Shame.

Of course, you are about as ignorant about male-female interactions as you are about history.

It doesn’t cost you anything to love, but you have to love yourself first.

Now then, onto more important matters. I don’t quite see how it is a feminist shaming tactic to encourage you to have the decency to help your girlfriend when she forgets something at the store. So, go on. Do what you are called upon to do. Real men can make a purchase at the grocery store without shame.

I just hope after all this enlightening discussion you will be man enough to go the feminine products aisle when called on to do so.

How strange. Do you also have a problem with the view that every woman may be a useful sexual object for male pleasure, but are always a potential mantrap, alimony, and child support vacuum?

By the way where did you get “socialism is the enlightened few” idea? That’s an oligarchy you are describing, with generally capitalist, elitist views thrown in. Socialism has nothing to do with that. Socialism means workers owning the means of production, instead of being wage slaves to plutocrats.

It is for the enlightened many, not the enlightened few.

And I find it hilarious that “Men’s Rights Activists” portray themselves as Jews in Nazi Germany. That’s even worse than playing the “Hitler Zombie” card.

Only someone with a penknife to grind and very little understanding of history could make such silly remarks.

Before, I merely thought that it was likely you male supremacists would trample over others to escape. After reading your posts I now know for certain that you would – and would pick up a small child to use as a shield. And then when you escaped the carnage – pausing the toss the child back into the theatre, you would barricade the door behind you so that nobody else (especially a woman or a child) can escape.

Thanks for opening my eyes :P

You on the other hand are just a bully.

Get off of this site. Just go.

And take your horrid Godwinian posts with you, vile troll.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

To recap:

1) Wages and selected opportunities remain in the favor of men, over women, so it would not be unreasonable to see the reverse of this when assets are divided and support payments are settled.

2) Not all states do things the same way.

3) Increasingly, with more women pursuing higher paid careers than their husbands, women are required to pay spousal support to their husbands.

4) Hitler never had the fashion sense to totally wear a Find Radiant Joy in Peach Bottom bikini either, so let’s not get carried away.

Wow, what unfounded hate speech; but unsurprisingly a lot of people have just bought into this.

Erika, your statements are no better than someone saying that all feminists are ugly hair lesbian man haters who would sooner shoot a man than look at him.

You are no better, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your sexist and unsubstantiated hate-mongering of a group of people who happen to hold different views to your own.

To all the people who bought what Erika said, I implore you to use your critical thinking instead of succumbing to the emotion invoked in her comments.

Remember that Hitler used similar words and imagery to stir hatred of Jews.

Actually yes you do. A woman can decide to leave a man for another man and make a nice profit from it.

If a man does the same thing he will be poorer for it.

Equality? Or are women “more equal” than men in at least some cases?

The statements below are vastly unfair and unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, but this is a very effective use of dehumanization of people who hold a different point of view. The sad fact is, already we have one woman responding to the hate speak and agreeing with another based on nothing but hateful conjecture.

I really hope there are at least some people on this thread who can see through this, it seems that Men’s Rights Activists have become like Jews in Nazi Germany, and this hateful and disrespectful talk is reminiscent of how Jews were spoken about back then.

“These guys have monumental chips on their shoulders, and they are obviously full of hate toward anyone they believe gets in the way of what they want to do — which is why SPLC includes them as a hate group. And I agree with Erika that these toads would probably trample everyone else into the ground to get away if they found themselves in this situation.”

First you are right about calculated risks. It is very healthy to have respect for our physical universe and to be very discerning in all things.

Second, regarding individuals. You may like to think you are independent from society, but you are far more dependent on the universe than you like to think. The quality of your very food, water, and air depends on how many individuals recognize we are in this together.

Individualism is not a dirty word, but the belief that you are an individual and distinct from society ignores that you received help and assistance from other individuals your entire life, even if you don’t want to recognize it or feel it wasn’t enough. The origination of all things depends on other things.

Regarding marriage, I don’t think it’s necessary at all. I thought I made that comment before. I think what is necessary is to be responsible, loving, and generous in our relationships with others.

And yes, I tend to consider socialism positively.

As I stated before, court settlements take into account the disparity in wages and ability to earn a livelihood and while the system cannot be perfect it strives to make the best possible decisions in each case. Were women and men getting paid equally and having the same opportunity to occupy positions of responsibility equally in the workforce it would go a long way toward leveling out court rulings on a gender basis. In fact, as I mentioned, this is already happening.

In terms of custody courts frequently make use of amicus briefs, i.e. friend of the court findings from psychological and child welfare experts. While not impossible for these views to be informed by stereotypes or antiquated notions that males are less able to care for children than females, they are also experts in their fields and for want of a better system that is what we have.

I am no great believer in “marriage” per se, so perhaps we agree on that. I think the focus on the legal institution (or as is most likely, the religious view on the institution) does a great disservice to humanity because the basis for a stable and loving relationship has nothing to do with the legal status of being married. It has to do with putting the other person’s needs on a level with our own. Some couples who do this never marry and stay together over a lifetime. Other couples who don’t marry and hate each other a short while later. The me-first mindset you seem to be arguing from is part of the latter category.

So I think if we want to discuss the problems with the institution of marriage I would want to go deeper than what happens AFTER the marriage falls apart. I would want to know why marriages are falling apart and I think a lot of it has to do with this “going one’s own way” idea of selfish individualism. Not only on the part of men, by the way, but both men and women who in the most recent generations seem to think very highly of themselves, their own wants and needs, without due consideration to their social obligations in order to make society function as a whole.

Perhaps life has gotten so easy that people like you are drifting into a kind of bovine complacency with the challenges of life. You have food, clothing, and shelter, but lack the ability to face challenges or make sacrifices for the betterment of yourself and your species. So have another potato chip, Wes.

My view is your apathy and individualism will simply make things worse for society over time. Eventually when everybody goes their own way the ability to work together toward common goals becomes impossible. Thus we have a society of selfish, petulant people wanking to porn by themselves and complaining about other people, but not actually having the moral fiber to propose a better system or come up with solutions.

the men who run into trouble in family courts tend to be men who behave very badly – they commit acts of domestic violence, they abuse their children physically and sexually, they sleep around, they trade in their wife for a younger model, etc. The real and only purpose of the male supremacists of the men’s rights movement is to give those men a free pass.

Thinking its anything else is delusional.

But thank you for making the mature decision to not get married. I just hope you are have made the also mature to refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse and do not expect to be able to be able to play around with no risk which is ultimately what the male supremacists really want.

I’m don’t really remember the epitets thing though – by the time I was old enough to know what epitets are, that trend (and most of the 1990s) were past :)

Wes, the fact is that the male supremacists of the men’s rights movement do repeatedly claim that women control everything – especially the legal system. Really, its that society no longer tolerates domestic violence and child abuse. Okay, society does still somewhat tolerate child abuse a few states which still allow corporal punishment in schools and almost all states have laws protects parents who engage in corporal punishment of children. But even there attitutes are changing. The men’s rights bozos do not like that sort of thing

Since I have a lot of contact with the homeless that shan’t be a difficult request. Will you be willing to ask a homeless woman with children how she is faring compared to the homeless man without?

Your comment about war neglects to mention that women have suffered rapes routinely in war besides death, heart attacks, and suicides. So again, it seems, your argument goes limp.

You can take any individual here or there in society and and find an anomaly in any statistic. So let’s look at the more consistent record of large groups of people over large periods of time? The argument is still on the side of male advantage vis-a-vis gender difference in social and political relations, power structures, and mores. This is why the mens rights movement is silly.