~ archived since 2018 ~

Wow, women were so much more beautiful before feminism destroyed the role of the father

MrStinkybutt

December 4, 2011

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.retronaut.co/2011/09/high-school-fashions-1969/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Wow, women were so much more beautiful before feminism destroyed the role of the father
Author	MrStinkybutt
Upvotes	0
Comments	36
Date	December 4, 2011 11:02 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/mznx3/wow_women_were_so_much_more_beautiful_before/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/wow-women-were-so-much-more-beautiful-before.1030987 https://theredarchive.com/post/1030987

Comments

[–]MrNob 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStinkybutt[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStinkybutt[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bohowannabe 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redtheda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]NBRA -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStinkybutt[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]MrStinkybutt[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStinkybutt[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Demonspawn -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Your first statement you have made before and yet never justified. Why don't you try making arguments instead of statements? You goad people by saying things like "anyone with a brain", yet you never use yours to actually say something worthwhile.

As Sigi1 pointed out elsewhere, it isn't leftist MRAs that are as bad as feminists, it is traditionalists - and the reason is because their views are ideological, not logical.

The concept of equal rights stands on firm philosophical grounds - a right is a just claim, something due to anyone equally, independent of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Democracies are built on the concept of rights, and doing away with that concept challenges the ideals of the democracy to its core. The only arguable point is what the society can collectively establish are "rights".

Liberty is one "right" that western cultures have established - a person has the right to freedom of personal choice. This includes choice to wear clothing. A person's "right" is undeniable, under the law, only up until the exercizing of that right interferes with another person's "rights". At no time does the dress of modern women interfere with other people's rights. And to make that claim is to show your ignorance, and declare to everyone else that you are challenging freedom, that you are challenging morality, and that you are challenging ethics.

So go ahead - keep making your claims, and keep challenging us "leftist MRAs", because you merely out yourself as amoral, and unethical.

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ok then ig, let's go back to our last discussion which you conveniently bowed out of:

You think that men and women can be made equal, even though women have less responsibilities and a greater vote. And then, you somehow imagine that women are just going to vote themselves greater responsibility.

You want grounds? How about the grounds you keep ignoring?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/

Abstract: In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland''s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women''s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

Oh, but you contend that a larger government isn't a problem, ignoring all the goddamn evidence that a welfare state doesn't destroy a nation.

Giving women the same rights as men (without enforcing the same responsibilities) does bring about the collapse of society.

Possibly, though we won't know until it does.

Rome, Babylon. "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin. But you somehow think that women are just going to vote themselves greater responsibilities because you're a pie in the sky dreamer who has no connection with reality. You think rights come before responsibilities because you've lived in academia and never had any real responsibilities in your life. You have no clue how the real world works.

So what facts do you have that men and women can be equal given their obvious differences?

You don't have shit and you know it. You have no grounds, you have no facts, and the reason why is because all the facts are counter to your beliefs... but you'll use the excuse that "they don't fit the same standards that we give physics" when they don't say what you want but ignore those constraints when they do fit what you want.

I'll say it again, because you ignored it in our last debate: "Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument."

You still haven't even offered an argument towards that.

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is what stands for an argument? Alright, I will concede that this is likely the best that you can do.

You think that men and women can be made equal, even though women have less responsibilities and a greater vote.

Women do have fewer responsibilities, yes. Each female has the same vote as each male, so that is a ridiculous notion. The nation's government is meant to represent the interests of the majority of the people, if the majority happens to be female then you are asking the government to act against the majority - that is oppression at its finest.

And then, you somehow imagine that women are just going to vote themselves greater responsibility.

At one point, men voted for women to be recognized as having the same rights as men. As evidenced by the number of women who have acknowledged and supported the MRM, it is clear that at least some women are willing to do the same. The problem is some of the teachings of feminism, but that can be argued against successfully, as we have seen.

Abstract: In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland''s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women''s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

Social programs aren't bad things. Let us compare low-socialized countries to higher-socialized countries for a moment... USA? Kinda in the shitter right now, in huge part due to the lack of social programs and government oversight. Health care spending per incident is drastically higher than in any other country. Corruption is rampant in every level of corporations and government. Many compare the economic situation in the USA to some of the worst nations in Africa. For higher-socialized countries - Canada, Sweden, much of the rest of Europe - these countries have been able to push through the current economic crisis much more successfully than the USA (evidenced by unemployment rates, for example).

But none-the-less, you are correct - a society with a large portion of female voters is more likely to vote in social programs. But you have not established that this is a bad thing.

Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

"Since the dawn of time, this has been an important issue." Your opening sentence lacks merit, because it serves no purpose to the rest of the paragraph. Whether or not academics are concerned with the rise in government spending, the fact of the matter is that government spending was on the rise for a long period and is now, generally, on the decline - except in military spending, which just keeps increasing in most countries.

It is a good thing you mentioned Roosevelt's full name - if you hadn't, I wouldn't have had any idea who you were talking about! But I digress... Your final two sentences are claims you are making but you haven't provided evidence. I have told you before that correlation is not causation, and you just make yourself look ignorant every time you try to use the same tired rhetoric.

Government spending in many countries increased post WWI, both in countries that already had women's suffrage and in countries that didn't. In the US, women's suffrage came in 1920. 15ish years later, he introduced his plan. Boy, that is some coincidence - it is like they happened at exactly the same time! Regardless, you haven't proven this point, you are asserting it. And if you assert something without evidence or argument, then I am going to dismiss it without evidence or argument - just as I would dismiss your assertion for the existence of God, the FSM, unicorns or bigfoot, should you choose to do so.

Oh, but you contend that a larger government isn't a problem, ignoring all the goddamn evidence that a welfare state doesn't destroy a nation.

Where is this evidence you assume I am ignoring? As I wrote earlier, socialized countries are more capable of surviving economic crises created by non-socialized countries. Now, which of the two policies destroys nations? Riiiiiight. I get it now. The only 'destruction' that occurs is the loss of the way of life that you prefer, not the loss of anything worthwhile. (Oh, and just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume that the sentence I quoted had a mistake and you weren't trying to prove my point.)

Giving women the same rights as men (without enforcing the same responsibilities) does bring about the collapse of society.

I very much wish to have equal responsibilities and equal rights. That is why I am pro-paternity leave. It is also why I oppose feminist arguments about the wage gap - men perform more dangerous, labourous jobs which explains the difference in consolidated income between the genders. This is something that can be addressed from my point of view, without the extremes of sending women back to the kitchen.

Rome, Babylon.

Are you talking about Babylon in mythology? Are you really going to argue with mythology? While we are at it, there is this great story about Zeus that I know that is very appropriate to what we are talking about!

But you somehow think that women are just going to vote themselves greater responsibilities because you're a pie in the sky dreamer who has no connection with reality. You think rights come before responsibilities because you've lived in academia and never had any real responsibilities in your life. You have no clue how the real world works.

Ad hominem arguments don't really work for you here. I accused you of being incapable of formulating a proper argument, and you merely continue to prove me right. Good job. And then you follow it with a straw man argument! Well done! You really have no idea about my life, and it seems petty for you to try to go there. If you want to try to expand on this, I would be willing to entertain it, but none-the-less you are arguing for the reason for my point of view based on a stereotype of what you know of my life. Do you need me to hand hold you through understanding why that isn't a valid argument or can you understand it on your own?

So what facts do you have that men and women can be equal given their obvious differences?

You continue to use the term "equal" as in "identical", and ignore the idea of "equal rights". You continue to skirt around the issue of what a "right" is, and why you feel that men should have more or different rights than women, and you also have yet to even establish what rights you believe that men and women should have. I am arguing based on definitions. If something is a "right", then it is universal to all beings that can be called "people". That is the definition I am asserting as to what a "right" is. The two genders may have different privileges, but they should have equal rights. Rights are defended by the entire society, through the government, where as privileges either shouldn't be or aren't (depending on the privilege and the society).

Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument.

That is one of the things that we are working on here. Simply because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't, won't or shouldn't. I didn't respond to it before because it isn't really an issue worth responding to. As far as I am concerned, military service should be gender neutral. I also feel that wages should compensate for the difficulties of the job, and that is a valid discriminator between equality of outcomes. If women choose not to involve themselves in difficult jobs, then I see no reason why consolidated wages should be equal.

[–]Demonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That is one of the things that we are working on here. Simply because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't, won't or shouldn't.

Oh.. wait.. what happened to that whole "requiring proof" thing you espouse? Even though YOU ADMITTED it's never happened, you're willing to accept that it can without any proof at all.

You're nothing more than a big ball of conformation bias. Some day when you grow up, you'll think differently. Don't worry, we traditionalists won't hold it against you too much.

ETA: The thing here, ig, is that you think I need to prove traditionalism. I don't. It worked. It obviously worked or else we wouldn't be here. You are the one who has to prove that liberalism can work, and your only argument is "just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't happen!"

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link