Men are Screwed (rule 43)

[Gingerbeardman]

What a load of BS. Those standards are not even applicable any longer.

The vote was gifted to women?

Like I said. You should really not marry and/or have kids. Or, maybe you should go to Asia or the Middle East and bring back a wife. I am sure you will find what you want there.

What an epic troll this account is. 9/10. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Do you agree with this, GBM? That women get votes as consolation prizes?

You know, Heinlein was pretty adamant that only those who serve in the military should get the right to vote. All things considered, I can kinda see where he was coming from.

The real question here is whether if there was a draft instituted, you'd be okay with the women being forced into conflict to fight and die against their will just like the men.

 

[technofool]

What a load of BS. Those standards are not even applicable any longer.

Thanks for returning. You're right, around about the time the feminists poisoned our thought we did away with the restriction and now anybody can vote even criminals.

 

[Emjay]

You know, Heinlein was pretty adamant that only those who serve in the military should get the right to vote. All things considered, I can kinda see where he was coming from.

The real question here is whether if there was a draft instituted, you'd be okay with the women being forced into conflict to fight and die against their will just like the men.

Really? What would make you think I would be against it?

What is rich is that you are all upset about women getting the vote because they didn't pay for it in blood. As if you have ever had to fight in any war, so that makes you morally superior because you somehow earned it. What a joke.

 

[technofool]

Really? What would make you think I would be against it?

What is rich is that you are all upset about women getting the vote because they didn't pay for it in blood. As if you have ever had to fight in any war, so that makes you morally superior because you somehow earned it. What a joke.

There goes that empathetic attitude again.
Women who owned property have been able to vote for as long as most men have been able to vote.
The idea that more qualified people can look after less qualified people should not come as a shock.

 

[ɹǝuuᴉM]

What is this thread doing in News And Current Affairs? Mods please move this in a more relevant chat thread!

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Really? What would make you think I would be against it?

The fact that you haven't yet said you'd be okay with it. Generally speaking, I've noticed that women are reluctant to agree to this kind of legal arrangement.

What is rich is that you are all upset about women getting the vote because they didn't pay for it in blood. As if you have ever had to fight in any war, so that makes you morally superior because you somehow earned it. What a joke.

The men's right movement insofar as it got the right to vote in exchange for something has a better claim to that particular right than the women's movement who did nothing to get it. The typical refrain goes that women were discriminated against because they did not have the right to vote, therefore that is proof that men have had the upper hand over women historically, therefore men deserve whatever's coming to them as that is simply the price of the scales being rebalanced. This entire narrative is a myth, and yet it is what drives the feminism movement.

And no, men aren't being whiny babies for learning the facts and protecting themselves against a pernicious ideology that seeks to bamboozle them into making decisions against their own best interests.

 

[MandM]

OK I thought it was too good to be true Can you link the source so I can comment better.

Sorry had to track it down again: https://africacheck.org/reports/femicide-sa-3-numbers-murdering-women-investigated/

 

[technofool]

You misread, 50% of the total number of females murdered are murdered by their intimate partner. The other 50% of females are murdered by other individuals.

I apologize in advance but this thread is about the perils of divorcing women and this stat is just begging.
50% of women are murdered an intimate partner !! You have to ask why and here it comes ... because the only other way to say goodbye to her is to ask her to please leave. And then she makes you leave your house and children and car and pension *tada* makes murder an attractive option, no?

Sorry guys but that's my best gallows humor. I'm acutely aware that divorce rape is never funny but the only other option is cry and I'm outta tears. @Emjay took em all.

 

[technofool]

Sorry had to track it down again: https://africacheck.org/reports/femicide-sa-3-numbers-murdering-women-investigated/

Supplementary Stats courtesy of SAPS

{satire alert - those with easily triggered tummies tighten your belts}
8,4 men murdered for every 1 woman murdered and that's why we need a month to mourn the 1 woman and ignore the 8.4 men. Sounds feminist to me, 5 wimmins is more important than 42 men.
Murder rate of women has halved from 1999 to 2009, from all the gender violence noise I thought it had gone through the roof. Never mind that it was already less than an eighth of male murder it still halved. I'm so glad the feminists are keeping all our attention on stopping the 1 in 8 murders and leaving the other 7/8 to fix themselves. Without all the equality of feminism imagine how many men would be murdered. SAPS tells us total murder (2008) 18084 (2018) 20336. Increase of 12,5% while wimmins came down 50%. Thank you to the wimmins
Again it is false that women are being murdered left, right and center. How can the big problem be to look at the decreasing 1/8 murders and not the increasing 7/8 murders that are increasing at 12,5%. The bald faced lies are just breath taking.
57,1% of women murdered were murdered by a person who at one time knew them and loved them. What the Hell are these women doing to turn love into hate like this?? Just asking.
Most men are murdered by outsiders who don't know them or give a damn about them just want to rob them or kill them no good reason. But feminists tell us this is not the "real" problem it must be that couple of women who were scrutinized by intimate partners who used to love and care for them and then said "Holy Cow!! Enough is Enough. You gotta die Bitch!"
And blow me if the wimmins aren't learning their lesson fast because less than half need to be killed these days. Next year when the other half learn to behave there will be none killed, Rejoice and Halleluja happy mommies all round. Happy wife, Happy life.
{satire alert over and out}

 

[Emjay]

The fact that you haven't yet said you'd be okay with it. Generally speaking, I've noticed that women are reluctant to agree to this kind of legal arrangement.

The men's right movement insofar as it got the right to vote in exchange for something has a better claim to that particular right than the women's movement who did nothing to get it. The typical refrain goes that women were discriminated against because they did not have the right to vote, therefore that is proof that men have had the upper hand over women historically, therefore men deserve whatever's coming to them as that is simply the price of the scales being rebalanced. This entire narrative is a myth, and yet it is what drives the feminism movement.

And no, men aren't being whiny babies for learning the facts and protecting themselves against a pernicious ideology that seeks to bamboozle them into making decisions against their own best interests.

So much selective history here. BTW, linking to Quora? That's like linking to a MyBB post. And the link to your study is behind a register wall. Care to give us the PDF?

But, let's unpack your little narrative here.

In the UK, from 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification. From 1928 women had equal suffrage with men. So the man, by virtue of being a man, is entitled to a vote but the woman had to prove her intelligence to vote?

In the USA, before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, individual states had passed legislation that allowed women to vote in different types of elections; some only allowed women to vote in school or municipal elections, some required that women owned property if they wanted to vote, and some territories extended full suffrage to women, only to take it away once they became states. Black women only got the voting right in 1965.

But, let's talk a little stroll through USA history around voting:

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[5]
• 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows white men born outside of the United States to become citizens with the right to vote.
• 1792–1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey.
• 1792–1856: Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. However, tax-paying qualifications remained in five states in 1860 – Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. They survived in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island until the 20th century.[9]
• 1868: Citizenship is guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, setting the stage for future expansions to voting rights.
• 1869–1920: Some states allow women to vote. Wyoming was the first state to give women voting rights in 1869.
• 1870: Non-white men and freed male slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era began soon after. Southern states suppressed the voting rights of black and poor white voters through Jim Crow Laws. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.
• 1887: Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making the men technically eligible to vote.
• 1913: Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[14]
• 1920: Women are guaranteed the right to vote in all US States by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of poor or non-white men to vote now also applied to poor or non-white women.

All I see are other people trying to control who, and who does not have the right to vote, first based on class, and then by sex, and then by race.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

All I see are other people trying to control who, and who does not have the right to vote, first based on class, and then by sex, and then by race.

I think I can get behind that assessment. Would you agree that suffrage therefore is not really a good issue to investigate with respect to men's and women's issues?

 

[technofool]

But, let's unpack your little narrative here.

In the UK, from 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification. From 1928 women had equal suffrage with men. So the man, by virtue of being a man, is entitled to a vote but the woman had to prove her intelligence to vote?

How many men died in WW1? How many women?

 

[technofool]

Black women only got the voting right in 1965.

Yup that sounds about right the Suffragettes weren't interested in Black Women's rights, just their own.

 

[Emjay]

Yup that sounds about right the Suffragettes weren't interested in Black Women's rights, just their own.

Neither were men.

57,1% of women murdered were murdered by a person who at one time knew them and loved them. What the Hell are these women doing to turn love into hate like this?? Just asking.

So much empathizing.

He makes jokes about people being murdered right after crying how I lack empathy. Maybe his obsession with my empathy has something to do with his mother? Or a belief that all women should feel sorry for and empathize with everyone?

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you do rape statistics next. And let us know what your "satirical" thoughts are on those.

 

[Swa]

I never said men were not victims of abuse. I said that women were not perpetrators of violence at the same rate as men. There is a very big difference. I am not going to get into a long winded debate with a man who wants to come here and discredit the entire feminist movement and tell me how I should feel, how I think and what will make me happier. I know all the issues facing men, and we have discussed them countless times on these forums. I was actually quite outspoken about it, but when I come into this thread and see the misogyny in here, I am going to make fun of this ridiculousness.

Women are also not subject to violence at the same rate as men. Many of the situations we get ourselves in is to save women from having to get into them or because women withdraw from those situations. We also don't know the real statistics on domestic violence. You might remember a few months ago there was the video of the guy hitting his girlfriend. Then a few days later it emerged that she's actually the one that hits him. Funny how the story immediately died right there. If it was the other way around the media would still have continued with it. You can't deny there's a huge double standard here and we only see the focus on women while men are ignored. The new age feminist movement is discrediting itself all on its own.

I would love for all these men to tell us how much they are really paying to their wives in relation to their earnings, and if they are not in arrears. I have demonstrated that the law, as it is written, is fair in terms payment contributions. We have a long thread on MyBB where many fathers have said the maintenance courts are fair and they have had success there. If these men are feeling so unhappy, they should approach the courts and ask for a review. I am willing to bet they are just here bitching and moaning because they have to pay. There are always many sides to a story. And while I can imagine some women make their lives hell, there are many, many more fathers who are absent and don't give a penny.

You're not acknowledging that the law isn't always applied fairly. Instead you automatically label the men as bitching and moaning for not complying. Just this week I read a women complaining in the paper about her husband quitting his job and not paying. Now think logically, why would he quit his job and harm himself just to spite her? Why isn't she the one supporting her child while he isn't working. They ask for equality but they don't really want it when it suits them.

The main issue here is that the court has become noncritical and simply accepts what the woman claims. So she can claim 100k for the child and the guy has to provide 10k while she provides nothing and he only earns 10% of what she does. We need specialised courts that can critically determine the real needs of a child. So no, you haven't demonstrated that the law is in any way fair.

 

[Emjay]

Women are also not subject to violence at the same rate as men. Many of the situations we get ourselves in is to save women from having to get into them or because women withdraw from those situations. We also don't know the real statistics on domestic violence. You might remember a few months ago there was the video of the guy hitting his girlfriend. Then a few days later it emerged that she's actually the one that hits him. Funny how the story immediately died right there. If it was the other way around the media would still have continued with it. You can't deny there's a huge double standard here and we only see the focus on women while men are ignored. The new age feminist movement is discrediting itself all on its own.

You're not acknowledging that the law isn't always applied fairly. Instead you automatically label the men as bitching and moaning for not complying. Just this week I read a women complaining in the paper about her husband quitting his job and not paying. Now think logically, why would he quit his job and harm himself just to spite her? Why isn't she the one supporting her child while he isn't working. They ask for equality but they don't really want it when it suits them.

The main issue here is that the court has become noncritical and simply accepts what the woman claims. So she can claim 100k for the child and the guy has to provide 10k while she provides nothing and he only earns 10% of what she does. We need specialised courts that can critically determine the real needs of a child. So no, you haven't demonstrated that the law is in any way fair.

Maybe you should reign in your village clown before you try calling me out.

Oh, and when men so breathlessly stereotype, that's when I check out and really don't care. I have called out many women on these forums who unfairly stereotype, yet very few here call out men who do the same. Oddly enough, it's only the men who I oppose politically that have stuck their necks out in a real way. Sorry, boys. You want empathy and attention to your issues, fight for it yourselves.

 

[Swa]

You want me to re-quote literally everything you've said here?



Emjay is not a feminist. She's actually quite anti-feminist, I think. We've had plenty of arguments on feminist-related topics. The idea that you'd consider her to be some kind of feminist representative shows how bizarre and extreme your views are.

It's also not uncalled for. There are three situations here. Men being treated fairly. Men not being treated fairly. Men neglecting their responsibility.

We were all discussing real issues. Nobody advocated that men should not honour their commitments. But she assumes that there are no men being treated unfairly here and that they are all, in her own words, just whining and bitching here.

If she is an anti-feminist then she shouldn't have a problem with what was pointed out. But that's not how she came across.

 

[technofool]

So much empathizing.

He makes jokes about people being murdered right after crying how I lack empathy. Maybe his obsession with my empathy has something to do with his mother? Or a belief that all women should feel sorry for and empathize with everyone?

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you do rape statistics next. And let us know what your "satirical" thoughts are on those.

So the fact that I empathize more about the 8,4 men than the 1 woman offends you?

Don't get me started on rape. We can dance that dance but I guarantee it ends the same way this one ends. Stick around to see.

 

[technofool]

Maybe you should reign in your village clown before you try calling me out.

Oh please please tell me you are calling me the "village clown"?
Wouldn't it just be the sweetest irony if the village jack-in-a-box stuffed you into a box? Just asking.