Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm almost cracking up at these exaggerated posts about how women apparently had such a sweet deal for most of history, and now men are so burdened and put upon.
I'm almost cracking up at these exaggerated posts about how women apparently had such a sweet deal for most of history, and now men are so burdened and put upon.
In world history men and women struggled together in more or less the same degree. 99% of people were dirt poor. The only men that could dominate or oppress were a few at the top.
Nowadays women base their so called oppression on hyper-successful men men such as CEOs, leaders of nations, billionaires, etc. Meanwhile most men are average and struggle as much as women.
I'm almost cracking up at these exaggerated posts about how women apparently had such a sweet deal for most of history, and now men are so burdened and put upon.
Historically, women did not have a sweet deal. Before 1922, they couldn't even vote in the US, which was wrong. But today, women are having their cake and eating it too, a la mode with sprinkles and whipped cream. They're free to work as they choose, but they also control everything at home, and can collect a windfall at divorce time. The husband has little choice but to fly under his wife's radar, working hard to earn money and stay out of the doghouse.
Single men don't have to worry about the doghouse, but they're socially shamed for wanting to keep their freedom.
Historically, women did not have a sweet deal. Before 1922, they couldn't even vote in the US, which was wrong. But today, women are having their cake and eating it too, a la mode with sprinkles and whipped cream. They're free to work as they choose, but they also control everything at home, and can collect a windfall at divorce time. The husband has little choice but to fly under his wife's radar, working hard to earn money and stay out of the doghouse.
Single men don't have to worry about the doghouse, but they're socially shamed for wanting to keep their freedom.
I know of no middle class women who have collected a windfall at divorce time. Most end up with child support which is often insufficient and maybe limited spousal support if she has been staying home raising kids and now has to enter the workforce with outdated skills. That support amount expires after a set amount of years. Often, the woman is left trying to work to establish a career before spousal support expires, contribute to retirement, raise the kids being mostly responsible for before and after school care, illness, carpooling, parent teacher conferences etc. It's not usually the case that the woman ends up better financially post-divorce.
I'm only popping in because I thought of an anecdote that actually explains my love of "anecdotal evidence" as opposed to "statistics." (Actually I'm fine with statistics if they come from reputable sources with good sized sample sizes, etc.)
So my Ex is Mr. Tinfoil Hat himself, and he read somewhere that we're in a "sanctuary city" and that in such places, the scary refugees from the Middle East are forming rape gangs in the streets. Literally surrounding women in public, in American cities, and attacking them. He doesn't really leave the house much, but hey, he sees these things on the internet, and since they reinforce things that he believes, they are true. I mentioned in passing that I had plans for an event, which happened to be downtown, and he literally warned me not to go because of these supposed "rape gangs" that his sources said were "on the rise" or a new "trend" of some kind of significance.
I went downtown. I did not see any rape gangs. I don't actually think that they are a thing, at least not anywhere I'm likely to go, if at all.
So for someone to pull some story off some website, that backs up what they're saying, but the source doesn't check out, and I can actually go out my front door and observe otherwise in front of me all over the place in actual, observable reality... Well the evidence I've got might only be meaningful to me, but maybe if others would, I dunno, look up from the screen, get out of their own heads, and interact with reality once in a while? Nah... CRAZY TALK.
Would you consider it a privileged to be denied an educations, to be able to learn to read, to not be allowed to own property, vote, be in public unchaperoned, not be allowed to make your own medical decisions, decide who to marry, to have no legal right to your children, to be unable to make purchases, to earn an income, to be paid less, to be legally raped, to wear pants, to smoke, drink, travel. You call that protected and provided for.
Who initiated war. Who prevented women from working in particular jobs. How many women do you think died because men waged war, who died right along side of them, who died giving birth to mens children.
Would you welcome living under those restrictions and call it protected and provided for? Bet you wouldnt.
Women didn't want the vote.
Quote:
IN 1895 the women of Massachusetts were asked by the state whether they wished the suffrage. Of the 575,000 voting women in the state, only 22,204 cared for it enough to deposit in a ballot box an affirmative answer to this question. That is, in round numbers, less than four per cent wished to vote; about ninety-six per cent were opposed to woman suffrage or indifferent to it.
And all men didn't have the right to vote until very recently in history:
Quote:
At the time the nation was founded, universal manhood suffrage was not the rule in any state. The usual qualification for voting was property. Two complementary arguments supported this: first that men of property would be best qualified to rule, and second that men without property could not be trusted.
When women wanted the vote they got it. The same with property rights. But as I cited above - women are even LESS happy now that they have these rights.
That is NOT what I said or intended to say. If a man relies on a woman for food and finances, he does need to give up his freedom.
However, men have dual obligations nowadays. Men are expected to provide for their wives financially and support them emotionally, but he also has to submit to her authority North Korea-style. Women, on the other hand, are free to work as they choose, and they have full reign of their homes and their husbands. So if wanting to avoid those dual obligations is wrong, I don't want to be right.
What in the world are you talking about.
Women have always had dual obligations. They are expected to provide for their family financially, support them emotionally, submit to their authority, keep the house clean, food on the table, laundry cleaned, kids cared for, fed, washed, clothed, safe, educated, chauffeured. As well be on call 24/7 to service her husbands sexual desires.
And in times past they had no choice because marriage was one of the few ways to survive as they could not get equal employment or pay, could not get credit, could not do many things as a woman.
You continue to ignore the facts that 50%, that is half of the workforce in the US consist of women. That women have always worked. If not outside the home during the industrial revolution, it was on the farm where she worked side by side with her husband. It has been a relatively short period in history that women were housewives like you fantasize about in the 1950's.
Where you get the idea that men submit to a wives authority is beyond me. Women earned little money if they were able to get employment, could not open a bank account, get credit, etc. It was legal for a husband to rape his wife until 1962. How do you imagine a husband bowed to his wife's authority.
I get you dont want to be in a relationship, I understand, neither do I. But thats no reason to deny the truth or paint all relationships with a broad brush. Today, no one has to get married to survive, no one even has to work or support anyone else.
I'm only popping in because I thought of an anecdote that actually explains my love of "anecdotal evidence" as opposed to "statistics." (Actually I'm fine with statistics if they come from reputable sources with good sized sample sizes, etc.)
So my Ex is Mr. Tinfoil Hat himself, and he read somewhere that we're in a "sanctuary city" and that in such places, the scary refugees from the Middle East are forming rape gangs in the streets. Literally surrounding women in public, in American cities, and attacking them. He doesn't really leave the house much, but hey, he sees these things on the internet, and since they reinforce things that he believes, they are true. I mentioned in passing that I had plans for an event, which happened to be downtown, and he literally warned me not to go because of these supposed "rape gangs" that his sources said were "on the rise" or a new "trend" of some kind of significance.
I went downtown. I did not see any rape gangs. I don't actually think that they are a thing, at least not anywhere I'm likely to go, if at all.
So for someone to pull some story off some website, that backs up what they're saying, but the source doesn't check out, and I can actually go out my front door and observe otherwise in front of me all over the place in actual, observable reality... Well the evidence I've got might only be meaningful to me, but maybe if others would, I dunno, look up from the screen, get out of their own heads, and interact with reality once in a while? Nah... CRAZY TALK.
Wow, that is wild. He should have known rape is only happening in the campuses of colleges and universities.
In world history men and women struggled together in more or less the same degree. 99% of people were dirt poor. The only men that could dominate or oppress were a few at the top.
Nowadays women base their so called oppression on hyper-successful men men such as CEOs, leaders of nations, billionaires, etc. Meanwhile most men are average and struggle as much as women.
This is true. But the fact remains women did not have the same rights, legal or civil, that men did while they struggled together thus women were dependent on men and their laws for survival.
I also agree with so called oppression. Women at least in this country have never had as much opportunity and freedom.
According to reports by American women studying or working in Japan, Japanese men in those age cohorts tend to be emotionally and socially immature, and misogynistic. It makes me wonder how well their parents role-model a healthy marriage, and how the parents are raising these guys.
It's economics. And since men are traditionally the providers they are seen as failures.
Quote:
The fastest growing suicide demographic is young men. It is now the single biggest killer of men in Japan aged 20-44.
And the evidence suggests these young people are killing themselves because they have lost hope and are incapable of seeking help....
The numbers first began to rise after the Asian financial crisis in 1998. They climbed again after the 2008 worldwide financial crisis.
Experts think those rises are directly linked to the increase in "precarious employment", the practice of employing young people on short-term contracts.
Japan was once known as the land of lifetime employment.
But while many older people still enjoy job security and generous benefits, nearly 40% of young people in Japan are unable to find stable jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a man relies on a woman for food and finances, he does need to give up his freedom.