by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:24 pm
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:25 pm
by Not Safe For Work » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:28 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
by Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:28 pm
by AETEN II » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:30 pm
Samuraikoku wrote:I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"
"Because your dad's a whore."
"...He died a week ago."
"Of syphilis, I bet."
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:31 pm
Seskany wrote:Feminism (At least, the proper kind) is about equal rights for the sexes. So, no. "Feminists," however, are just bigots with different prejudices then the mainstream terrible people. Note my clever use of quotation marks, there. Fortunately, quotation-mark-feminists are few, and far between. Unless you're on the internet, I mean.
the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:32 pm
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:33 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:34 pm
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:34 pm
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:35 pm
Not Safe For Work wrote:Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:36 pm
by The Roman Alliance » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:40 pm
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:42 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Forsher wrote:
That's been suggested as why men live shorter lives on average... more risk taking.
That said, my mother reckons that their wives dying does the elderly gents in.
Likely untrue, since Eunuchs live longer than uncastrated males.
The current main theory is that testosterone pretty much screws your system like sugar in a gas tank.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/health/eu ... index.html
by Gauntleted Fist » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:42 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Not Safe For Work wrote:Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.
This isn't standard, run-of-the-mill MRA trolling. This is someone actually advocating the phasing out of males as a good thing. This guy is also asserting that gay men are even worse than straight men. It's some interesting shit.
by Giovenith » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:43 pm
by Greed and Death » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:45 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:46 pm
Gauntleted Fist wrote:No, it's still not really interesting. Just like people talking about how Hitler was right and we really should have killed all the Jews is not interesting. The fact that there is a greater than zero chance of this happening is outweighed by the idea that one would have to use scientific notation to understand just how small that non-zero chance would be.
by The God-Realm » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:47 pm
greed and death wrote:Conformal Veal Theory wrote:http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/10/01/the-myth-of-male-decline/
Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.
The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.
So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.
I am worse off if I can't slap my secretary's ass like I could in the pre 70's era.
by PapaJacky » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:47 pm
Forsher wrote:
Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact, most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)
by Saruhan » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:52 pm
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:I'd rather be alive now than fifty years ago.
Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Duvniask, Elejamie, Ethel mermania, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Kannap, Kaumudeen, Kerwa, Kreushia, Three Galaxies, Uiiop, Zurkerx
Advertisement