Bill Maher blames gaming, beards and bad attire for "incels"

[Duvniask]

I'm not really in on this conversation, but I don't think you can argue that pregnancy and the birth of a child isn't a significant life event just by pointing to what percentage of someone's life the process takes up. There can be little doubt that we treat a pregnant woman differently from a normal one, because they require more gentleness and care, especially in the anguish of childbirth. I mean, sleep takes up 1/3 of our lives yet doesn't necessarily factor that much into what we consider memorable moments of our existence.

Pregnancy is a short-lived period of time and that plus giving birth are only parts of becoming a parent that people with uteruses have to do on their own. Literally everything else about being a parent can be shared with another person. Cis men should be just as involved in rearing their children as cis women are once they've made their appearance into the world. There's nothing biologically preventing them from doing so.

Should you be kind to pregnant people and people who have recently given birth? Yes. Should pregnant people avoid contact sports and shit? Also yes. Does this mean that non-pregnant women need different treatment? No.

Besides, the average fertility rate wouldn't necessarily be what determines how much pregnancy is seen as specifically a women's issue, especially since plenty of women do have more than 2 kids (using the average can be misleading).

Plenty of women also have zero kids. I was also using the global fertility rate, which is higher than the fertility rate in most of the countries posters here are living in (it's 1.71 in the USA, for example).

My criticism of you looking at averages is a bit difficult to explain, so I'm not sure how I should go about it. Men, however loosely you would go about defining that, basically don't birth children - whereas women have the ability in many cases to have, say, 10. People view pregnancy as a "women's issue", and thus may naturally to some extent reproduce some gender roles from this fact*, not because of the "average" number of children being born; rather it's probably explained by the fact that one gender (near) exclusively serves this function and has the ability to do so.

*These do not really have to be impactful on the fact that child rearing should be an equal-effort endeavor or not. What I'm saying is not normative. There might be something to be said about which parts of child rearing are best divided between the sexes, however, although the evidence on that is not wholly conclusive.

[Dakini]

Pregnancy is a short-lived period of time and that plus giving birth are only parts of becoming a parent that people with uteruses have to do on their own. Literally everything else about being a parent can be shared with another person. Cis men should be just as involved in rearing their children as cis women are once they've made their appearance into the world. There's nothing biologically preventing them from doing so.

Should you be kind to pregnant people and people who have recently given birth? Yes. Should pregnant people avoid contact sports and shit? Also yes. Does this mean that non-pregnant women need different treatment? No.


Plenty of women also have zero kids. I was also using the global fertility rate, which is higher than the fertility rate in most of the countries posters here are living in (it's 1.71 in the USA, for example).

My criticism of you looking at averages is a bit difficult to explain, so I'm not sure how I should go about it. Men, however loosely you would go about defining that, basically don't birth children - whereas women have the ability in many cases to have, say, 10. People view pregnancy as a "women's issue", and thus may naturally to some extent reproduce some gender roles from this fact*, not because of the "average" number of children being born; rather it's probably explained by the fact that one gender (near) exclusively serves this function and has the ability to do so.

*These do not really have to be impactful on the fact that child rearing should be an equal-effort endeavor or not. What I'm saying is not normative. There might be something to be said about which parts of child rearing are best divided between the sexes, however, although the evidence on that is not wholly conclusive.

Your article literally discusses that it's unclear which factors are biological and which are just mothers spending more time with their kids because that's how society works. It even cites a study pointing out that how good fathers are at recognizing their child's cries is correlated with how much time they spend with their child, which suggests that a lot of this is environmental and caused by the roles society influences fathers to take in their children's lives rather than biology determining this.

And again, on average, women spend a relatively small amount of their lives pregnant. Acting like this is the sum of all of our lives is fucking stupid, even if some women do decide to treat their vagina as a clown car.

[Duvniask]

My criticism of you looking at averages is a bit difficult to explain, so I'm not sure how I should go about it. Men, however loosely you would go about defining that, basically don't birth children - whereas women have the ability in many cases to have, say, 10. People view pregnancy as a "women's issue", and thus may naturally to some extent reproduce some gender roles from this fact*, not because of the "average" number of children being born; rather it's probably explained by the fact that one gender (near) exclusively serves this function and has the ability to do so.

*These do not really have to be impactful on the fact that child rearing should be an equal-effort endeavor or not. What I'm saying is not normative. There might be something to be said about which parts of child rearing are best divided between the sexes, however, although the evidence on that is not wholly conclusive.

Your article literally discusses that it's unclear which factors are biological and which are just mothers spending more time with their kids because that's how society works. It even cites a study pointing out that how good fathers are at recognizing their child's cries is correlated with how much time they spend with their child, which suggests that a lot of this is environmental and caused by the roles society influences fathers to take in their children's lives rather than biology determining this.

Like I said, it's inconclusive. I'm not sure why you're acting up about this, as you using the word "literally" would suggest, considering I'm trying to explain to you the nuances of the subject, not advancing an argument in favor of women being relegated to beasts of burden.

And again, on average, women spend a relatively small amount of their lives pregnant.

I don't think you understood what I was saying, then. You're trying to look at this in "objective" terms, but that's not what determines how we might be naturally inclined to think and act. Being pregnant is a significant commitment, if for no other reason than it being a 9 month continuous process. Tell any woman that "pregnancy is just a tiny part of your life, it's totally irrelevant" and you might get some strange looks from those who actually have to go through the months of that process.

Acting like this is the sum of all of our lives is fucking stupid, even if some women do decide to treat their vagina as a clown car.

I don't know what cat Ethel thinks, but that's not what I'm saying, at least.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bigotry never makes sense. You're arguing with someone who is extremely bigoted against women and will invent any reason to justify their hatred for us.

I've already alluded multiple times to how I do not claim to know whether or not males would do this if I could. There is no opposite-sex "equivalent" to this; if only because it's something women and girls have more escape routes from if men and boys try to do the same; and therefore no metric of whether or not it's "sexist" to point out.

The only person who has no justification for their worldview here is you.

Just the fact that there's no counterargument yet to my last take on the child support angle speaks volumes.

[Aggicificicerous]

Funny you should mention that. We have incarceration for murderers to deter other people from committing murder. What if anything is child support law intended to deter? Unprotected sex? Condom use isn't made grounds for leniency, nor is whether doing it without a condom was his idea or hers. Sex, protected or not, with someone who would keep the baby before they could afford it? Whether she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby isn't made grounds for leniency. Leaving after he claimed he would stay? Whether he admitted he wouldn't stay if she fell pregnant isn't made grounds for leniency, nor for that matter is the fact that he can't afford to stay any more than he can afford to pay child support seen as cause for the taxpayers to pay him to stay such that if he can't afford child support, he can at least afford to stay.

The primary goal of incarceration is to protect society, and possibly rehabilitation. Child support law is intended to support children. It's not complicated.

[Esternial]

But does that explain why today men have trouble letting women pay for them?

Our cultural gender roles were built upon the biological roles of men and women, but through our advancements throughout history we have invalidated that link to some extent. There are cultures where women are very much in charge, so insisting our gender roles are predetermined by our biological sex is not correct - there are more influential factors in play.

Influenced by, not determined

True, and indeed in the past biology was a lot more relevant in influencing the gender roles that have been engrained into so many cultures throughout time. The relevance of biology to gender roles has only become less important very recently relative to our entire human history, hence my understanding that it is still "programmed" to varying degrees into so many people. It will probably take a fair bit of time for us to properly adapt. With every new generation, though, I think we can see noticeable change.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Funny you should mention that. We have incarceration for murderers to deter other people from committing murder. What if anything is child support law intended to deter? Unprotected sex? Condom use isn't made grounds for leniency, nor is whether doing it without a condom was his idea or hers. Sex, protected or not, with someone who would keep the baby before they could afford it? Whether she claimed she wouldn't keep the baby isn't made grounds for leniency. Leaving after he claimed he would stay? Whether he admitted he wouldn't stay if she fell pregnant isn't made grounds for leniency, nor for that matter is the fact that he can't afford to stay any more than he can afford to pay child support seen as cause for the taxpayers to pay him to stay such that if he can't afford child support, he can at least afford to stay.

The primary goal of incarceration is to protect society, and possibly rehabilitation. Child support law is intended to support children. It's not complicated.

You could support children more effectively by having the government pick up the slack for fathers who aren't done school yet, who would have more money to provide to said kids if you gave them a chance to get back on their feet. It's not like "fleecing him for what little money he currently has" has been that effective at reducing child poverty.

Or, if you think the father needs to stay during infancy as well, giving him financial support should he choose to stay. It's not like "fleecing him for what little money he currently has" has been that effective at encouraging him to stay.

And yeah, deterrence is a key factor, taking priority over rehabilitation in some countries, like Canada and the US, as evidenced by lawmakers' tendency to reject the options effective at rehabilitation if they seem to come at the slightest expense of deterrence. Not that I think we'd have as much of a tradeoff if we did a better job giving people less reason to commit crime in the first place.

But at the end of the day, it's the same plurality of voters responsible for all of these policies.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Influenced by, not determined

True, and indeed in the past biology was a lot more relevant in influencing the gender roles that have been engrained into so many cultures throughout time. The relevance of biology to gender roles has only become less important very recently relative to our entire human history, hence my understanding that it is still "programmed" to varying degrees into so many people. It will probably take a fair bit of time for us to properly adapt. With every new generation, though, I think we can see noticeable change.

I think there's a limit to how much gender roles can change, though. Certainly, society has often been wrong about what those gender roles are, if how many exceptions to them can be noticed, but when you get right down to hormone-driven gender roles, you might hit a point where any attempt to change them does more harm than good.

Best middle ground is neither to stack the deck against gender roles NOR in favour of them.

[Eahland]

You wrote a huge non-sequitor here. The economic role of women, and that of men, has evolved with the state of technology. This is not the topic.

jfc, I'm just going to ignore you. You literally don't contribute anything worthwhile to any threads.

This thread has been an amazingly rich vein of "people whose terrible takes I'm never going to have to see again".

[Aggicificicerous]

You could support children more effectively by having the government pick up the slack for fathers who aren't done school yet, who would have more money to provide to said kids if you gave them a chance to get back on their feet. It's not like "fleecing him for what little money he currently has" has been that effective at reducing child poverty.

Or, if you think the father needs to stay during infancy as well, giving him financial support should he choose to stay. It's not like "fleecing him for what little money he currently has" has been that effective at encouraging him to stay.

No doubt. But western society, for better or worse, has an obsession with responsibility for one's actions. It's not a standard that's upheld consistently.

And yeah, deterrence is a key factor, taking priority over rehabilitation in some countries, like Canada and the US, as evidenced by lawmakers' tendency to reject the options effective at rehabilitation if they seem to come at the slightest expense of deterrence. Not that I think we'd have as much of a tradeoff if we did a better job giving people less reason to commit crime in the first place.

But at the end of the day, it's the same plurality of voters responsible for all of these policies.

In Canada at least, we were taught that our legal system was designed for rehabilitation and safety, not deterrence and punishment. No surprise that some lawmakers are at odds with this. They love to make themselves seem 'tough on crime'. The question is still being debated, and there's a difference between what legal experts say and what politicians say. I'm pretty sceptical about deterrence myself, but it's hard to be sure. In the case of child support, the main deterrent to skipping it out is most likely personal circumstance. If you have a steady job and a life you aren't willing to uproot, you're far more likely to end up paying.

[Ethel mermania]

Influenced by, not determined

True, and indeed in the past biology was a lot more relevant in influencing the gender roles that have been engrained into so many cultures throughout time. The relevance of biology to gender roles has only become less important very recently relative to our entire human history, hence my understanding that it is still "programmed" to varying degrees into so many people. It will probably take a fair bit of time for us to properly adapt. With every new generation, though, I think we can see noticeable change.

Here we agree, gender by definition is somewhat fluid

[GuessTheAltAccount]

In Canada at least, we were taught that our legal system was designed for rehabilitation and safety, not deterrence and punishment.

Taught by whom? I don't recall schooling going into the purposes of our legal system, just what our rights are and what they aren't. But if rehabilitation took priority over deterrence in the eyes of Canadians, you'd think they'd either make our prison system more like Norway's than it currently is, or focus more on tackling the root causes of crime until so few people commit it that spending tax dollars rehabilitating people could be politically palatable.

Also, even if some schools in some towns say it's about "safety" that doesn't mean they mean it. It just means that the local school board is pandering to parents who want to sugar-coat the truth until their kids are ready for it. You know, like when they tell their kids to believe in Santa Claus, and teachers go along with it.

In the case of child support, the main deterrent to skipping it out is most likely personal circumstance. If you have a steady job and a life you aren't willing to uproot, you're far more likely to end up paying.

Precisely.

Which is all the more reason why, if she told him she'd abort, and they're both in their teen years, and his life would be ruined if he had to quit school and stay in poverty to pay child support OR to stay and raise the kid, there should be a program wherein the gov't handles the payments until he's done school and can find a worthwhile career.

The alternative is to ruin a few lives for taking the exact same risk as everyone else. The same risks everyone else nonetheless somehow can't fathom a few people considering not quite worth it. Either they're all mindless raging horndogs, or they're in denial that this could've happened to them.

[Esternial]

True, and indeed in the past biology was a lot more relevant in influencing the gender roles that have been engrained into so many cultures throughout time. The relevance of biology to gender roles has only become less important very recently relative to our entire human history, hence my understanding that it is still "programmed" to varying degrees into so many people. It will probably take a fair bit of time for us to properly adapt. With every new generation, though, I think we can see noticeable change.

I think there's a limit to how much gender roles can change, though. Certainly, society has often been wrong about what those gender roles are, if how many exceptions to them can be noticed, but when you get right down to hormone-driven gender roles, you might hit a point where any attempt to change them does more harm than good.

Best middle ground is neither to stack the deck against gender roles NOR in favour of them.

I kind of disagree. I don't think there is a breaking point, but there is a limit to how much it can stretch over a particular period of time.

Gradual mutation is part of evolution, and that never stops. When uncontrolled and rapid, it becomes problematic. I believe that counts both in nature and human society/culture.

[Aggicificicerous]

Taught by whom? I don't recall schooling going into the purposes of our legal system, just what our rights are and what they aren't. But if rehabilitation took priority over deterrence in the eyes of Canadians, you'd think they'd either make our prison system more like Norway's than it currently is, or focus more on tackling the root causes of crime until so few people commit it that spending tax dollars rehabilitating people could be politically palatable.

By teachers. For example. They do mention deterrence, but it's not a primary principle. Your concern seems to be that systems in society must be consistent, and that's just wishful thinking.

Precisely.

Which is all the more reason why, if she told him she'd abort, and they're both in their teen years, and his life would be ruined if he had to quit school and stay in poverty to pay child support OR to stay and raise the kid, there should be a program wherein the gov't handles the payments until he's done school and can find a worthwhile career.

The alternative is to ruin a few lives for taking the exact same risk as everyone else. The same risks everyone else nonetheless somehow can't fathom a few people considering not quite worth it. Either they're all mindless raging horndogs, or they're in denial that this could've happened to them.

Laws vary, but I have yet to see one stating a parent must drop out to work and pay child support. In some cases, grandparents can be on the hook if a parent can't make payments. Ultimately, if you have a kid, you should be responsible for it. That's not a crazy notion.

[Bear Stearns]

Blame the atomization and social degeneration caused by global neoliberalism

[GuessTheAltAccount]

By teachers. For example. They do mention deterrence, but it's not a primary principle. Your concern seems to be that systems in society must be consistent, and that's just wishful thinking.

I already mentioned ahead of time that schools vary. And that teaching students that doesn't necessarily reflect one's sincere beliefs any more than it reflects bending to the whims of school board trustees who want to get re-elected by parents who would rather sugar-coat the truth than give it to their sons and daughters straight.

What they tell their sons and daughters is very different than what they tell each other through the way the prison system is run on their behalf.

As well, British Columbia in particular has an especially strong history of dishonesty. (Didn't they in 2013 tell pollsters they were going to vote NDP and then turn around and vote Liberal?) It stands to reason such dishonesty would then be emulated by their public servants.

Laws vary, but I have yet to see one stating a parent must drop out to work and pay child support.

I have yet to see one carving an exception or even leniency for teenage fathers either.

As well, back in the earlier days of this site, a hypothetical example of a guy having to drop out of school to pay child support was met not with claims that this wouldn't happen, but with the phrase "he coulda kept it in his pants, she coulda swallowed it instead, shoulda coulda woulda never did no gooda, there's a child now, his petty whining ceases to matter." If people didn't have to drop out to pay child support, wouldn't their first instinct to have been to dispute that the situation outlined in said hypothetical would happen in the first place?

In some cases, grandparents can be on the hook if a parent can't make payments.

Where?

Ultimately, if you have a kid, you should be responsible for it. That's not a crazy notion.

It is if he didn't intend for the condom to break, or for her to keep the baby if the condom broke, and if she didn't tell him she would keep the baby if the condom broke, in a setting where either having to stay or having to pay child support would ruin his life, then yeah, there should be some leniency.

Or at the very least, there should be some sort of balance between staying in school and raising a kid. Maybe the longing to become some doctor or engineer should be semi-accommodated, with a reduced courseload in exchange for him helping raise the kid. But it shouldn't ruin his life. Again, people's denial that this could have happened to them seems to be a factor here.

When people who would criminalize abortion don't make child-rearing more affordable, popular opinion seems content to dismiss them as hypocrites. I don't think they're necessarily hypocrites; they should make child-rearing more affordable anyway, with or without abortion rights, if only because the wealthy shouldn't get to outbreed the rest of us. But it's because of the same market-worshipping notions that work against these voters' own interests that they don't. Meanwhile, how are the rest of the voting public any less hypocritical, in condemning these guys for doing the only thing they have left to avoid poverty, while branding as hypocrites the those who condemn a woman or girl for doing the only thing she has left to avoid poverty?

You speak of what they teach in schools. To what, might I ask, do you attribute schools' portrayal of teenage pregnancy as "he promised he would stay, but when she got pregnant, he left" without acknowledging that child support law makes no distinction between that situation and a situation of her promising she wouldn't keep the baby?

[Dakini]

Your article literally discusses that it's unclear which factors are biological and which are just mothers spending more time with their kids because that's how society works. It even cites a study pointing out that how good fathers are at recognizing their child's cries is correlated with how much time they spend with their child, which suggests that a lot of this is environmental and caused by the roles society influences fathers to take in their children's lives rather than biology determining this.

Like I said, it's inconclusive. I'm not sure why you're acting up about this, as you using the word "literally" would suggest, considering I'm trying to explain to you the nuances of the subject, not advancing an argument in favor of women being relegated to beasts of burden.

And again, on average, women spend a relatively small amount of their lives pregnant.

I don't think you understood what I was saying, then. You're trying to look at this in "objective" terms, but that's not what determines how we might be naturally inclined to think and act. Being pregnant is a significant commitment, if for no other reason than it being a 9 month continuous process. Tell any woman that "pregnancy is just a tiny part of your life, it's totally irrelevant" and you might get some strange looks from those who actually have to go through the months of that process.

You're literally arguing with a pregnant woman right now.

Pregnancy itself isn't "a significant commitment". Grad school was more of a significant commitment than pregnancy alone is. Not being able to drink booze or (much) coffee or eat certain delicious cheeses for a few months isn't nearly as hard as writing my thesis was. Obviously parenting is an enormous commitment, but parenting is a shared commitment. Parenting is something that will affect my life much more than being pregnant (assuming I survive and all that anyway).

So yes, please continue to explain pregnancy and how pregnant women feel about things to me while I'm being kicked by a fetus. As far as it goes, being pregnant is mostly weird and is becoming increasingly uncomfortable, but it will be over in not too long, actually.

[Aggicificicerous]

I already mentioned ahead of time that schools vary. And that teaching students that doesn't necessarily reflect one's sincere beliefs any more than it reflects bending to the whims of school board trustees who want to get re-elected by parents who would rather sugar-coat the truth than give it to their sons and daughters straight.

What they tell their sons and daughters is very different than what they tell each other through the way the prison system is run on their behalf.

As well, British Columbia in particular has an especially strong history of dishonesty. (Didn't they in 2013 tell pollsters they were going to vote NDP and then turn around and vote Liberal?) It stands to reason such dishonesty would then be emulated by their public servants.

So what? Is the point of this thread you discovering that people aren't always honest?

I have yet to see one carving an exception or even leniency for teenage fathers either.

Have you considered looking on Google?

As well, back in the earlier days of this site, a hypothetical example of a guy having to drop out of school to pay child support was met not with claims that this wouldn't happen, but with the phrase "he coulda kept it in his pants, she coulda swallowed it instead, shoulda coulda woulda never did no gooda, there's a child now, his petty whining ceases to matter." If people didn't have to drop out to pay child support, wouldn't their first instinct to have been to dispute that the situation outlined in said hypothetical would happen in the first place?

I don't understand your question.

It is if he didn't intend for the condom to break, or for her to keep the baby if the condom broke, and if she didn't tell him she would keep the baby if the condom broke, in a setting where either having to stay or having to pay child support would ruin his life, then yeah, there should be some leniency.

Or at the very least, there should be some sort of balance between staying in school and raising a kid. Maybe the longing to become some doctor or engineer should be semi-accommodated, with a reduced courseload in exchange for him helping raise the kid. But it shouldn't ruin his life. Again, people's denial that this could have happened to them seems to be a factor here.

Child support doesn't ruin lives, though it can make them more difficult. Plenty of people have gone through schooling to become doctors or engineers while parenting, to say nothing of paying a sum every month. If your argument is that child support laws could be improved, sure. If it's that life isn't fair to a guy who gets someone pregnant then is on the hook for it, nah.

When people who would criminalize abortion don't make child-rearing more affordable, popular opinion seems content to dismiss them as hypocrites. I don't think they're necessarily hypocrites; they should make child-rearing more affordable anyway, with or without abortion rights, if only because the wealthy shouldn't get to outbreed the rest of us. But it's because of the same market-worshipping notions that work against these voters' own interests that they don't. Meanwhile, how are the rest of the voting public any less hypocritical, in condemning these guys for doing the only thing they have left to avoid poverty, while branding as hypocrites the those who condemn a woman or girl for doing the only thing she has left to avoid poverty?

Because the guy's attempt to avoid poverty is damaging the lives of two other people, one of whom he helped create. That's why people condemn it.
If you think I want abortion criminalized or worship free markets, you're far off.

You speak of what they teach in schools. To what, might I ask, do you attribute schools' portrayal of teenage pregnancy as "he promised he would stay, but when she got pregnant, he left" without acknowledging that child support law makes no distinction between that situation and a situation of her promising she wouldn't keep the baby?

That was discussed in sex ed. Not in a biased sense, but as 'this might not seem fair, but it's law, so you'd damn well better learn how to use a condom'.

[Duvniask]

Like I said, it's inconclusive. I'm not sure why you're acting up about this, as you using the word "literally" would suggest, considering I'm trying to explain to you the nuances of the subject, not advancing an argument in favor of women being relegated to beasts of burden.


I don't think you understood what I was saying, then. You're trying to look at this in "objective" terms, but that's not what determines how we might be naturally inclined to think and act. Being pregnant is a significant commitment, if for no other reason than it being a 9 month continuous process. Tell any woman that "pregnancy is just a tiny part of your life, it's totally irrelevant" and you might get some strange looks from those who actually have to go through the months of that process.

You're literally arguing with a pregnant woman right now.

Pregnancy itself isn't "a significant commitment". Grad school was more of a significant commitment than pregnancy alone is. Not being able to drink booze or (much) coffee or eat certain delicious cheeses for a few months isn't nearly as hard as writing my thesis was. Obviously parenting is an enormous commitment, but parenting is a shared commitment.

It's well and good you feel that way, but that's also your anecdotal experience.

Parenting is something that will affect my life much more than being pregnant

Well, obviously. But this was not a contest or even a comparison.

(assuming I survive and all that anyway).

I usually dislike when I hear people say this to others, but please don't talk like that.

So yes, please continue to explain pregnancy and how pregnant women feel about things to me while I'm being kicked by a fetus. As far as it goes, being pregnant is mostly weird and is becoming increasingly uncomfortable, but it will be over in not too long, actually.

I may not know directly what the experience of being pregnant is, but I, like all people, have a mother. Said mother also happens to be alive and able to tell of her experience. Same goes for other people I've met and my impressions of them. Simple as that.

Besides, telling me of your discomfort isn't exactly going to dissuade me from my opinion that it's something one has to commit oneself to.

[Dakini]

You're literally arguing with a pregnant woman right now.

Pregnancy itself isn't "a significant commitment". Grad school was more of a significant commitment than pregnancy alone is. Not being able to drink booze or (much) coffee or eat certain delicious cheeses for a few months isn't nearly as hard as writing my thesis was. Obviously parenting is an enormous commitment, but parenting is a shared commitment.

It's well and good you feel that way, but that's also your anecdotal experience.

Parenting is something that will affect my life much more than being pregnant

Well, obviously. But this was not a contest or even a comparison.

You think that a 40 week commitment can even be remotely compared to one that is essentially a lifelong commitment? I don't. One is obviously much more of a commitment than the other. Getting my PhD also took way more time than this pregnancy is going to (and also more effort, loss of sleep etc).

(assuming I survive and all that anyway).

I usually dislike when I hear people say this to others, but please don't talk like that.

I'm aware that this is probably the riskiest thing I've done health-wise. I'm also likely going to be giving birth in Romania, which is a country not known for excellence in the field of medicine (though its maternal mortality rate is surprisingly the same as the USA despite one of these being a developing country and the other a developed one) and during a pandemic. Survival is still likely, but not guaranteed.

So yes, please continue to explain pregnancy and how pregnant women feel about things to me while I'm being kicked by a fetus. As far as it goes, being pregnant is mostly weird and is becoming increasingly uncomfortable, but it will be over in not too long, actually.

I may not know directly what the experience of being pregnant is, but I, like all people, have a mother. Said mother also happens to be alive and able to tell of her experience. Same goes for other people I've met and my impressions of them. Simple as that.

Besides, telling me of your discomfort isn't exactly going to dissuade me from my opinion that it's something one has to commit oneself to.

It's not even especially uncomfortable until I have to pick something up off the floor, but even that is a recent development. I'm able to go about my business as though nothing is going on for the most part, except that I can't have beer or brie.

For reference, I'm not saying that pregnancy is something that everyone should want to undertake at the drop of a hat and obviously, if someone finds themselves pregnant and they don't want to be, they should be able to end it easily and safely. However, I don't see it as a commitment. It's a process and in the end, I'm going to have an actual commitment to deal with (hopefully anyway).

[Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan]

Considering that most women in recent surveys ranked some eighty percent of men as “below average,” which is mathematically impossible, I have no faith in anything that a woman claims, especially about female nature, since they hate to be knocked off their pedestals and come back down to Earth.

[Esternial]

Considering that most women in recent surveys ranked some eighty percent of men as “below average,” which is mathematically impossible, I have no faith in anything that a woman claims, especially about female nature, since they hate to be knocked off their pedestals and come back down to Earth.

And if those surveys are correct, apparently they're unlikely to have any interest in what you have to say either - perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

[Ilessia]

Late night talk show host does bad take possibly as an attempt at humor. Audience either laughs awkwardly or doesn't at all.

In other news, water is wet, the pope is catholic, bears shit in the woods and I'm smart.

Oh yeah, and incel is an ideology. A belief system. One which has inspired numerous acts of terror the previous decade, to boot. Some might argue that it's kind of a cult. Now, Maher's stance is simple: it's their own fault, they practically take a shit on the floor, roll around in it and then wonder why everyone runs away. You ride a bike, put a stick between your spokes, blame da wimminz. That's not the case, for the most part anyway. This sort of thought does not emerge organically in incels, it comes from somewhere with something as a catalyst.

As if women didn't game, have body hair or dress like crap. Silly Bill. There's a long way down to the people from his ivory tower.

[Jerzylvania]

Who cares what stupid ideas Bill Maher has about incels?

Yes. Seriously, who gives a shit?

People who take comedy too seriously.

[Sundiata]

That's fine.

I take a hard line against prostitution anyway. Young men just need to put a better foot forward these days. Join the military, go to university, join the church. There's so many ways to make your life better and your country better.

This is terrible advice. Society and the country is not owed a living. This is what the ruling classes want the peasants to believe.

I don't understand.