User Tag List

First 234561454104 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 1614

  1. #31
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    1. 3rd wave feminism has given women all the privileges of traditionalism, courtship etc, without having to deal with the same responsibilities as being a man.
    It would take a lot of work to demonstrate that. As it is, I don't believe it. And besides, why is this the 3rd wave, again? Didn't the 2nd wave do this or something?

    On that note, the point of my first post was that people have been repeating the same arguments against every step of feminisms's development. They've never been true. It casts doubt on their truth now.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    For example women today graduate universities/colleges at 60% compared to 40% men. This gives them more opportunity to work higher pay low risk jobs.
    Okay? This is a bad thing? Look, it would be great if men were doing a bit more there, but out of any kind of context, this tells us almost nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    The courts today favor women when it comes to divorce and child custody. For example a man is still expected to pay alimony, loses 50% of his salary, is expected to pay for 50% of child support while only seeing his children 10% of time.
    I don't know about the exact numbers, but I do believe there is a bias toward women there. I would say there is actually a traditionalistic bent to a lot of why this is the case, though. You partly incorporate that in your first point, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be blame feminism for this. Theoretically, you follow feminism to its logical conclusion, and this would end, especially 3rd wave feminism, which has been the wave least centered on defining women as a specific subject of feminism.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    2. Lower marriage rates coupled with higher divorce rates are the destruction of the family.
    What if the lower marriage rate corresponds to more people doing all of the stuff that happens in families, just without bothering to get married? Would that be the destruction of the family?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Women initiate divorce 70% of the time when compared to men.
    Because...?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Male suicide rates spike after a divorce. Since males are only able to see their children 10% of the time after a divorce, more and more children are growing up without a father figure. Statistics show that children raised under single mothers are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, and drop out of school.
    You are most likely pointing out a correlation between two variables that are caused by a third variable. That is, both of your variables are dependent upon things like poverty. The correlation is not necessarily (and probably not) because of a strong causal relationship between single parenthood and crime, drugs, dropout rates, etc...

    Also, is there any evidence that it matters whether or not it is a father figure?

    I will give you this, the family is changing in that childbirth rates are simply down. This, however, does not clearly have anything to do with feminism or even marriage, per se. Even amongst people who get married and stay married, parenting rates are going down. It seems to be the trend of all developed nations. Social norms will have to adapt to this. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyhow.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
    Likes star tripper liked this post

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It would take a lot of work to demonstrate that. As it is, I don't believe it. And besides, why is this the 3rd wave, again? Didn't the 2nd wave do this or something?
    Take a lot of work to demonstrate that? how about you do some work and give your reasons as to why you don't believe this because I think your wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    On that note, the point of my first post was that people have been repeating the same arguments against every step of feminisms's development. They've never been true. It casts doubt on their truth now.
    Not true? in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Okay? This is a bad thing? Look, it would be great if men were doing a bit more there, but out of any kind of context, this tells us almost nothing.
    Explain to me your reasoning on how this statistic "tells us nothing" I would love to hear it, you seem to be good at counter arguing points without any specific reasoning. To me this tells me that the education system caters towards women in general, boys at an early age are told to shut up and take their ADD medication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't know about the exact numbers, but I do believe there is a bias toward women there.
    Of course you don't know the numbers and I suppose I am meant to take you on belief alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I would say there is actually a traditionalistic bent to a lot of why this is the case, though. You partly incorporate that in your first point, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be blame feminism for this. Theoretically, you follow feminism to its logical conclusion, and this would end, especially 3rd wave feminism, which has been the wave least centered on defining women as a specific subject of feminism.
    It is a traditionalist bent but why aren't the courts changing it, if they know that A, less men graduate from college than women, B, male suicides are higher than women(especially after a divorce) Feminism whether we call it "third wave" or not has influenced our legal system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What if the lower marriage rate corresponds to more people doing all of the stuff that happens in families, just without bothering to get married? Would that be the destruction of the family?



    Because...?



    You are most likely pointing out a correlation between two variables that are caused by a third variable. That is, both of your variables are dependent upon things like poverty. The correlation is not necessarily (and probably not) because of a strong causal relationship between single parenthood and crime, drugs, dropout rates, etc...
    I don't know what you are talking about here elaborate on this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Also, is there any evidence that it matters whether or not it is a father figure?
    Yes there are statistics of crimes rates being higher of children raised without a father figure, especially for boys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    will give you this, the family is changing in that childbirth rates are simply down. This, however, does not clearly have anything to do with feminism or even marriage, per se. Even amongst people who get married and stay married, parenting rates are going down. It seems to be the trend of all developed nations. Social norms will have to adapt to this. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyhow.
    How is this not a bad thing?, it's a trend in developing countries because feminism is the Dominant culture in development countries. Women tend to date upwards, meaning that they tend to look for a spouse with higher value than them. (taller, better looking, makes more money than them). etc. Men however tend to date downwards they are less concerned with a women's financial success etc. Women's exceedingly high standards in developing countries has promoted the idea that it is ok to have sex without a partner, it is ok to stay single. etc. Marriage originally was created to protect children from living in single parent environments.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Take a lot of work to demonstrate that? how about you do some work and give your reasons as to why you don't believe this because I think your wrong.
    Because I'm doubting a fundamental assertion, you are making one. I am doing the negative, you are doing the positive. I only need plausible deniability, you have the burden of proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Not true? in what way?
    Look, if the 3rd wave destroyed the family now, that must mean the 1st wave didn't destroy the family back in the day, did it? But back in the day, they were saying the 1st wave was destroying the family. Repeat and repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Explain to me your reasoning on how this statistic "tells us nothing" I would love to hear it, you seem to be good at counter arguing points without any specific reasoning. To me this tells me that the education system caters towards women in general, boys at an early age are told to shut up and take their ADD medication.
    That's a pretty specific conclusion. Maybe feminism has to do with it, but not in the way you mean. Maybe, because feminism emerged (for the obvious reasons of women being at a general disadvantage), women mobilized and developed a movement that put much more value on their education. Men did not develop a matching movement because they did not feel pressure to have one due to long being the dominant group. If men aren't valuing education enough, aren't teaching their sons to value education enough, then maybe you should take it up with men.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Of course you don't know the numbers and I suppose I am meant to take you on belief alone.
    No?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    It is a traditionalist bent but why aren't the courts changing it, if they know that A, less men graduate from college than women, B, male suicides are higher than women(especially after a divorce) Feminism whether we call it "third wave" or not has influenced our legal system.
    The first question almost has its own answer. Our social institutions often do costly, dysfunctional things strictly because it is inherited tradition. Feminism doesn't contribute to that. Someone has to active fight currently existing traditions for them to go away. For the most part, that is what feminists try to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    I don't know what you are talking about here elaborate on this.
    Point 1: If people do the same thing married people would have done, but simply without getting officially married, it does not amount to any kind of destruction of the family.

    Point 2: Completely separate social circumstances, like poverty, probably cause both single-parent households and phenomena like crime, drug use, dropouts, etc... That's the causal relationship. Because it causes both of those things, those things correlate with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Yes there are statistics of crimes rates being higher of children raised without a father figure, especially for boys.
    In a way that actually isolates the fact of it being a father figure that's missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    How is this not a bad thing?, it's a trend in developing countries because feminism is the Dominant culture in development countries. Women tend to date upwards, meaning that they tend to look for a spouse with higher value than them. (taller, better looking, makes more money than them). etc. Men however tend to date downwards they are less concerned with a women's financial success etc. Women's exceedingly high standards in developing countries has promoted the idea that it is ok to have sex without a partner, it is ok to stay single. etc. Marriage originally was created to protect children from living in single parent environments.
    Probably not.

    The most typical explanation for why birth rates have gone down are that A) technological and subsequent economic changes have slowly changed children from being an economic asset to an economic liability, reducing the desire to have them, and B) that decreased mortality has reduced the need to have many children as a kind of insurance.

    There was another big thing that happened, which was birth control, so people could have sex without necessarily having children.

    I consider all of this good news. The first two causes mean that it's a manifestation of improved quality of life. The third cause is desirable, in my opinion. It is a good thing that people can have sex and have intimate relationships without having a bunch of kids they don't want or may not be in a position to take care of.

    It also has some good consequences. The population was going to have to stop growing. This trend is basically the only thing that stands in the way of doomsday prophecies about over-population.

    Yes, there will be some consequences. We'll have a relatively old population, and static growth, and this is new to us, but I'm quite confident that we can economically adapt to this, and the cost is not nearly as big as the benefit of it all.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #35
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Sorry, but you're taking 'women are smarter' out of context, and so is this humorless MRA. Obama is certainly no George Carlin, but if you listen to his talk and the audience you'll hear laughter at what is clearly a closing joke.

    So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to call Obama or anyone else stupid.
    Likes labyrinth_perhaps, Ivy, oxyjen liked this post

  6. #36
    Expensive Handbasket Redbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    1. 3rd wave feminism has given women all the privileges of traditionalism, courtship etc, without having to deal with the same responsibilities as being a man. For example women today graduate universities/colleges at 60% compared to 40% men. This gives them more opportunity to work higher pay low risk jobs. The courts today favor women when it comes to divorce and child custody. For example a man is still expected to pay alimony, loses 50% of his salary, is expected to pay for 50% of child support while only seeing his children 10% of time.
    2. Lower marriage rates coupled with higher divorce rates are the destruction of the family.Women initiate divorce 70% of the time when compared to men. Male suicide rates spike after a divorce. Since males are only able to see their children 10% of the time after a divorce, more and more children are growing up without a father figure. Statistics show that children raised under single mothers are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, and drop out of school.
    Um no. Courts do not "favor" women. Have you been through a divorce with kids? Courts give joint-custody to parents nowadays. They are both responsible for their kids after their marriage is dissolved. The kids do have a custodial parent which is only the parent they live with the majority of the time but the courts give chunks of time to the non-custodial parent and it's much bigger than 10%. Courts are VERY big on insisting that a child have a relationship with their parents after divorce--they do not care about what goes on or what happened during the marriage and go through a lot of trouble to make sure that the parental relationship remains intact. You can even be an abusive parent and they will still say that a child has a right to a relationship with you (fucking ridiculous--supervised visits but it's still insane).

    Ah that mess about single-mothers...you know why it's so hard to be a single mother? Money. No one says much about a mother that has lost her husband to death but this is different? Besides, plenty of women raise kids all by themselves...with a father living right there under the same roof. And no one is worried about these single-dads? What are these kids going to do without a mother-figure in their lives?
    Seriously though, it's hard to be a parent, period--man or woman by yourself. People need support from extended family and from communities when raising families. I think we're focused too much on relying on a partner for this support "kids need two parents!" and it's a terrible idea.

    I think what is frightening here is that anyone believes that the rights of any individual to end their marriage/relationship should be removed in order to "preserve" some ideal of what a family should be like.

  7. #37
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Look, if the 3rd wave destroyed the family now, that must mean the 1st wave didn't destroy the family back in the day, did it? But back in the day, they were saying the 1st wave was destroying the family. Repeat and repeat.
    It's a progressive degeneration of the family. The family doesn't get destroyed over night it takes generations of an ideology (feminism) to work it's way though so yes feminism in my opinion has contributed to the destruction of the family. I think there are other reasons as well, such as dependance on technology and increased standard of living. 20 % of males ages 20-35 aren't getting married this has reached an all time low.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That's a pretty specific conclusion. Maybe feminism has to do with it, but not in the way you mean. Maybe, because feminism emerged (for the obvious reasons of women being at a general disadvantage), women mobilized and developed a movement that put much more value on their education. Men did not develop a matching movement because they did not feel pressure to have one due to long being the dominant group. If men aren't valuing education enough, aren't teaching their sons to value education enough, then maybe you should take it up with men.
    Do you not understand what feminism actually does? It creates opportunity for women stating that women are oppressed to men and that they need to acquire special privilege. Women are better than men in general when it comes to english, and languages. So what ends up happening is that an entire education system becomes catered towards women. Feminism is an ideology it doesn't actually take into account a women's actual needs. For example feminism pushes the idea that women should be working and if she doesn't enter the work force she is shamed upon. If a women chooses with her free will not to work she is shamed upon by society due to feminist ideological influence. It's not that men do not value education it is that what is being taught in the system caters towards a women's strengths. The education system has no interest in changing this however go figure.





    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The first question almost has its own answer. Our social institutions often do costly, dysfunctional things strictly because it is inherited tradition. Feminism doesn't contribute to that. Someone has to active fight currently existing traditions for them to go away. For the most part, that is what feminists try to do.
    Feminism does actually contribute to that because the reason why these systems are not changing is become the legal system knows the backlash they will receive by feminists and gynocentric society.Feminists want all the benefits of traditionalist culture without any responsibility for their own mistakes. Barrack Obama loves feminism he think women are smarter than men do you really think he has any desire to change a broken legal that cripples men?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Point 1: If people do the same thing married people would have done, but simply without getting officially married, it does not amount to any kind of destruction of the family.
    Co parenting is basically the same system of being in a divorced relationship the law allows for the father to see his child 10% of the time while the father needs to pay for child support. It doesn't give any incentives for a man to get married or stay with the women he's with he is trapped for good. If a man can't come up with child support he is put in jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Point 2: Completely separate social circumstances, like poverty, probably cause both single-parent households and phenomena like crime, drug use, dropouts, etc... That's the causal relationship. Because it causes both of those things, those things correlate with each other.
    What came first the chicken or the egg? what causes poverty for most Americans? I want to hear your answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In a way that actually isolates the fact of it being a father figure that's missing?
    A correlation between crime and single parent households.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Probably not.

    The most typical explanation for why birth rates have gone down are that A) technological and subsequent economic changes have slowly changed children from being an economic asset to an economic liability, reducing the desire to have them, and B) that decreased mortality has reduced the need to have many children as a kind of insurance.

    There was another big thing that happened, which was birth control, so people could have sex without necessarily having children.

    I consider all of this good news. The first two causes mean that it's a manifestation of improved quality of life. The third cause is desirable, in my opinion. It is a good thing that people can have sex and have intimate relationships without having a bunch of kids they don't want or may not be in a position to take care of.

    It also has some good consequences. The population was going to have to stop growing. This trend is basically the only thing that stands in the way of doomsday prophecies about over-population.

    Yes, there will be some consequences. We'll have a relatively old population, and static growth, and this is new to us, but I'm quite confident that we can economically adapt to this, and the cost is not nearly as big as the benefit of it all.
    Children have become an economic asset because living in a single parent household can no longer pay for a child needs. This is caused by increased competition of the workforce which has become dominated by women and and immigration in last 50 years.It's much harder for a man to climb the corporate ladder today and still make decent pay. Women who make more than men aren't interested in pair bonding with them, while men who make more than women are interested in pair bonding with them. Women are stuck not being able to find "the one" because they see themselves as superior to the men they find in society. Men are fed up with trying to get with these women because they are constantly being rejected by them. What needs to happen is we need to get more men graduating from colleges and universities so that the number is closer to 50%.the truth is women are the cause of single parent households not men, and they want the state to pay for them. The state is a women's sugar daddy in North America.

  8. #38
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbone View Post
    Um no. Courts do not "favor" women. Have you been through a divorce with kids? Courts give joint-custody to parents nowadays. They are both responsible for their kids after their marriage is dissolved. The kids do have a custodial parent which is only the parent they live with the majority of the time but the courts give chunks of time to the non-custodial parent and it's much bigger than 10%. Courts are VERY big on insisting that a child have a relationship with their parents after divorce--they do not care about what goes on or what happened during the marriage and go through a lot of trouble to make sure that the parental relationship remains intact. You can even be an abusive parent and they will still say that a child has a right to a relationship with you (fucking ridiculous--supervised visits but it's still insane).

    Ah that mess about single-mothers...you know why it's so hard to be a single mother? Money. No one says much about a mother that has lost her husband to death but this is different? Besides, plenty of women raise kids all by themselves...with a father living right there under the same roof. And no one is worried about these single-dads? What are these kids going to do without a mother-figure in their lives?
    Seriously though, it's hard to be a parent, period--man or woman by yourself. People need support from extended family and from communities when raising families. I think we're focused too much on relying on a partner for this support "kids need two parents!" and it's a terrible idea.

    I think what is frightening here is that anyone believes that the rights of any individual to end their marriage/relationship should be removed in order to "preserve" some ideal of what a family should be like.
    It's 10% the dad barely gets to see his kids. If you are married 50% of your asets get handed over to you wife. On top of that the dad needs to pay for child support to the mother and needs to pay alimony to the mother, so he's basically left with nothing. It would be much more financially sound if they were to stay married,70% of divorce are initiated by women and 50% of marriages end up in divorce let alone the marriages people are unhappy being in. How can you say the courts don't favor women? They basically strip a mans assets completely.

  9. #39
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    Sorry, but you're taking 'women are smarter' out of context, and so is this humorless MRA. Obama is certainly no George Carlin, but if you listen to his talk and the audience you'll hear laughter at what is clearly a closing joke.

    So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to call Obama or anyone else stupid.
    I don't think it's a joke, Women and minorities make up the majority of votes for Obama.He is trying to do what he can to keep those votes coming in, even if it is to indirectly insult them but claiming false assumptions against men.

  10. #40
    Expensive Handbasket Redbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    It's 10% the dad barely gets to see his kids. If you are married 50% of your asets get handed over to you wife. On top of that the dad needs to pay for child support to the mother and needs to pay alimony to the mother, so he's basically left with nothing. It would be much more financially sound if they were to stay married,70% of divorce are initiated by women and 50% of marriages end up in divorce let alone the marriages people are unhappy being in. How can you say the courts don't favor women? They basically strip a mans assets completely.
    How can I say it? Because it's not true. Parenting time does not get divvied up like that (unless BOTH parents want and agree to it). Marital assets are split. No one is taking The Man's Goods and giving it away to his undeserving, soon-to-be-ex-spouse. I was a SAHM and I receive no alimony. Nor do I get child support right now...it's something I'm having to fight for. I had to get my ass back to school, earn a degree, and get to work to support my kids and myself. It's so common that many community colleges have programs for women in situations like mine to help them. If the courts favored women so much, there wouldn't be programs like this. But I'd rather be where I'm at then back where I was, barely making it or not!

    I think the family court system is messed up, but it's not what you are claiming here. It can be an ugly mess when both parties are angry, bitter and out for revenge but it's not always that way. Every divorce is different, every family's situation is different but you will find that the court is very much like King Solomon and willing to split everything. Money, the kids, even the dog in half. They don't have the time or resources to favor anyone so they have parenting schedules, child support worksheets, etc., and they apply except in extraordinary circumstances or unless both parents wish for a depature from these standards.
    Likes chickpea, Passacaglia, gromit, Ivy, oxyjen liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO