Do you think that men are oppressed?

[poshsinglemum]

For example; the traditional male role is to go out and work so technically men are oppressed by capitalism. Aren't they? Mabe not as oppressed as us girls are though. Thoughts please.

HerBeatitude Mon 06-Dec-10 17:43:33

"Feminists want to pretend that every single male who ever lived between the beginning of time and the beginning of feminism was an abuser, an oppressor and a all-round asshole. Whereas women were saintly representations of the highest type of human virtue who could do, can do and will never do anything wrong at least in comparison to a man."

yes of course hmm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that men own 90% of the world's wealth.

Nada. Zilch. It's just about us wanting to play make-believe.

Oh- kay.

--

Humankind wasn't born into civilization, it had to forge it from the natural world. Men are stronger than women and that is why we are men set world speed records in swimming and running... The aveage OLYMPIC women's team is comparable to say a male HS team sheerly because they don't have the testosterone.

There were ancient societies which treated women respectfully, like the old Irish. That society was obliterated by more ruthless ones... back in the day... physically women were a liability in most cases, not a boon.

You do know that a female once literally inherited 1/4th of the world's population as subjects? She controlled the wealth of the biggest empire to ever exist in all of history for 61 years. I'm willing to bet she had more money than 99% of people on the planet at the time.

I think some men are oppressed and some aren't, and some women are oppressed and some aren't. It's situation specific.

You didn't answer the point bill. how does men holding 90% of the worlds wealth and power square with the arguments you're trying to make?

One woman was once very rich.

Which wipes out the fact that 90% of wealth is owned by men.

OK.

Not got a very good grasp of constitutional monarchy either.

I suspect Lord Melbourne had more control over all that wealth and certainly over all the policies to do with it, than Queen Victoria did.

She didn't have the right to vote because she was the queen. But if she hadn't been the queen she wouldn't have had the right to vote because she was ... oh why am I bothering.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 06-Dec-10 18:13:45

Love the idea that there is a compromise between having an abortion and not having one. If you wanted to have a child, and your girlfriend wasn't into the idea at that point, how would you feel about her aborting the fetus against your will?

--

I'd leave her and find someone else like a normal human being? Men don't have a choice to abort, the best we can do is use protection, tell the potential mother we aren't interested in having children.

Men don't want the right to abort/not abort, we want the right to make it clear that if you get pregnant it is at your own financial risk should you decide to keep it. Women have any number of options, men are given one: Shut the fuck up and do what we tell you!

You know what, they are your bodies, do what you want with them. Have a baby, don't have a baby, it's your choice. But if you DO want a baby, do you want it with an ex-boyfriend who bailed the second he heard the word "baby" or would ya rather have it with the turkey baster?

Better yet, find a guy who is willing or a woman if that is what you want. Just don't force fatherhood on someone because you're too impatient either for him to settle down or you're worried about your biological clock running out.

HerBeatitude Mon 06-Dec-10 18:30:53

Not got a very good grasp of constitutional monarchy either.

I suspect Lord Melbourne had more control over all that wealth and certainly over all the policies to do with it, than Queen Victoria did.

She didn't have the right to vote because she was the queen. But if she hadn't been the queen she wouldn't have had the right to vote because she was ... oh why am I bothering.

--

She had to give Royal assent to everything from passing laws to declaring war. She had veto power over every single thing the British Empire. What's a vote when you can deny passage of a law by not signing a piece of paper?

BillHicks...

why did you bump this old thread?

She was also the last of the real monarchs, I don't think the royals have actually had to give assent since her reign ended.

DuelingFanjo Mon 06-Dec-10 18:44:57

BillHicks...

why did you bump this old thread?

--

No edit function as far as I'm aware, I'm used to VBB.

and how does men holding 90% of the worlds wealth and power square with the arguments about men being oppressed?

The best women can do is use protection too - if there's a fragment of decency in you you must be able to get that a huge number of unwanted pregnancies come about by accident. Either by neither partner making sufficient effort to prevent it, or by contraceptive failure. In either case, IMO it is the parent's joint responsibility if the baby is born. Having an abortion is not the same as un-getting-pregnant. It's not a simple choice for many, whether for personal reasons, religious ones (and related things like being ostracised from family/church for having an abortion), or practical ones. If you're in the US you must know how hard it is to access abortion in many areas.

So yes it is the woman's choice, within these constraints, to have an abortion if she is in a country that allows it. But not wanting to have an abortion is not the same as forcing some guy to impregnate you against his will. Men don't have to think about whether they would be able to access and go through with an abortion. Don't criticise women for being the ones forced to face this decision. The only sure way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from penetrative sex, and basically keep it in your pants at all times. don't you think a lot of women would like to abdicate the responsibility of being the childbearing sex, especially when you're too young or poor to want kids?

Oookaaay, I now understand this MRA obsession with being forced to father 'it' (that's their child).

They either haven't figured out that they can avoid fatherhood by keeping their dicks in their pants ooooorrrr, as Seth said, they are just mighty pissed off that they don't get to fuck free of all consequence whenever they want.

Poor lambs, there they are with their male entitlement and privilege and all, and yet some unfair fact of life is getting in the way of their pronging.

Cos everyone knows that men explode if they don't get to do some worry free pronging once in a while.

Good 'ole MRAs - someone's go to activate for a man's right to a consequence free prong.

(I thought that's what condoms were invented for...)

but you bumped it, you didn't start it or contribute to it until you bumped it. So why did you decide to bump an old thread when you had no previous posts to edit?

or have you name changed?

Do you understand my question?

One of the very first rows Victoria had with Lord M, was over the constitutional necessity of her remembering that she didn't have the same powers as Charles I.

Do you know that there is no such thing as 100% effective contraception? So therefore any adult who has sex, is responsible for a pregnancy if contraception fails, not jsut one half of the couple?

Or do you think that men shouldn't ahve the right to have access to tehir children when they divorce Bill, seeing as how it's not their bodies that have to bear the child?

What about the child's rights in all of this Bill? D'you give a shit about them?

You know girls, we really must stop this tricking men into fathering children, now Bill has kindly explained to us why it's wrong.
We're all at it aren't we - I have already forced dh to have 3 by getting him drunk and making holes in the condoms with very sharp pins, and now he has to pay for them all. It's just not fair.

But seth everyone knows that men and women are only together because women trap men into having babies and men trick women into everything else being housewives who are stuck at home with a mop and a baby bottle.

Actually, no, sorry got a bit mixed up - that's the sexist knobber MRA point of view.

Regular folk get together cos they like each other and decide that they are having enough of a good time together to have a shot at bringing up some happy children to add to the love and fun. Well, that's the feminist version anyway.

What is actually genuinely sad about BH's view of the world, is the lack of love in it.

DuelingFanjo Mon 06-Dec-10 18:58:12

but you bumped it, you didn't start it or contribute to it until you bumped it. So why did you decide to bump an old thread when you had no previous posts to edit?

or have you name changed?

Do you understand my question?

--

I cut off about half of a post on one of these threads, I remember pasting the other half into another post a few minutes later. What is your point? Look at the thread title.

--

Beachcomber Mon 06-Dec-10 18:57:37

Oookaaay, I now understand this MRA obsession with being forced to father 'it' (that's their child).

They either haven't figured out that they can avoid fatherhood by keeping their dicks in their pants ooooorrrr, as Seth said, they are just mighty pissed off that they don't get to fuck free of all consequence whenever they want.

(I thought that's what condoms were invented for...)

---

I suppose the women who had unprotected sex or forgot the pill are any less guilty or stupid than the men who thought wearing a condom was too uncomfortable?

I also think men who go "Yeah, sure. I'll be the dad" and fuck off a couple years later are scum. That doesn't change the fact that I think women who lie about taking the pill are also scum.

--

HerBeatitude Mon 06-Dec-10 19:00:18

One of the very first rows Victoria had with Lord M, was over the constitutional necessity of her remembering that she didn't have the same powers as Charles I.

Do you know that there is no such thing as 100% effective contraception? So therefore any adult who has sex, is responsible for a pregnancy if contraception fails, not jsut one half of the couple?

Or do you think that men shouldn't ahve the right to have access to tehir children when they divorce Bill, seeing as how it's not their bodies that have to bear the child?

What about the child's rights in all of this Bill? D'you give a shit about them?

---

That is entirely beside the point, if women doesn't WANT to carry a baby to term, it's cool. If women WANTS a baby, it's cool even if the father was a one-night stand or simply isn't interested in fatherhood.

How many people have gotten married simply because a baby has come into the picture? How many of those couples do you think are really happy?

Often "doing the right thing" ends up creating a dysfunctional family where the parents are too young, too immature and too irresponsible to give that child the life they deserve.

I am thinking about the child's rights, who do you think suffers the most because of situations like this? These kids getting churned out by teenager mothers with deadbeat fathers are really copping it hard.

"I cut off about half of a post on one of these threads, I remember pasting the other half into another post a few minutes later. What is your point? Look at the thread title."

My point question is - why did you resurrect an old thread instead of starting a new one?

But you're a deadbeat dad if you get a woman pregnant because of a contraceptive failure (there is a 1% chance of the pill failing for example and is it 1.5% for condoms? And that's not with misuse - that's purely becuase no contraceptive method is completely 100% effective) and then refuse to take moral, emotional and financial responsibility for the child who carries 50% of your genes. And where is the child's right to have a loving, decent father in all this?

Most unplanned pregnancies aren't because of anyone trapping anyone else - they are because of mistakes and contraception failures. If you don't accept that mistakes and contraception failure can happen and be prepared to face the consequences of that mistake or contraception failure, then you should not be fucking anyone who is capable of becoming pregnant. Stick to post-menopausal women or men, or get your sperm stored and get a vasectomy.

Ach well, I know it's all doom and gloom and hard done by and life is shit and love is a trap and brats and men and women pitted against each other in MRAland.

(And they say feminists are humorous and dogmatic!)

But here, in the real world, well, it's quite nice really. Yunno, all of us bow to the pressure of the patriarchy to some extent, but most of us are pretty decent, and just want a happy life. We love our children and our partners and our friends and do what we can to survive with integrity in the patriarchy.

Watch yourself Bill, I'll be quoting Dworkin at ya next to spread the love!

Having said that I do bristle at MRA language;

"kids getting churned out"

"are scum"

"are also scum"

"I'd leave her and find someone else like a normal human being? "

"do you want it with an ex-boyfriend who bailed the second he heard the word "baby" or would ya rather have it with the turkey baster?"

"find out later you were cuckolded"

"If a woman wants to keep an accident, she can."

"I'd just have to import a nice vietnamese girl bypassing any effect feminism might have my reproductive choices."

Bill - your posts, language, analysis and world view are vile. But hey, thanks for demonstrating what an MRA is in all its glory.

Doing the right thing doesn't mean creating dysfunctional families either. It simply means taking responsibility for your own actions. If you fuck a fertile woman, you are taking the chance that you can create a child. No-one thinks that means you have to have a shotgun wedding as you appear to think it means Bill. But it does mean taking responsibility - financial and emotional, and that means supporting the mother of your child in the decision she makes as to whethr to have an abortion or whether to go ahead and ahve the child. She is the only one who can make that choice, because she is the one with the child in her body. And if she cannot abort, then you ahve to accept taht the child you co-created, will exist and live and to decide that you are not going to function as its father - well it's simply contemptible and it's an attack on a child. No decent man would do such a thing.

ok I'll try again cos if he's not gonna get ignored then neither am I....
bill how does men holding 90% of the worlds wealth and power square with the arguments about men being oppressed?
cos that is what this thread is about.