowadays, because its laudable initial intention (to bring the rights of women to parity with men) has been driven to a culture of men-hating by social justice warriors pushing far left agendas.

The fuck is reverse-sexism? The word 'sexism' isn't gender specific. There's no such thing as "reverse-sexism". There's sexism, or sexism.

The idea that one gender needs special consideration over another is absurd. Labels like "men's rights activism" and "feminism", and phrases like "femi-nazi" and the ilk are the very reason that gender equality is not achievable in society.

lol @ "gender equality"

The feminist movement has been sullied by the likes of Germaine Greer being touted as the face of the movement with the aggressive man-hating diatribes she spouts.

No feminist is anywhere near annoying as TheAmazingAtheist

Kind of reminds me of scouse.

Its because the word "sexism" was hijacked by feminist to mean exclusively discrimination against women.

BTW thats not my word, that's the Swedish government's word to describe the massive shift in favour of educational outcomes for women at the expense of their men.



Gender equality is not achievable because the natural roles and abilities of women and men are not equal and the same, end of. Women will always give birth, and infants will always need their mothers first and foremost. But me's roles are also every bit as vital.

What I object is how in the last couple of decades the roles of men have gone under-appreciated, and totally de-valued. Men are often depicted as bafoons when it comes to family life.

OTOH the role of women in family life has been placed on a pedestal.

As Uni friend years ago once said to a rampant feminist tutor on the difficulties of stay at home mums raising children:

" Yeah, its tough putting the bowl of cereal on their table, packing a cut lunch or handing them lunch money, then driving 15 minutes to school and back, and deciding how to fill the next 5 hours, and cooking a crappy dinner, but try paying for the roof over your heads, clothes on your backs, food on your plates, your fully-maintained car, the school fees, books uniforms, the rates, the power, gas water, your annual holidays, home repairs, security, and then we'll meet you half way"

Its funny how women in role reversal relationships often resent their partners for the above reasons!

Men mostly accept that role and enjoy being the providers- but where is the recognition in their own homes, in the media and in the law?

This is what makes men angry and bitter! This is what gives rise to MRA's. And good on them!

I am enjoying the debate and can genuinely see reason in both sides of the debate...

Men are generally locked out of the discussion on a lot of matters that affect them and the way they wish to contribute to family life, parent, engage with the rest of society in a traditional kind of way - you need only look at how men in Indigenous communities have had their traditional roles challenged/completely destroyed and the devastating impact it has had on their sense of worth and contribution in the modern age... the de-valueing of men in the modern world is a genuine challenge that can't simply be laughed off as women-hating or misogynism...

Women on the other hand have for centuries been living at the whim of their fathers/husbands and only in the last 100-150 years or so have they truly been able to have their voice and opinions heard and mostly respected. The 1960's was a watershed decade for feminism and bringing women's voice and genuine desire for equity of opportunity (different to equality). However, the introduction in the early 70's of the no-fault divorce meant that men and women could now be free to leave a relationship because it no longer meets their hopes and desires - this was a massive challenge for men and some men today still can't handle being told they are no longer wanted - something women have had to face for centuries.

Interesting times ahead... can't say I can predict a 'winner'.

Can we move to a new topic soon please - 'philosophy thread' presumes a number of topics could be discussed.

What are peoples view point or philosophy on monetary matters?

-PB

Fun fact, women are the instigators of more than 75% of divorce in the USA. I don't have stats for Australia, but can assume that it is similar.

As to why is a matter of debate and opinion, and I don't subscribe at all to the "hypergamy" theory that is popular in TRP and MGTOW circles. If I look at divorces in people I know (friends & family), they have all except one resulted in the husband losing out in terms of child custody, alimony and child support. The one that didn't happened that way because although the wife instigated the divorce, they were able to amicably agree on 50/50 custody and both waived alimony/child support liability. Even my cousin, who had the humiliation of his wife cheating on him and running away with her new lover, still lost half of what he owned and had saved, ended up with less than 50% custody of his 3 children and pays a huge amount of child support. My other cousin found out that her husband had been seeing prostitutes during business trips, left him and ended up with 100% ownership of the family house, 80% custody and ongoing child support on top of her full time salary.

Personally, I think that divorces are instigated so disproportionately often by women because comparatively they have little to lose in western societies thanks to feminist lobbying bringing about divorce and family laws that favour women. Whenever my wife and I are going through a tough time (as all married couples do from time to time), it really makes me remember how much I have to lose if I, or statistically more likely her, were to decide to leave. It's quite the pressure to have in the back of your mind as a man. It's that, and other pressures that men face that make me really not surprised that men are grossly over-represented in suicide statistics.

As annoying as TAA is, I can think of a couple ;)

I want more of it.

But money controls us, would we want to be controlled more by its grip on our lives?

-PB

Could quite be the first time I've 100% agreed on something you've posted....


You can't always make more, but you can certainly spend less.

I agree men get the raw end of the deal in these situations but I've always had the impression that it's more to do with the antiquated notion of women being better care givers. The woman having the majority of custody and the man paying child support has been like that for a very long time.

I'm no expert in family law so happy to be corrected.

A cynic would suggest while feminists rail against stereotypes of women, ones like you point out about being better care givers are conveniently ignored as it serves their cause. While the stereotype of men being useless at child rearing is perpetuated.

Yes I agree, from the most militant of types especially. There's a lot of me first going on.

I personally don't have a lot of time for these activist groups. To the worst feminists, MRA groups saying men are discriminated against in certain aspects of life suggests to them that women aren't which seems to piss them off greatly. The same goes for the worst of the MRA groups. The reality is most of the things that I think are worth fighting for are complimentary/

So we've allowed both the word feminism and sexism to become convoluted and hijacked by the aggressive anti-male movement of certain modern women. Which raises the question; exactly what the fuck is going on with society when words don't even mean what they're meant to any more?

My wife and I never argue about money and that is something that I'm so relieved about.

I work in the community sector and have never earnt a large wage. We live fairly modestly but yes I do wish I could got on holidays more frequently or for longer... but otherwise I'm happy with my lot.

It does concern me (concern is not the right word cos I don't actually stay awake and worry about this) but the things people put money ahead of does surprise me at times.

I've elected to work a 4 day week cos my time is more valuable than the extra money.

I'd do anything for money. But I won't do that.

Word's don't "mean" anything objective: they're a collection of vocal noises to which we assign arbitrary meaning.

2deep4u

Excellent post... here's a semi-related video:

[youtube]l9pb3Awv8SQ[/youtube]

To which end I from now on assign 433 the 'arbitrary meaning' of 'cockhead'.

Look what thread you're in mate, we're allowed the license to delve into this sort of shit :lol: