Justice for Men and Boys - Isn't this exactly why we need feminism

[wickeddevil]

Heard Justice for Men and Boys Founder Mike Buccanan on Womens Hour earlier today complaining that men pay 72% of all income tax.
Well isn't that because they have more income?

And instead of complaining about the feminist agenda doesn't it demonstrate why we need it?

Vadark - why the thesis on this in three suspenseful parts? Just answer seeker's questions why don't you?

"Does the narrowing pay gap bother you? Do you not think women deserve to be paid the same as men?"

Of course I think wmen should be paid the same as men as long as they are:

doing the same job,
same hours,
same cometency,
same level of delivery.

Come on, you should be getting this by now.

Because he has no point.

A condom is 98% effective. Therefore a man can have sex with 100 women but has to be prepared that 2 may get pregnant. That's not a disadvantage.

So, to remove the fear of those nasty, scheming women, men need to use condoms. It's called responsibility, not discrimination.

FFS

"That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read on mumsnet. And I've been here years."

Go and look for yourself with wider eyes and a broader mind. No blinkered vision and no convenient ignoring tactics. Men are far more objectified these days. As female objectification has been tightened up, male objectification has spiraled.

It's just that it doesn't affect you, only your future Sons or Daughter's Sons...

But that's okay, we'll just choose not to have sons.

Oh no, wait a minute, that's what already happens to thousands of female babies.

Of course I think wmen should be paid the same as men as long as they are:

doing the same job,
same hours,
same cometency,
same level of delivery.

Come on, you should be getting this by now.

Yes - and there's still a pay gap. Same job, same qualifications etc - as documented in the Telegraph article I linked to. You liked the Telegraph earlier (well I think you linked to the letters page upthread...)

Who thinks that vadark's ignoring seeker's question?

I have a feminist quote for that. Courtesy of Radfem hub:

?I needs [sic] to be so unfashionable to have boys and then they would be aborted before seeing the light of day just like millions of girls who are aborted every year and no one sees the harm in that. I think secretly many womon [sic] already abort boys they just keep quiet because of the outcry it would initiate!"

I don't think he's avoiding it so much as being incapable of answering it.

Vadark - threads run out at 1000 posts. Are you timewasting? Come on - what's your answer to seeker's question?

And I don't agree with your phase 2 analysis either.

"Yes but he still has contraception choices"

BUT NOT AS MANY. It's really quite a straightforward fact that only required a yes or no.

"Yes he can - if he really wants to. There was a thread on here recently where a woman had sex with a man and then got pregnant, then he told her he's 'sabotaged' the condom."

Ok, so let's play by your rules shall we and introduce all the extreme cases that sit outside of the norm and this thread will be far simpler! Not!

"3. He has to entirely rely on her word if she's using a discreet method.

That is entirely up to him - he has contraceptive methods available to him if he is in any doubt. It's 50-50."

Your brain is seriously screwed in terms of logic. What you just said there is like me responding to your sabotaged condom with: well, it's her fault; she could have used a femidom.

My point is that some of her socially acceptable forms of contraceptive are discreet and thus open for her to potentially abuse her power of trust. He can't do that anywhere near as easily.

As female objectification has been tightened up, Erm when did this happen?

Vadark - men have contraceptive choices. So do women. None of them are 100%. Were you planning on getting to point any time soon?

Vadark, are you campaigning for research into a male contraceptive pill? Is that what this is all about?

Cos I would support that.

No, I don't vadark has a point. Except that women are bad.

Shall we have while we're waiting?

Is this about jealousy ? Men can't give birth so they want to exercise control in getting a woman pregnant, control whether they continue with a pregnancy ?

Hmmmmm

I'd best not, I'm still queasy from licking out the bowls from seeker's cupcake extravaganza.

I'm beginning to wonder Blistory. SGB posted as much on another thread. Actually I might copy her post over here. Hope she doesn't mind.

"A condom is 98% effective. Therefore a man can have sex with 100 women but has to be prepared that 2 may get pregnant. That's not a disadvantage. "

It is if he didn't want a baby and she doesn't want an abortion so he has to pay for it against his wishes!

"So, to remove the fear of those nasty, scheming women, men need to use condoms. It's called responsibility, not discrimination."

But what about when he's been assured by his partner that she's on the pill AND has a coil and she wants to feel the intimacy even more because she loves him so much. So he takes it off and wham-bam, next thing he knows, she's had a kid and left him. Happens quite often you know. I'm not wrong.

She has more choices and more control in Phase 1. And he is put at more risk.

I would rather be a woman and have more control like this than a man who has less control and is open to trickery and deceit.

The fault of the condom surely? It's not like the man shouldn't be aware of the failure rate of condoms. That's why he should be responsible for any accidental pregnancy.

Bloody hell, it IS about control and jealousy. Tricked into taking a condom off ? I may just have heard it all now.