Feminism, misogyny and misandry.

[Bottle]

Men often don't want their kids.

or alternatively are routinely discouraged by society and judicial bias


"How dare you seperate a child from it's mother, slink back into the shadows you dead beat bad"

Notice how we rarely here about dead beat mothers

A man won't be called a "dead beat dad" for TRYING to get custody of his children. A dead beat dad is one who ditches the kids.

Get your sexist tropes straight, please .

And the reason we don't hear about "dead beat mothers" as often is because they don't occur as often. So women get to live in a world where they are far and away more likely to get stuck supporting their children alone, and men get to live in a world where men are assumed to be more likely to ditch their children and their parental responsibilities. Unfair all around...want to trade?

[Zeth Rekia]

My sister in law is as deadbeat as it gets. Doesn't clean up house. Let's kids tear the place up. Hell, my niece is more responsible than she is. And that lil' girl is only 3 years old! I hope that little thing doesn't get placed into a different home.

[Dakini]

My sister in law is as deadbeat as it gets. Doesn't clean up house. Let's kids tear the place up. Hell, my niece is more responsible than she is. And that lil' girl is only 3 years old! I hope that little thing doesn't get placed into a different home.

That's not what deadbeat means.


Deadbeat would be my friend's dad who didn't want custody when her parents divorced, stopped the visits after a while, stopped paying child support and decided he wasn't going to follow through with helping her with tuition (which is something he had agreed upon initially). I'm not sure if she's seen him since she was 7.

This woman might be neglectful, she might not, she could be severely overburdened depending on how much your brother helps around the house, how many kids there are tearing the place up et c. As far as everyone here knows, she works outside the home and comes back to look after a pile of kids that she's expected to essentially take care of entirely, while making sure that the house is spotless and not getting any assistance on these fronts. That and having a messy house isn't negligence unless it's unsanitary, especially if she's doing everything else the kid(s) need. She's certainly not a deadbeat, since she's in the picture.

[Geniasis]

A man won't be called a "dead beat dad" for TRYING to get custody of his children. A dead beat dad is one who ditches the kids.

Get your sexist tropes straight, please .

And the reason we don't hear about "dead beat mothers" as often is because they don't occur as often. So women get to live in a world where they are far and away more likely to get stuck supporting their children alone, and men get to live in a world where men are assumed to be more likely to ditch their children and their parental responsibilities. Unfair all around...want to trade?

To be fair, this has less to do with women being inherently more loyal to their children (though I imagine carrying it for nine months probably does cause that) and more to do with the fact that we have a nine-month headstart.

[Bottle]

A man won't be called a "dead beat dad" for TRYING to get custody of his children. A dead beat dad is one who ditches the kids.

Get your sexist tropes straight, please .

And the reason we don't hear about "dead beat mothers" as often is because they don't occur as often. So women get to live in a world where they are far and away more likely to get stuck supporting their children alone, and men get to live in a world where men are assumed to be more likely to ditch their children and their parental responsibilities. Unfair all around...want to trade?

To be fair, this has less to do with women being inherently more loyal to their children (though I imagine carrying it for nine months probably does cause that) and more to do with the fact that we have a nine-month headstart.

I think it has nothing to do with pregnancy and everything to do with socialization. Girls are taught, practically from birth, that they are "naturally" more nurturing, that they are "naturally" inclined to have and care for babies, that they are "naturally" supposed to be the one who takes care of children. Girl's toys and games frequently revolve around caring for children; how often do boy's toys and games do that? So OF COURSE girls/women are more likely to be the ones who take care of children, and boys/men are more likely to ditch out on kids. That's how we raise them.

[Arcad]

If I may, I'd like to state that I'm a seventeen-year-old blue-blooded American male, and I never have had any bias against women that wasn't deserved, and on an individual basis. This leads me to the conclusion that perhaps we should stop examining each gender as a whole, and rather separate it into individuals. Of course, that would require our abandonment of stereotypes, and... well, I'd guess that's not happening anytime soon. But, look... gender dimorphism is a common trait of MANY species, Homo Sapiens only being one of them. I don't see why some extremist feminazis have to try and make women and men exactly the same; why would you do that? It's NATURAL that we are different, and our society has developed around gender roles. If the women hadn't been there to churn butter, and milk cows, and grind the grain, and have the children, most importantly, well, we sure as hell wouldn't be here to talk about it. That being said, I think that the only jobs that perhaps REQUIRE gender discrimination are ones like construction workers, and firefighters, and other jobs that physically, men tend to be better suited for. However, these should be judged on an individual basis, with one's gender being just another box to check in the job application.

[Bottle]

If I may, I'd like to state that I'm a seventeen-year-old blue-blooded American male, and I never have had any bias against women that wasn't deserved, and on an individual basis. This leads me to the conclusion that perhaps we should stop examining each gender as a whole, and rather separate it into individuals. Of course, that would require our abandonment of stereotypes, and... well, I'd guess that's not happening anytime soon. But, look... gender dimorphism is a common trait of MANY species, Homo Sapiens only being one of them. I don't see why some extremist feminazis have to try and make women and men exactly the same; why would you do that? It's NATURAL that we are different, and our society has developed around gender roles. If the women hadn't been there to churn butter, and milk cows, and grind the grain, and have the children, most importantly, well, we sure as hell wouldn't be here to talk about it. That being said, I think that the only jobs that perhaps REQUIRE gender discrimination are ones like construction workers, and firefighters, and other jobs that physically, men tend to be better suited for. However, these should be judged on an individual basis, with one's gender being just another box to check in the job application.

I like the part where you recommend we deal with everyone as "individuals" and then a sentence later you bring up the amorphous and undefined" extremist feminazis" who are supposedly trying to "make men and women the same." Also the part where you state that something about being male automatically makes a person better at being a firefighter, which I guess has nothing to do with stereotypes and everything to do with the fact that if we deal with people as individuals we will find that an individual male is invariably better at being a firefighter than any individual female, which is why we should engage in gender discrimination.

The good news is, though, that if you're really 17 then you have the excuse of youth and ignorance for this hilariously bad performance.

[Arcad]

If I may, I'd like to state that I'm a seventeen-year-old blue-blooded American male, and I never have had any bias against women that wasn't deserved, and on an individual basis. This leads me to the conclusion that perhaps we should stop examining each gender as a whole, and rather separate it into individuals. Of course, that would require our abandonment of stereotypes, and... well, I'd guess that's not happening anytime soon. But, look... gender dimorphism is a common trait of MANY species, Homo Sapiens only being one of them. I don't see why some extremist feminazis have to try and make women and men exactly the same; why would you do that? It's NATURAL that we are different, and our society has developed around gender roles. If the women hadn't been there to churn butter, and milk cows, and grind the grain, and have the children, most importantly, well, we sure as hell wouldn't be here to talk about it. That being said, I think that the only jobs that perhaps REQUIRE gender discrimination are ones like construction workers, and firefighters, and other jobs that physically, men tend to be better suited for. However, these should be judged on an individual basis, with one's gender being just another box to check in the job application.

I like the part where you recommend we deal with everyone as "individuals" and then a sentence later you bring up the amorphous and undefined" extremist feminazis" who are supposedly trying to "make men and women the same." Also the part where you state that something about being male automatically makes a person better at being a firefighter, which I guess has nothing to do with stereotypes and everything to do with the fact that if we deal with people as individuals we will find that an individual male is invariably better at being a firefighter than any individual female, which is why we should engage in gender discrimination.

The good news is, though, that if you're really 17 then you have the excuse of youth and ignorance for this hilariously bad performance.

Instead of being overly critical of my writing, why not try and find some POSITIVE points, and build on them? Then you might show me that YOU'RE older than 12- because you seem to be about as petty as a child is. I simply stated that while gender dimorphism is an undeniable feature of our species, it shouldn't always be the deciding factor; but it should still be taken into account for CERTAIN jobs on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

[WWII History Geeks]

Is it possible to be a masculinist? You know, to help men regain their manhood? Pro-chivalry and all that? Because that's what I am.

[Arcad]

Is it possible to be a masculinist? You know, to help men regain their manhood? Pro-chivalry and all that? Because that's what I am.

I like that idea. If chivalry made a return, women wouldn't really have to complain, because they'd practically be deified. And rape would either be nonexistent, or there would be lynchings of every rapist.
I'd sure as heck string up a few rapists for the good of society.

[Dakini]

Is it possible to be a masculinist? You know, to help men regain their manhood? Pro-chivalry and all that? Because that's what I am.

I like that idea. If chivalry made a return, women wouldn't really have to complain, because they'd practically be deified. And rape would either be nonexistent, or there would be lynchings of every rapist.
I'd sure as heck string up a few rapists for the good of society.

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

[Bottle]

Is it possible to be a masculinist? You know, to help men regain their manhood? Pro-chivalry and all that? Because that's what I am.

That's called "being mainstream."

[Arcad]

I like that idea. If chivalry made a return, women wouldn't really have to complain, because they'd practically be deified. And rape would either be nonexistent, or there would be lynchings of every rapist.
I'd sure as heck string up a few rapists for the good of society.

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

It was a joke...

[WWII History Geeks]

I like that idea. If chivalry made a return, women wouldn't really have to complain, because they'd practically be deified. And rape would either be nonexistent, or there would be lynchings of every rapist.
I'd sure as heck string up a few rapists for the good of society.

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

No, there were still rapes, but not as many. Anyways, who's with me?! ^^

[UCUMAY]

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

Personally, I'm scared of falling. I wouldn't want to be on a pedestal... I would rather have my two feet on the ground.

[WWII History Geeks]

Is it possible to be a masculinist? You know, to help men regain their manhood? Pro-chivalry and all that? Because that's what I am.

That's called "being mainstream."

Awww... I'm only mainstream...

[Arcad]

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

No, there were still rapes, but not as many. Anyways, who's with me?! ^^

Meh. Anything that promotes my manhood.
...I always wanted to lynch somebody...

[Lauchlin]

Yes... because there were never rapes when men were chivalrous and women love being put on pedestals instead of treated like real human beings.

No, there were still rapes, but not as many.

Feel like quantifying that?

[Ifreann]

I simply stated that while gender dimorphism is an undeniable feature of our species, it shouldn't always be the deciding factor; but it should still be taken into account for CERTAIN jobs on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

What does that even mean? Seriously, explain how we take gender dimorphism into account for certain jobs on an individual basis.

[Arcad]

I simply stated that while gender dimorphism is an undeniable feature of our species, it shouldn't always be the deciding factor; but it should still be taken into account for CERTAIN jobs on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

What does that even mean? Seriously, explain how we take gender dimorphism into account for certain jobs on an individual basis.

Well, I'm really trying to say that, like, an office job shouldn't be discriminatory. Women are usually as smart or smarter than men, but some aren't. Why even bother with gender for those jobs? But some jobs, like, as I said before, a firefighter, are TYPICALLY better suited to men. Not all the time, not every time, not even regularly. Rather, in fields such as that one, gender should simply be a minor factor, not the deciding factor on whether or not you get the job.

[Lauchlin]

What does that even mean? Seriously, explain how we take gender dimorphism into account for certain jobs on an individual basis.

Well, I'm really trying to say that, like, an office job shouldn't be discriminatory. Women are usually as smart or smarter than men, but some aren't. Why even bother with gender for those jobs? But some jobs, like, as I said before, a firefighter, are TYPICALLY better suited to men. Not all the time, not every time, not even regularly. Rather, in fields such as that one, gender should simply be a minor factor, not the deciding factor on whether or not you get the job.

Why should it be a factor at all? If you can perform the job, why should gender even be a minor factor?

[Arcad]

Well, I'm really trying to say that, like, an office job shouldn't be discriminatory. Women are usually as smart or smarter than men, but some aren't. Why even bother with gender for those jobs? But some jobs, like, as I said before, a firefighter, are TYPICALLY better suited to men. Not all the time, not every time, not even regularly. Rather, in fields such as that one, gender should simply be a minor factor, not the deciding factor on whether or not you get the job.

Why should it be a factor at all? If you can perform the job, why should gender even be a minor factor?

Because gender dimorphism DOES exist, and thus, there are more than external physical differences in men and women. Each gender handles stress and pressure different on a purely internal physical level- different mixes of hormones and adrenaline and all that sciency stuff that I didn't pay attention to in class. I'm not some scientician, ok? I don't have all your answers on a silver platter. I'm bored of this lousy debate, mostly because it's based entirely on the bashing of others instead of being a discussion.

[Bottle]

Well, I'm really trying to say that, like, an office job shouldn't be discriminatory. Women are usually as smart or smarter than men, but some aren't. Why even bother with gender for those jobs? But some jobs, like, as I said before, a firefighter, are TYPICALLY better suited to men. Not all the time, not every time, not even regularly. Rather, in fields such as that one, gender should simply be a minor factor, not the deciding factor on whether or not you get the job.

Why should it be a factor at all? If you can perform the job, why should gender even be a minor factor?

Because since men tend to be taller, on average, than women, that means that an individual man is going to be taller than any other woman applying for the same job.

That's how it works, right? Right?

[Ifreann]

What does that even mean? Seriously, explain how we take gender dimorphism into account for certain jobs on an individual basis.

Well, I'm really trying to say that, like, an office job shouldn't be discriminatory. Women are usually as smart or smarter than men, but some aren't. Why even bother with gender for those jobs? But some jobs, like, as I said before, a firefighter, are TYPICALLY better suited to men. Not all the time, not every time, not even regularly.

So then why even bother with gender?

Rather, in fields such as that one, gender should simply be a minor factor, not the deciding factor on whether or not you get the job.

But why? If a woman can complete the necessary training to be a firefighter, why should a man get the job over her? And don't start giving me crap about "men tend to be stronger than women blah blah blah", this hypothetical woman has done all the relevant training. She can carry all the gear, climb a ladder with it on, carry victims or teammates out of burning buildings, the works. Anything we would expect a firefighter to be able to do, this woman has proven that she can do.

[Felids]

I believe that what that poster meant to say is the job which includes training.

As far as I know, firefighting services allow you to apply, run tests, and then offer training. Don't quote me on that though.