How women are more equal than men

[Neosutra]

like numbers said:
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth
is great but I'll suggest some more

TheHappyMisogynist
pinegrove33
ArgusEyes

another point not mentioned about the legal system, is how women are universally given shorter prison sentences for almost every minor or serious or violent crimes.

Justice is blind my ass.

Few problems with your links:

1. TheHappyMisogynist makes one very good point: You cant hate men for thinking with their dicks and exploit that as well. His debate would be solid and great if he didnt break away into some incorrect and largely generalizing insults to women as well (which only serve to degrade his argument). He states that women are weak, unintelligent, and dependent. My problem is that while women may not be capable of benching the same weight as a man, they are often just as intelligent (though they do approach problems differently, so it seems odd for men), and just as capable. He loses his core message by moving off his path of social genetic behavior and into hate speech.

2. I couldnt listen to the other ones because I instantly assume anyone that says "liberal leftist media" is a moron.

[Marajade]

You want hostage situations, maybe bring up some facts of all the fathers or mothers not happy with the time arrangements for custody of kids....... so they take them to different countries where one party will never see their children again. Cause that ends up being more fair, than one party having children for a extra day or 2 over the other parent.

And the father would probably still have to pay child support~

[miokomioko]

Go read that thread where we got in a big debate about men/women's rights and whatnot regarding "feminists" not arguing for or against the military draft. It went on from there.

[ghanima]

Child Support payments are meant to not punish the children for the divorce of the parents. I'm sure it's hard and expensive as a single parent (male or female) to raise children and have a full time job. Instead of having a stay at home parent or a parent working full time and one working part time, you suddenly have the need for one parent to work full time, provide home/food/etc, provide child care, and pay for daycare. Daycare isn't cheap and you aren't paying for 40 hours of daycare, you're paying for closer to 50 when drop off and pick up is factored into the equation. Depending on the job of the single parent with custody of the kids they might need to be working 60-80 hours a week or two jobs just to pay bills. Of course spending more time at work means higher daycare bills.

I'm sure there's people who exploit it, but the intent is still to not punish the children.

For unmarried women who gets pregnant it's a different story. Ideally all women should be on birth control of some kind to avoid getting pregnant, or they face getting pregnant and having to deal with 1) a child 2) abortion 3) adoption. Since 2 and 3 are usually contested by other members of the family or the future parents, all men should assume that women are not on birth control and they should be prepared to wear a condom or just not have sex. Since obviously "not having sex" is a stupid thing to assume anyone will do there is a rightful assumption that while pregnancy is the "punishment" of the female, child support payments to pay for raising the kid are the "punishment" of the male.

I fail to see how requiring a man to pay to raise the child he helped to make is unfair. The guys 18 minutes of fun is paid for with 18 years of helping pay for the result of that fun.

Obviously I see it this way since I'm a woman. Tagging child support payments until the kid is 18 on the father of a child on a woman he is not married to is an attempt to hit the man with equal responsibility in making a baby.

Granted the objective is not to punish the child for the mistakes of the parents, but not everyone out there will think of it this way and the only thing they will understand is taking a monetary hit.

I don't have any sympathy for unwed mothers or women getting pregnant by deadbeat men, she should have been on birth control or not slept with a deadbeat, and they men should have been using condoms or not sleeping with skeezy women. I also don't have any sympathy for predatory women getting knocked up by 5-6 different men and having a child with each for the child support payments.

The interesting question is what is the percentage of people exploiting the system to those utilizing it for how it was intended.

[Pirian]

Obviously I see it this way since I'm a woman. Tagging child support payments until the kid is 18 on the father of a child on a woman he is not married to is an attempt to hit the man with equal responsibility in making a baby.

What about a father who wants the kids but still has to pay child support? Well unless he gets consent from the mother then he doesn't get to see the child, but he must still pay the child support. He can go to jail for not paying the child support, but nothing happens to the mother for keeping the kids away from him.

I fail to see how requiring a man to pay to raise the child he helped to make is unfair. The guys 18 minutes of fun is paid for with 18 years of helping pay for the result of that fun.

Because sex is completely 1 way.

[Max™]

18 minutes huh, aren't you the mack daddy.


Fun fact: porn movie marathons in three positions jackhammering away are not realistic.

[Pirian]

My girl often quits out before me

[Max™]

Mine starts talking dirty/wants to put her legs over my shoulders (assuming she exists, according to some, lol) when she is ready to quit, I last about 30 seconds after that point.

5 to 10 minutes of straight rigorous intercourse is kinda like running a mile or so, naked, with a chick rubbing against you, gl with the 18~30 minute porno stuff, stud.

[ghanima]

What about a father who wants the kids but still has to pay child support? Well unless he gets consent from the mother then he doesn't get to see the child, but he must still pay the child support. He can go to jail for not paying the child support, but nothing happens to the mother for keeping the kids away from him.

I simplified for a situation where the man didn't want to pay for the child or didn't want responsibility, I probably should have said it but felt I was already in tl;dr territory. Visitation and custody is something else, but it seems the courts are slow to move in getting custody changed. It's rare but not unheard of for the man to take custody and raise a child and get child support for the mother.

At least in the US we have joint custody or instances of the man getting sole or primary custody. Some countries don't allow visitation or even contact from the other parent (usually the father, with the woman taking the children by default) after a divorce.

Because sex is completely 1 way.

This is why I said I have no sympathy for the woman not being on birth control and the man for not using a condom. It's a 2 way street but it's easier for the man to attempt to walk away from the results than the woman, which is how we end up with child support. In the end getting pregnant while not married is a 2 way fuckup: the woman gets to be pregnant and has to raise the kid and the man has to pay to help raise that kid.

I'm really only addressing the payment of child support in the case of divorce or unwed parents. Custody is something else and tends to be heavily skewed in favor of the woman due to the "traditional" role of a woman as a mother and primary caregiver to children.

Mine starts talking dirty/wants to put her legs over my shoulders (assuming she exists, according to some, lol) when she is ready to quit, I last about 30 seconds after that point.

5 to 10 minutes of straight rigorous intercourse is kinda like running a mile or so, naked, with a chick rubbing against you, gl with the 18~30 minute porno stuff, stud.

I liked the 18min/18years because I thought saying 18 seconds of fun would be too insulting to the men reading the thread.

I also like symmetry in numbers.

Personally if my guy wants to go over 5 minutes I start getting bored.

[Sylphet]

god damn people - way to try to make rules out of extreme examples

Child support is the simple concept that both people who make the baby are financially responsible for raising it.

In New York State, child support is determined by a (imo) quite fair system. For one child, the non-custodial parent pays 17% of his or her income and the percentage of the child care and medical expenses that is equal to their proportion of the combined income of both parents (e.g. mom and dad make 100k total, mom makes 60k, dad makes 40k - mom is responsible for 60% of the expenses and dad for 40%). How is this system unfair?

Also, not every woman is out to get everything from her husband when they get divorced. My ex and I got divorced and we have one child. I have custody of her and he sees her every other weekend. He pays me $340 biweekly in child support. I make $40,000/year on my own and I couldn't really make it without the support checks. After the divorce I had custody of my daughter and was still in grad school. Day care in NYC is over 1k/month, my student rent was 1k/month. My take-home salary at the time was $18,300/year. After living on credit cards for a while (really bad idea) I had to choose between taking out student loans to finish up my PhD or to drop out and work so I could support my daughter. I chose to take out student loans - to the tune of $70,000. Since my ex and I were still legally married at the time I did have the right to have him responsible for 50% of that. I chose not to. Why? - because he wasn't making huge amounts of money (~38k/year at the time) and I knew that taking him to the cleaners would likely screw over the possibility of him and I building a good relationship some time down the road for the sake of our daughter.

Now I do still struggle with paying off the credit card debt and I don't even make enough to support myself, my daughter AND pay off my student loans so they are currently in forbearance. However, after a few years now, my ex and I are able to be friendly to each other and communicate/consult each other about out daughter and all in all have as decent a relationship as two ex's can. Our daughter has two parents who love her dearly and who don't hate each other.

Raising children IS far more expensive than most anticipate and both parents should be expected to contribute to that. If one parent makes more money than another they really shouldn't have any issues contributing more to their child's life. I would absolutely love to be able to have the money to send my daughter to lessons and I can't afford it - and I know that if her father could he would do it too.

[Pirian]

I simplified for a situation where the man didn't want to pay for the child or didn't want responsibility, I probably should have said it but felt I was already in tl;dr territory. Visitation and custody is something else, but it seems the courts are slow to move in getting custody changed. It's rare but not unheard of for the man to take custody and raise a child and get child support for the mother.

At least in the US we have joint custody or instances of the man getting sole or primary custody. Some countries don't allow visitation or even contact from the other parent (usually the father, with the woman taking the children by default) after a divorce.

I know you did but I was simply stating a hypothetical that you didn't address and then posed facts.

Yes, in the US we do have joint custody, and when the father is keeping the child from the mother then you bet your ass the courts are all over him. When the mother is keeping the children from the father you can also bet your ass that the courts are not nearly as hasty. The only time the courts will take the children from the mother and give them to the father is when she is a blatant drug/alcohol abuser, and I must stress the word blatant.

This is why I said I have no sympathy for the woman not being on birth control and the man for not using a condom. It's a 2 way street but it's easier for the man to attempt to walk away from the results than the woman, which is how we end up with child support. In the end getting pregnant while not married is a 2 way fuckup: the woman gets to be pregnant and has to raise the kid and the man has to pay to help raise that kid.

Birth-control pill has a less than .01% failure rate with perfect use. Compare this to 3% of condoms. This may seem low but out of having sex 100 times, 3 times that condom failed and she had the possibility of getting pregnant. This is compared to 1 out of 10,000 of perfect use of The Pill (and it is actually lower than this but this is the generally accepted value since it is hard to label something as "perfect").
We know we don't live in a perfect world though so lets assume "typical" use. The failure rate for the pill then jumps up to 5%, but condoms is still triple that at 15%.

It is just as easy for a woman to "walk away" from the pregnancy as it is for a guy. Stop acting like the morning after pill doesn't exist. A father walking away from a woman he got pregnant is just as bad as a pregnant girl taking the pill, because to the father the child might as well be dead. If the mother decides to have the child then that is her decision and her decision alone. The guy cannot tell the woman to terminate the pregnancy, so why should be be held responsible for her decision?

[Pirian]

I knew that taking him to the cleaners would likely screw over the possibility of him and I building a good relationship some time down the road for the sake of our daughter.

Congratulations, you are in the minority though. Hell, I have more respect for you than I do my own sister and it is good to hear and be reminded that there are sensible people out there.

[ghanima]

It is just as easy for a woman to "walk away" from the pregnancy as it is for a guy. Stop acting like the morning after pill doesn't exist. A father walking away from a woman he got pregnant is just as bad as a pregnant girl taking the pill, because to the father the child might as well be dead. If the mother decides to have the child then that is her decision and her decision alone. The guy cannot tell the woman to terminate the pregnancy, so why should be be held responsible for her decision?

I'm not acting like it doesn't exist, I've taken it when I've had less than perfect pill use during the month. Others aren't this pragmatic or think it won't happen to them. Morning after pill is only good for 3 days after unprotected sex, with decreasing effectiveness. It also costs $40 for one dose, isn't available over the counter in all states and is age restricted to buy.

I still think the guy should be partially responsible for the child since since he was a participant in an act that made the woman pregnant. It was (hypothetically) their mutual decision to have sex, if the man didn't want a kid he should have worn a condom or not had sex. Same with the woman. There's no automatic pass because one decides to keep the child and the other decides after the fact they don't want a child. You can't place all the responsibility on the woman for getting pregnant when the man has to be there too.

I can imagine it sucks for the guy to not want a kid and have his sex partner get pregnant and want to keep the kid. My only point is the guy needs to be responsible too, it took both of them to make the kid and by having sex it's a tacit understanding that one possible outcome is the woman gets pregnant and has the kid. Some men will accept their half of the responsibility for making a baby others will just think they can go around with no consequence making babies and walking away because "they didn't want a kid and the woman decided to keep it."

It sucks that the man's only protection is to ensure the woman he is having sex with won't get pregnant is by wearing a condom or not having sex.

[Ryany]

...He pays me $340 biweekly in child support. I make $40,000/year on my own and I couldn't really make it without the support checks. After the divorce I had custody of my daughter and was still in grad school. Day care in NYC is over 1k/month, my student rent was 1k/month. My take-home salary at the time was $18,300/year. After living on credit cards for a while (really bad idea) I had to choose between taking out student loans to finish up my PhD or to drop out and work so I could support my daughter. I chose to take out student loans - to the tune of $70,000. Since my ex and I were still legally married at the time I did have the right to have him responsible for 50% of that. I chose not to. Why? - because he wasn't making huge amounts of money (~38k/year at the time) and I knew that taking him to the cleaners would likely screw over the possibility of him and I building a good relationship some time down the road for the sake of our daughter.

That is nice and all, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But........
340 bi-weekly is about $738.69 per month.
Someone making 38k/year likely takes home around $2500/month.

738.69 is 29.5% of his estimated take home pay.

If I owed $738.69 a month, it would royally fuck me over and I make more than that in a much lower cost of living area. I can't imagine how bad that must be for him.

Raising children IS far more expensive than most anticipate and both parents should be expected to contribute to that. If one parent makes more money than another they really shouldn't have any issues contributing more to their child's life. I would absolutely love to be able to have the money to send my daughter to lessons and I can't afford it - and I know that if her father could he would do it too.

The man has less power in deciding to go through with the baby or not. He loses his vote on the situation once he has sex. He can try to convince the woman one way or another, but she has the final and only vote for abortion. I'm not saying that it was the case in this example, but I'm sure it is in plenty of other situations.

[Sepukku]

Lets not forget the odds go even lower with pill + finishing outside the girl's vag.

Lets not ALSO forget though that some women claim they're dilligently taking their pill regularly and "accidentally" forget to a few times in order to get pregnant in an attempt at getting her man "stuck" to her, for lack of a better term.

[aduidarnenye]

The major reason that women's health issues have come such a long way recently is because until recently a lot of doctor's would write off women's health complaints as "hysteria" or some kind of mental disorder rather than a physical one. I remember that as a young teenager when I complained about a series of migraine headaches my doctor told me to take some Tylenol and sleep it off, but my brother in a similar situation a year or two later got a bunch of brain tests done. That has changed and there was a lot of catch-up to do so it appears that women's health issues are more important than men's.


I think that people really have to come to grips with the fact that it's really not feasible for women to meet the "domestic goddess" ideal anymore. I don't believe that ideal ever existed in reality, just in fantasy. It seems to me that with the industrial revolution all the things that women traditionally offered in terms of production for home was taken away into factory production so women needed something else to do to be productive. Staying at home having babies, cooking, and cleaning is not very fulfilling for a lot of women. If women are going to be satisfied with life they need the opprotunity to do whatever they wish to do, excluding harming others or stopping others from doing what they wish. It also seems to me that most feminists just want equal rights with men, not more rights than men, although I do recognise that there are a few real crazies out there who do want the latter.

My take on it is if men want to protect their rights they really need to just because masculinists and work to protect them, instead of bitching and whining about women gaining rights.

[Sylphet]

That is nice and all, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But........
340 bi-weekly is about $738.69 per month.
Someone making 38k/year likely takes home around $2500/month.

738.69 is 29.5% of his estimated take home pay.

If I owed $738.69 a month, it would royally fuck me over and I make more than that in a much lower cost of living area. I can't imagine how bad that must be for him.


The man has less power in deciding to go through with the baby or not. He loses his vote on the situation once he has sex. He can try to convince the woman one way or another, but she has the final and only vote for abortion. I'm not saying that it was the case in this example, but I'm sure it is in plenty of other situations.

Actually he was making more money by the time that amount was finalized - and I gave him a break from what he should have paying. What you don't realize is what I was shelling out. When I was OUT of grad school I was making $37,000/year paying $1045/month for rent, $1066/month on day care - that ALONE was almost all of my take home pay as you so clearly illustrated. So what do I have to pay for food, gas, heat, electric, credit cards? That's not including spending a couple hundred bucks on clothes for them every few months because they grow out of or destroy everything. Oh yeah your kid wants to go see a movie or play with some toys? There's some more expense. So gonna have to say that someone contributing $740/month to help out with that is NOT asking too much.

And yes the man has less deciding power than the woman in terms of whether or not the baby gets kept. Why? because he doesn't have to go through either abortion or birth. Sorry but that's just biology. Getting an abortion isn't exactly the same as getting a fucking flu shot. If you paid attention in health class you know that having sex w/o a condom or other form of birth control can lead to a baby. If you aren't in a stable committed relationship you should be wearing a fucking condom anyway - ever hear of STDs? Birth control doesn't protect against that.

[HadesChubbs]

Someone said it earlier, and I'll go ahead and say it again.

When you lack certain rights, and you finally "win"/get them, you seek more than your fair portion of the rights, you want special treatment for having to put up with it. Women have this special treatment in more than one area, and wont be giving it up soon.

The only part of this that infuriates me is the military/divorce aspect because of how blatantly flawed it is.

- Divorce: A woman taking 50% is now the standard, but I would LOOOOVE to see some stats on how much of that she "earned" while being married based off some simple criteria (cooking 50% of the time, doing laundry 50% of the time, etc). There are some real shitbag wives out there that get rich for doing nothing.

On the other hand, there are women who contribute 50%+ to the relationship, work hard, and do their best to see that it lasts. This is the only time a woman really deserves 50% of the assets imo, though it will never be a perfect system.

- Military: A woman can simply get pregnant and avoid the whole POINT of her damn job (working __ months at ___ base), yet still get credit/paid? If you get pregnant and serve 3 weeks, then realize ur pregnant... you should be getting no pay, because you just wasted a shit load of company money your first 3 weeks on the job (not including training, of course.. but thats not really "the job").

[Kashka]

It also seems to me that most feminists just want equal rights with men, not more rights than men, although I do recognise that there are a few real crazies out there who do want the latter.

Just to make a slight distinction, usually what they're after is equal status with men, specifically white upper/middle class men. Of course, you can't get equal status without equal rights, but that drive for status is the reason why affirmative action, scholarships to women seeking work in male-dominated fields, and other programs with women's advancement in mind are enacted. Not surprisingly, some of these come off as discriminatory or harmful to some, and some are questionable or debatable or have been presented in such a way as to give undue attention to one viewpoint.

[Mateuns7]

ftfy

For extremely large values of 1.

Bravo.