Feminist Andrew Yang says Men who work to feed, house, and pamper their wives are stealing labor

FeminismMustGo · 2019-11-26T10:07:38+00:00

 Imagine being so anti-male that you completely dismiss the fact that everything a person is living off is provided by a man out of love for the...

[–]Lethn 59 points60 points61 points 6 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bloodshot_eyes 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bibkel 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LokisDawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bibkel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ventner 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tragedyfish 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ventner 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No it will cause real and actual harm to Men's Rights by spreading Feminist propaganda.

He outright lied:

This legacy persists today not only in the opportunities afforded to people, but also in the compensation people receive for performing the same work.

This is untrue, women do not get paid less for the same work. Lying about Men making them out to be the privileged beneficiaries of sexism makes their issues easy to ignore.

He also pretends it's a real issue, this prevents other real issues from being addressed:

The federal government must do more to ensure that anyone performing the same work in substantially similar situations should receive equal pay.

Who cares about Male Suicide when a totally fake issue exists! I mean Men are all privileged and evil oppressors anyway right?

This is part of the "Men aren't people, they're oppressors" narrative.

[–]trumpean 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]w1g2 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paid labor occurs when someone directly pays you for the work you perform for them, usually work you are paying them to do so you don't have to. This is not the case with a husband and wife who agree to have the wife stay home to raise the kids. She is doing work she must do instead of paying someone else to do it and she shares the money he earns.

Most women control the money in a relationship because they are the ones making the financial decisions. Going to the store, ordering things on Amazon, choosing where to live, what type of house to live in, what type of car for the family, clothes for everyone, etc. All of these are usually decided typically by the woman.

"At home, the majority of women (90 percent) still control the family's purse strings, from stocking up on household items to having the final say on home and car purchases and health care."

Source

Women certainly aren't acting as if they must cower to their financial dependency on men, considering that most women have deliberately paired with a man who earns more than them whether they work or not.

Most women aren't going to stick with an abusive partner because of lack of finances since every woman knows she can get child support from the father in a divorce, especially if she makes significantly less than him. If she makes equal or higher than him, she runs the risk of paying child support or alimony to him, a situation many women consider to be the truly abusive one.

A woman is making a choice when she chooses to raise her children herself instead of paying someone else to do it. She might run the risk of going years out of her career which might make it tough to get back into the job market, but it's her own choice to make.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]logic_iz_2_hard 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker43 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PlatinumBeetle 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And regardless of whether they are also working they reached this agreement mutually are you saying women are stupid and spineless? So much so that they can't communicate with their partners?

Women choose to earn less because they take lower paying easier careers, refuse to take dangerous jobs, work less hours, and drop out of the workforce to stay at home.

The Study you cited merely shows that women who enter a committed relationship tend to work less, that's a perk of being in a relationship.

Keep in mind that Men not only work more hours than women (thus the earnings gap women earn less because they work less) but they also do chores at home - particularly the chores that women hate most. I don't know any man who doesn't have a "Honey-Do" list of their partners demands, ranging from plumbing to floor replacement to lawn care.

Your wildy subjective and ascientific study also doesn't account for the fact that men and women think of chores differently, i.e. Men may not view a task as a chore while women do.

Nothing can be gleaned from the study because the study has literally zero rigor.

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While part of the pay gap can be explained by a discrepancy in working hours (as any worthy study on the pay gap will note), women are still getting paid less to do the same job.

Part is 11 cents of the 20 cents or about 50%.

That means that at least 50% of the pay gap is an outright lie.

Women also choose part-time not full time work, part time jobs earn less than full time jobs. Women have the highest voluntary part time rate in every single racial group.

I want you to memorize that word: VOLUNTARY

Women also take less night shift hours

Women are also less willing to re-locate

Men are nearly twice as likely as women to move for promotion (54% as opposed to 31%), for staff development (29% versus 15%) or to answer a skills shortage (28% versus 16%).

Women also job hop more than men, giving them shorter periods of experience.

Additionally women say that flexibility not earnings is more important to them

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the women we surveyed cite flexible work arrangements as being either extremely or very important to them. In fact, by a considerable margin, highly qualified women find flexibility more important than compensation; only 42 percent say that "earning a lot of money" is an important motivator.

There are thousands of factors, literally thousands of other factors, however because you hate men and want them to be the villain you jump straight to discrimination.

The study I cited previously does not show that woman work less, simply that they're not getting paid for all of their work

Again this is sexist, bigoted, and hateful.

You're saying that Men are slave drivers who hate women, that they're greedy and cruel.

Women get the following for their "Unpaid" work:

- Free Health Insurance through their partner

- Free Rent and No Mortgage payments.

- Free and infinite food.

- Free and infinite utilities.

- Nearly all of of the consumer spending power of the household.

A lot of perks for being "unpaid" woe is poor innocent perfect women! If only those greedy disgusting men would do more than just work 40-80 hours and give them all of their basic needs while attempting to meet their every request.

Nope you're right, Men don't love women, Men don't live their lives trying to protect them, care for them, and give them things to make them happy - they're just evil! Everything men do is worthless so Men should just kill themselves right? But not women, women are perfect!

How about assuming men are the physical embodiment of fucking satan we presume they have some good in them?

You say that I cited a wildly subjective and ascientific study

You did, why can't women say they have 1,000,000 hours of chores in your list, are you insinuating that women and men are not different and that all chores all equal and that all people consider things chores equally?

That's a dishonest approach. Almost as dishonest as saying there's a wage gap of 20 cents when you admit 50% of that is just because women don't work as much.

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So the argument is not whether or not the pay gap exists, it's just how bad it is?
Also, only 18% of parents decide to stay at home, a rising number of those being dads. And those dads would be included when I cite unpaid labor.
As far as the perks you mention (free health insurance, free rent, free food, etc.), wouldn't the other 78% of working spouses be contributing to these costs? I would hope equally. It seems a bit sexist to presume that in a household of two working people, both wouldn't contribute an equal share of their income to pay for amenities.
I don't know where you've gotten the impression that I believe that "men are slave drivers who hate women, that they're greedy and cruel". I don't believe any of those things. I think whatever role bias plays in the pay gap, however big or small, is largely not conscious.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the argument is not whether or not the pay gap exists, it's just how bad it is?

No it's zero percent, there is zero evidence that there's any discrimination related gap. I was merely pointing out that you're at least 51% a fucking liar.

As far as the perks you mention (free health insurance, free rent, free food, etc.), wouldn't the other 78% of working spouses be contributing to these costs?

Those spouses aren't spending 8 hours at home per day are they. Those are also often women who work part time and are still primarily living off their husbands. Women in these situations aren't living like they make $30,000 they're living like they make that plus what their partner makes.

I don't know where you've gotten the impression that I believe that "men are slave drivers who hate women, that they're greedy and cruel". I don't believe any of those things. I think whatever role bias plays in the pay gap, however big or small, is largely not conscious.

There is no gap, there is only choice, and all of women's choices favor a low work environment.

Go watch Christina Hoff Sommers or google the near infinite numbers of refutation.

The number of variables you aren't accounting for is literally infinite.

[–]valenin 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[+]ShirleyMcGoogs -11 points-10 points-9 points 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]ShirleyMcGoogs -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you think more men would stay at home if the woman they were married to was able to be an equally effective breadwinner for the family, instead of earning between 78%-82% of what a man makes?

They'd have to prove their efficiency first.

Men who earn a lot of money have to make major sacrifices. In jobs that pay extremely well to live through their ways and means, sometimes even beyond if they're lucky, it comes with longer hours, overtime, and less vacation days.

Are these women willing to put up with the necessary sacrifices demanded of them in the kind highly competitive workplaces men often have no choice but to endure?

Same thing I ask of women lamenting the CEO gender gap. Like they imagine those Male CEOs don't have to struggle with pulling the additional weight that goes with such a position.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

👏👏👏 LISTEN UP 👏👏👏
The wage gap is due to Women's Choices not due to discrimination.

If you want women to earn as much as a man makes they need to make more financially driven choices.

No one with an IQ above room temperature thinks the Wage Gap is legitimate.

There are literally tens of thousands of sources that have debunked this nonsense.

https://fee.org/articles/the-equal-pay-myth-that-just-wont-die/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/

https://www.aei.org/articles/equal-pay-day-celebrates-a-tiresome-myth-that-just-wont-die/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wage-gap_b_2073804

78%-82%

As for your percentage that is extremely dishonest as that is literally just the median comparison between earnings, your numbers don't account for hours worked, occupation, degree, experience in the field, willingness to relocate, willingness to take overnight shifts, willingness to take overtime, or any of the hundreds of other factors.

It's literally the most dishonest form the statisitic can be provided in as you are comparing Petroleum Engineers to Veterinary Assistants.

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Your first source, cited from The Foundation for Economic Education, is a libertarian think-tank, therefore would have an incentive to oppose any laws pertaining to adjusting pay scales to make them more equal. Also, the article, if you read it instead of just copying and pasting it, is an editorial and not an academic study. It does not account for factors such as industries like sales/finance where men and women can both work equally hard, produce the same results/bring in the same amount of sales, and yet men are still paid more/earn a greater percentage of commissions than females for the exact same work, same profits and same hours.
Your second source, not an academic study, but an opinion piece that mostly seems aimed at knocking Hilary Clinton's campaign more than it does provide any factual basis for the myth of the gender gap. Your third source, from The American Enterprise Institute, is from a notably conservative think-tank. Also an opinion piece, it provides no sources. The data it does provide, such as "roughly 80% of engineering and computer science majors are male" can be addressed through academic papers such as this which show how much more difficult it can be to advance in those fields as a woman.
Hey look, a huffpost source! Same issues as previously stated. It is an opinion piece with no sources.

The bias cited in actual studies that examine this issue find systemic bias within the same jobs/career scenarios.

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474

Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715

A change in the audition procedures of symphony orchestras--adoption of "blind" auditions with a "screen" to conceal the candidate's identity from the jury--provides a test for sex-biased hiring. Using data from actual auditions, in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases the probability a woman will be advanced and hired.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416668154

We sent applications from fictitious students at selective but non-elite law schools to 316 law firm offices in 14 cities, randomly assigning signals of social class background and gender to otherwise identical résumés. Higher-class male applicants received significantly more callbacks than did higher-class women, lower-class women, and lower-class men.

https://news.yale.edu/2012/09/24/scientists-not-immune-gender-bias-yale-study-shows

Yale University researchers asked 127 scientists to review a job application of identically qualified male and female students and found that the faculty members – both men and women – consistently scored a male candidate higher on a number of criteria such as competency and were more likely to hire the male.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Your first source, cited from The Foundation for Economic Education, is a libertarian think-tank, therefore would have an incentive to oppose any laws pertaining to adjusting pay scales to make them more equal

Two can play that game. If you're going to dismiss anyone based on ideology then let's actually dismiss all your feminist papers! Let's begin.

----------------------------------------------------

All your sources are from Feminist\Left-Wing sources meaning they have a hatred of Men and Boys and endorse Feminist ideology. Therefore all your sources are worthless.

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474

This was written by feminists and edited by devout Feminism Shirley Tilghman.

Your next study was from Claudia Goldin a Feminist. The list continues like this.

Christina Hoff Sommers also called out this author for her dubious studies

Your next study was from Feminist "researcher" (an oxymoron I know) Lauren Rivera.

Your yale link is not even a scientific link and contains no link to the study it's a cringey hit piece that literally says "Naaaaaaaah". Yale is of course a leftist institution, so it's completely worthless.

From your first study everything was wildly cherry picked and dishonest:

Additionally, the fact that faculty participants reported liking the female more than the male student further underscores the point that our results likely do not reflect faculty members’ overt hostility toward women

So faculty actually have biases toward women not men.

----------------------------------------------------

Regardless you're completely wrong.

Additionally studies prove that there is a 2 to 1 hiring bonus in favor of women:

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full

The under representation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

All of your papers set out with an objective, and had no intention of stopping until they proved it, that's not science that's politics.

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

PNAS is not writing those papers, Feminists are.

If libertarians aren't allowed to have studies then neither are feminists as Feminists vehemently hate men.

You ignored my paper showing that Women are the 2:1 favorites, then again of course you did, you only care about Feminist bigots rushing to find the "MAN BAD" conclusion you look for.

Your first article is *shock and awe* written by feminists, it also uses feminist buzzwords:

A more nuanced understanding of difference can be found through “intersectionality,”

The second article is pure unscientific nonsense:

They measured students’ attitudes toward risk-taking through a lottery-style game

This in no way represents a real world scenario, the kids now there are no consequences to losing a game. Positing them a life and death scenario would likely yield a very different result.

Your third study is equal meaningless as they fudge the data to hide frequency:

For the first dataset, we collected archival data from websites of the top 50 colleges and universities in the United States (as documented by US News and World Report, 2013–2014) to identify all 3,652 speakers who gave a talk in one of six disciplines (biology, bioengineering, history, psychology, sociology, and political science) (21). Each speaker was only included one time in our dataset to control for speakers who gave more than one talk. In Table 1, we present and compare the percentages of available female and male speakers (broken down by both discipline and rank) who actually gave talks.

So if there were an equal number of male/female speeches they just throw that fact out the window.

Likewise, they in no way address the hows/whys of this, they just say "Men do this more and therefore it's bad!". That's not particularly meaningful.

Your final link is equally worthless (and again written by feminists like the rest) and focuses only on the use of pronouns, which has never been shown to have any meaningful effect on women's participation (and why would it unless women were mentally feeble?) the report claims wrongly that :

Gender disparities were visible in committee evaluations of the applicants, specifically in the prioritization of applicants’ quality as a researcher (but not the quality of their research proposals)

In essence they're claiming it's sexist to favor Albert Einsteins less well written English over a less qualified woman's well written and flowery proposal.

How feministy.

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]auMatech 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LokisDawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just don't get how one instant you can say "I care about men" and then the next "Now here's why men are using women like slaves and how men working to provide for women means nothing". I guess the possibility of "Free money" is too tempting to them, I mean who cares about Human Rights and Human Dignity when you can get stuff from other people?

Clearly the real MRA stance is that we should take a government that:

Discriminates against men
Throws men in jail for 60% longer sentences.
Is primarily funded by Men.
Primarily gives aid to women.

And just give it universal power, because the real problem isn't that the government is gynocentric, no the best solution is to take even more money from the men who earn it and give it to women.

How you can claim you care about Mens Rights and then take this stance is beyond me, I think we're being brigaded by the "yang gang" the points on this post are bouncing around like crazy.

[–]MIW100 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MIW100 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilLothar 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bigbossman123 -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TerminusStop 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a really naive and and incomplete take

Of course, everyone who isn't you is naive and incomplete, but not you! You're the flawless mature realist right? Oh grace us wise one!

With huge childcare costs, sometimes it’s not a choice.

There's always the choice of who stays home not to mention the choice of whether or not you have children.

There's thousands of choices leading up this situation and nearly all of them are in the Woman's hands.

There shouldn’t be consequences for raising kids, especially considering the well documented benefits kids recieve from having a stay at home parent.

Talk about naive and incomplete, there are always consequences for everything you do. Yeah the father who gets less time with his kids sacrifice nothing, because who cares about Men right?

Having children means you probably won't get to travel for example, the solution? Get over it or don't have kids, you're a grown adult.

It’s better for society to incentivize having a stay at home parent.

Oh yay, now we can be $100 Trillion in debt!

Let's put that up there with the rest of the "Free" things the American Taxpayer (primarily Men as women are a net drain on society, they take more in benefits then they pay in taxes) will magically pay for!

Maybe we'll see if our national debt can hit $1 Quadrillion before the overwhelming majority of Men have been taxed into poverty!

[–]auMatech 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgrsentinel 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilLothar 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ninja_deli 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pathfinder24 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdolfWilks 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i'm very confused by this post. how is he saying that at all?

It's very alarming that you're confused, but I'll answer anyways.

He's saying women provide "Free" labor:

Here's a non-exhaustive list of everything women get from their husbands while they do their alleged "Free" labor.

Free Housing. They get free housing - most likely in a home they picked.
Free Utilities - They get infinite consumption of Power, Water, etc. with no cost.
Free Food - They get free food which they don't pay for of their proffered type.
Free Health Insurance - If the husband has insurance his spouse gets it as well.
Essentially limitless spending of their partners money - Women spend nearly all the money of the household, meaning they get to make nearly all the decisions about brands and products.

To look at this and say Men are getting "Free" labor implies Men are using Women as slaves. That's why the article he links calls it "Payback" he's saying women OWE men because providing them absolute comfort and seeking to make them happy wasn't enough. It is sexist and bigoted to dismiss the contributions of Men in the lives of their wives and children, if Men didn't provide the necessities these women live off there would be no "labor" for them to do. Women cannot be "Homemakers" without the home that Men paid for, that men maintain, that men keep powered.

He's saying women do the "Heavy Lifting"

If women are doing the "heavy lifting" then what are the men doing? I suppose working 40-80 hours a week and being several times more likely to die at work isn't "Heavy Lifting" to Yang, but to most Men and Women it is.

and anti male? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahYnvp34MqA

He mentions none of the causes of why Men and Boys are like that, he sweeps them under the rug and promotes Feminism (a toxic manhating ideology) as the solution, this is problematic as Feminism is the cause for most of these issues and for the issues on which it is not the cause it is the largest exacerbating factor.

Andrew Yang doesn't "help" men anymore than fake domestic violence programs that shame and belittle men once they get funding "help" men.

Meanwhile on his twitter and his website he lies about men, dismisses them, and treats them as less than human.

How does belittling the contributions of men and pushing narrative lies like the Wage Gap help men who need it? How does it help men come forward when they want to say "Hey I'm actually giving a lot, and I don't think of my wife as free labor, I love her." only to be shouted down as "misogynists". How does it help men who say they're victims of discrimination when Yang says they're privileged oppressors who benefit from the "Wage Gap"?

Actions speak louder than words and this guy has a history of being two-faced towards men. He wants your vote but he doesn't want your happiness.

[+]AdolfWilks -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i don't even know where to begin with this.

personally if you view a relationship as a business transaction your heads in the wrong place.

there is no implication of slavery in that comment.

There is no dismissal of a primary wage earner.

The comment is the feminist angle for a ubi. it is not the only angle. it helps everyone and that just so happens to include women.

And to say feminism is toxic and man hating is just strange to me. there are certainly misandrists who's only message to empower women is to tear down men but those are in the minority.

Now as a man growing up i have to agree with him that we have a toxic form of masculinity in this country. i was always expected to just take hits. i wasn't allowed to rant or vent or talk about my problems.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions to support your view.

I'm sure you have a lot of problems, maybe feel like your being left behind in today's world. I get it, in the modern media and politics no one has pushed forward a positive message for men.

The answer isn't hate, i hated, and i hated. Hating didn't make my life better, Hate didn't bring me up it only brought me down.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i don't even know where to begin with this.

First how about a disclaimer: You rampantly post in the Yang subbreddit and shill all across reddit for his policies.

That's an honest place to start.

personally if you view a relationship as a business transaction your heads in the wrong place.

First of all I don't view it as a business transaction, I view at as sacrifices loving husbands and wives make for each other, people seeking to compliment each other and working to be more complete.

Yang views it as a transaction, but he doesn't view men as "giving" anything thus why he says women are giving it for "Free". The labor men provide is worthless to Andrew Yang.

I'd say that demanding "payback" as the article Yang shared does is very dishonest, very hurtful, and very business like, interesting how you'll say I'm calling it a "Business Transaction" but dismiss this behavior when the guy whose cult you're in does it in plain sight.

there is no implication of slavery in that comment.

Yeah Free Labor comes from nowhere, I forgot. In order for labor to be "Free" you must get nothing in exchange, he is saying clear as day that men give nothing to their wives.

A person who works for no benefit is a slave, whether or not they are a willing slave is another issue entirely. Women are not slaves they are very much provided for by the men who love them.

There is no dismissal of a primary wage earner.

Again, I know you're in a cult, but read the image. The labor isn't free, men are selfless, they give and provide, and protect. Andrew Yang dismisses these contributions as nothing, they're not "Heavy Lifting" they're not "Labor" to him.

The comment is the feminist angle for a ubi. it is not the only angle. it helps everyone and that just so happens to include women.

Feminism is a hate movement that has fought against Equal Custody, against Alimony Reform, against Due Process. Any candidate who pushes the anti-male feminist narrative cannot be trusted to actually help men.

And to say feminism is toxic and man hating is just strange to me. there are certainly misandrists who's only message to empower women is to tear down men but those are in the minority.

Feminists opposed Equal Custody.

Feminists opposed Alimony Reform.

Feminists undermine Due Process.

Feminists got Male Victims of DV thrown in prison via the Duluth Model.

I don't think you're a real MensRights poster, I think you're an Andrew Yang shill who's spreading propaganda throughout the website. How you can be in this forum and not see the way Feminism hurts Men and Boys is beyond me.

Feminism is an ideology one based on the idea that Men and Boys are subhuman "Oppressors" and Women and Girls are innocent victims - there's no room for equality there.

Now as a man growing up i have to agree with him that we have a toxic form of masculinity in this country. i was always expected to just take hits. i wasn't allowed to rant or vent or talk about my problems.

This exists because Feminism opposes Men's Rights, Feminists constantly fight against men demanding action, that's why they disrupt events about Men:

Feminists bang pots and pans to silence MRA Janice Fiamengo

Feminists pull firealarm to silence discussion on Men's Issues

Feminists attack men outside Warren Farell panel on Men's Issues

Feminism is a hate movement.

Masculinity is not toxic anymore than Femininity is toxic, Masculinity is perfect as it is, individuals vary and all behaviors including repressing emotions are present in both genders.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions to support your view.

There are no assumptions, the image is visible to everyone else. The labor is objectively not free, it is given in exchange for the mutual labor men provide and the incredible sacrifices men make.

I'm sure you have a lot of problems, maybe feel like your being left behind in today's world. I get it, in the modern media and politics no one has pushed forward a positive message for men.

Stop your shilling, I have no desire to support a candidate who pushes lies like the wage gap and undermines men by saying they're using women for "Free labor". Please go shill for your candidate else where, he has no chance of winning anyways.

The answer isn't hate, i hated, and i hated. Hating didn't make my life better, Hate didn't bring me up it only brought me down.

You defend Feminism which is a rampant hate movement, you're a hater, you just hate men.

[–]Bigbossman123 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dreadnought7410 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dreadnought7410 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dreadnought7410 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dreadnought7410 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Jinkojak1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

His plan to fund UBI is a VAT at half the EU rate, exempting staple goods and with emphasis on tech products. Not income tax.

If you’re going to criticize at least be genuine with the facts, or do your research first.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]media_misandry 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]menstruatrix1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Did he fall for the "Hardest Job in the World" meme?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stfducky489 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]stfducky489 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]stfducky489 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]An_Ether 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]An_Ether 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Yang is easily the most pro-MRA candidate in this race.

He opposes circumcision, he literally brought up the Boy Crisis in his closing statement at last week’s debate, and he impressed Dr. Warren Farrell, the founding father of the men’s rights movement, with his familiarity with the Boy Crisis; https://youtu.be/tVExG__doSY .

Dr. Farrell, by the way, agrees with Yang that such a thing as unpaid labor (e.g., housework, childcare, etc.) exists; this isn’t a feminist thing.

Yang is running for the Democratic nomination, so yes, he has to play the game in order to have a chance. But I advise watching his Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Joe Rogan interviews before writing him off.

Or better yet, skim over his book, “The War on Normal People,” in which he emphasizes that poor white men are slipping through the cracks, and how that is a massive problem for our society; not exactly a feminist talking point.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

He opposes circumcision

No he doesn't he backtracked immediately threw the issue under the bus and removed it from his website and that's the level of support Men can expect from him. He's a coward, he's dishonest, and he doesn't really care. He pushes anti-male lies constantly including listing the nonsensical "Wage Gap" on his campaign website.

he literally brought up the Boy Crisis in his closing statement at last week’s debate,

He dedicated about 45 seconds to it yes, during which he never said that sexism was the cause, nor did he say Feminism was a cause. So he's a candidate who:

- Backtracks on Mens Rights Issues

- Pushes Feminist Propaganda and lies

- Won't say the words "Men are victims of sexism by women"

Dr. Farrell, by the way, agrees with Yang that such a thing as unpaid labor (e.g., housework, childcare, etc.) exists; this isn’t a feminist thing.

Oh of course men are worthless and evil I mean women are just entitled to free housing, free food, free electricity, free healthcare, etc. all paid for by men! How dare I believe that a life free from worry having all your needs and desires met is fair payment.

Nope you're right Men are worthless evil trash who give women nothing. Yep Yang is right, Women and only women are being robbed of labor, I mean that's why they die so much sooner than men! Aw poor womens :(

Yang is running for the Democratic nomination, so yes, he has to play the game in order to have a chance. But I advise watching his Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Joe Rogan interviews before writing him off.

It seems the Democratic party hates men, interesting that he seems to run for them rather than the other side. Why would someone who "cares about men" run on a platform that mandates he hates them and forces him to remove their issues from his campaign website? Sounds like a candidate who's pandering to men rather than one that cares.

Or better yet, skim over his book, “The War on Normal People,” in which he emphasizes that poor white men are slipping through the cracks, and how that is a massive problem for our society; not exactly a feminist talking point.

That's called pandering, and like Circumcision he'll throw that under the bus as soon as he's called out.

The government currently takes the majority of it's taxes from Men, Yang wants to take even more money from men and give it to women in the form of UBI, Women are already the majority beneficiaries of government aid, so Yang the "Pro Man" candidate wants to further make Men slaves to women.

No thanks, I think I'll find a candidate that won't just hit the delete button on Mens Rights, Push Lies and Propaganda, and insult men and say they use women as slaves.

[–]trumpean 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[+]tranarmoz1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link

You probably can't win the Dem nomination without claiming to be a "feminist". Sad, but true.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]tranarmoz1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (19 children) | Copy Link

Because the alternative Party is even worse.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]tranarmoz1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Worse health care, denying climate change and polluting my air and water, giving my money to the top 0.1%, etc

I prefer the racism and sexism...it is very tough to take and it does have some negative real-world consequences, but nothing remotely near what the Republicans do.

It is lesser of two evils, and both sides are very evil, which reflects the nature of their voters and supporters.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Worse health care

Oh yeah I did way better under Obama, where I was forced to pay fines for the insurance I could no longer afford.

denying climate change and polluting my air and water

If you think climate is more important than Male Suicide or Homelessness then you clearly don't care about men. Why you scream about a non-issue, Men are having their lives ruined and being driven to suicide in the Kangaroo Courts that Democrats are creating in colleges.

It's good to know you think Climate Change hysteria is more important than boys not getting an education because of false accusations of rape.

selling National Parks to drillers and miner

Yeah absolute nonsense.

giving my money to the top 0.1%

No, you do that when you buy products and services, if you were inventive, if you started a business you'd be in the 1% as well. You're just too busy blaming other people for your own inadequacies.

It is lesser of two evils

No it isn't. Your priorities are all kinds of screwed up.

[+]tranarmoz1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah I did way better under Obama

No one cares about you. I sure don't, and I'm talking about 325 million people.

It's good to know you think Climate Change hysteria is more important than boys not getting an education because of false accusations of rape.

Ok, Cathy Newman. Change your panties.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrgoodnighthairdo -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrgoodnighthairdo -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrgoodnighthairdo -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]liztu_june 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]konous 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MIW100 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShirleyMcGoogs 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just out of curiosity, which candidate do you support? I feel 99% safe in assuming you do not support the democratic party. But if you had to choose a candidate?

There's no pro-men candidate in the Democratic party due to the rampant infection of Feminism, I'll probably vote trump and hope things work out, he hasn't been awful thus far although he hasn't been exceptional either, at the very least Betsy Devos is undoing the atrocity of the "Dear Colleague" letter and giving male students due process again.

I don't know what the libertarian candidates are yet, and I don't know if there is any Republican running against trump.

Ideally someone like Karen Straughan (but with some geopolitical work) would swoop in and rescue us, but unfortunately that's not likely.

Currently I'd say we're in a holding pattern trying to find the least awful candidates for men.

On the left the least awful candidate for men is Andrew Yang, if I was going to vote left I'd vote for him.

[–]logic_iz_2_hard 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dreadnought7410 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BigDCSportsFan 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trumpean -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]konous 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, this just in, just because a Politician makes a point that women perform an unpaid labor

The labor isn't unpaid, the house, the food, the electricity the water, etc. didn't pop into existence by magic.

I'd say getting a house of your choosing, free rent, no mortgage, no utilities, all the food you like, no backbreaking labor, and a huge amount of control over your houses finances not to mention insurance through your husband are pretty goddamn huge perks for employment.

And since Single Parenthood is still a primarily Female occupation

Many women get pregnant to get married to the state.

because there are STILL a lot of men abandoning their kids,

Yeah Men are just all worthless deadbeats who hate their kids, yep no rampant sexism keeping them from getting equal custody or anything, nope just evil awful no good men!

there are a lot of young men growing up in house holds where they do not have stable enough living conditions.

Because women drove them out, you get more money from the state when you're single and what's the Feminist phrase "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" right?

For real, at what point did women become the enemy of the MRM, much less any support for women become an equivalent to evil?

Of course the men dying at work the men working 40-80 hours per week paying for the UnPaId LaBoR women do aren't "supporting women"! See I thought they loved them and were supporting them.

My bad I guess all men are pieces of shit, and none of them support women at all!

Thanks for clearing that up, let's hurry up and tax men into poverty because they're clearly worthless and do nothing for women.

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]konous 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Not being an asshole with all these sources, just trying to be informative.

Note that this doesn't count alimony and child support. It only looks at welfare. Specific numbers for the United States can be found in u/xNOM's posts (cited below).

Women’s influence on government, welfare, and taxation

Women receive more government benefits than men…

Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves

Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf

Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1

Men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.

u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2kj8qu/the_benefits_gap_a_cursory_analysis_of_us_social/. Updated version with newer data: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/

Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Distribution-of-Income-and-Fiscal-Incidence-by-Aziz-Gemmell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9

Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331

Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning

[–]konous 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]konous 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Your source seems to focus more on Black Families on the whole than just Single Mothers. It's also attributing one of the main reasons for this paradigm shift is that many Black Fathers end up going to Jail, and this only helps to widen the gap.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/single-parent-census-data-2997668

In order for a species or a culture to survive, its women MUST be supported. Parthenogenic stasis is still a ways off, so we require women.

These women were also largely found to NOT have been single when they had the kids. This leads one to believe the issue is more to do with interpersonal relationship issues, not women wanting to suckle as much as they can from the State.

Edit: Also, Single Digit percentages for Single Motherhood...are you serious? If there's a section in your link that had data on life before the 1900s it really didn't show it.

Re-Edit: it also doesn't seem to anything on SINGLE motherhood as a whole, just "unmarried women giving birth." Those aren't the same.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Your source seems to focus more on Black Families on the whole than just Single Mothers.

That is wildly incorrect.

https://www.educationnext.org/was-moynihan-right/

The graph shows that single motherhood among Whites has doubled over the last 50 years. So either Men suddenly became the worthless scumbags you think men are, or Women suddenly found a new way to finance their lifestyles. It sure does coincide with the rise of the welfare state!

In order for a species or a culture to survive, its women MUST be supported. Parthenogenic stasis is still a ways off, so we require women.

So much for "independent women" and "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

If you're going to make this argument then you must also make the argument that women don't deserve respect, because they haven't earned it. The only respect due to them would be what is granted to them for child bearing. Not sure that's the direction society is headed.

These women were also largely found to NOT have been single when they had the kids. This leads one to believe the issue is more to do with interpersonal relationship issues, not women wanting to suckle as much as they can from the State.

Correct, these women traded husbands and boyfriends to marry the state, this occurred because Democrats offered a larger benefit to single women than married/partnered women - as a result women had a financial incentive to do so. This is inline with the feminist goal of destroying the nuclear family.

We must also remember that Women file 70% of all divorces and that almost all divorces are file under "No Fault Divorce" policies. We must also remember that women profit tremendously off the sexist divorce laws with women capable of stealing more than half of everything a man has worked for, not to mention custody of their kids - she can also win life long alimony and live off him for free while giving nothing in exchange.

Society subsidizes selfish, cruel, and anti-male behavior among women.

For every single terrible choice women can make there is a financial incentive, exactly as Feminists desired.

[–]konous -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe their husbands were so shitty they decided it was better to be on their own?

Yep all men are just evil, you nailed it. #1 MRA right here, you can collect your reward at the door.

You are assuming malice way too much when you have no data to justify it being out of malice rather than a need not being met.

No I'm assuming that people followed the financial incentives placed in them, the Democrat party placed financial incentives to ensure women would be coerced into making these choices. Women were "making the best financial choices for their child" but Feminists in the democrat party ensured that meant "discarding their father for government handouts", and feminists also promoted a culture of single motherhood which deludes women into thinking that they can survive on their own and that Men and Women aren't complimentary to one another.

For real, have you considered the fact that Single Motherhood rose so much because women could finally LEAVE the abusive relationships also due to changes in society allowing women to work independently of men as well?

So maybe fathers aren't abandoning children because they hate their kids like you said, they're just running from the abusive and evil women who hurt them?

Why is it that you assume Women are Good and Men are evil? Why are women "Fleeing abuse" but men are only ever abusers? How do you know women aren't single mothers because they're despicable cruel abusive pieces of crap like you think men are?

[–]konous -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't assume it, mate. I'm just saying you are writing too long of a post considering you don't have the sources to SHOW why women took those incentives, and to assume they did it out of greed is unscientific.

I never assumed anything, you assumed men are abusive and that the rate rose because men are abusive and evil. I never assumed the worst of women, you assumed the worst of men.

Also, considering how much this movement values cited sources, I'd say I'm doing a better job than you, homie, because I'm nit making an assumption, I am proposing an idea.

Your "idea" is that all men are violent abusers and that all men who are "deadbeats" are such because they have no good reason.

You need to quit using so much Ad Hominem in your research because it's corrupting the way you collect data.

You just got finished saying that the only reason women leave men is because Men are abusive and cruel and controlling.

You may want to look in a mirror friend.

You 30 seconds ago:

because there are STILL a lot of men abandoning their kids

You assume men are abandoning their kids that they hate them or don't care enough to stay, but women would never do that nope they just are perfect angels!

Nope no men are abused, no men are forced away from their kids, nope women never ever do the wrong thing. Women are perfect angels and it's only the EVIL MEN who are abusive. If men flee abuse it's "abandonment" if women do it it's "because their husband is shitty".

You said fathers are "abandoning their kids" but they aren't, you just hate men and assume the worst in them.

Amazing how you've not said a single positive thing about Men in this entire conversation, but have repeatedly assumed the absolute innocence and perfection of women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bruh, no. I don't have to SAY positive things about men in every thread to point out the fallacy of your logic that women only took to Single Motherhood because they were greedy.

Again, I never said that you said and I quote "a lot of men are STILL abandoning their kids" you didn't say "some" you said "a lot" which means you think men have no good reason to flee women.

You never even once said "Hey you know what, I guess there are some unhealthy incentives here, maybe men aren't just evil people who hate their kids".

This entire discussion was about your belief that men are worthless people who "abandon their kids" which is just not true.

Now you're Ad Homineming my status as an MRA all because you aren't getting your way, and you don't have the science to back up your view.

Where's the evidence for your claim that men are worthless assholes who hate their kids and are quote "abandoning them"?

I proved that single motherhood used to be rare, I proved that it rose slowly over time, not instantly like you'd expect if new "You can leave your abuser" legislation passed - there was no spike.

I never said women are greedy I said they have the incentives, the women weren't at fault Feminists and the Democrat party was. I said "Correct, these women traded husbands and boyfriends to marry the state, this occurred because Democrats offered a larger benefit to single women than married/partnered women - as a result women had a financial incentive to do so. This is inline with the feminist goal of destroying the nuclear family. "

I didn't say "they traded them because they hated them" or "they traded them because they're greedy" but what I did say was "they may have been making the best financial decisions for their children at the time" it's not their fault Feminists led the Democrat party to making anti-male policy.

Just admit you hate women, bruh.

I love women, that's why I'll acknowledge their good and bad.

You won't even say "Hey you know what maybe men aren't abandoning their kids, maybe they were hurting too". I dare you to say it, just once in this entire conversation you've done nothing but worship and defend women and attack men. I'm the only one in this conversation that has given the benefit of doubt to both genders, join me and say "Hey you know what men have reasons for leaving relationships too because it can also be women's fault, women aren't perfect and they can be just as abusive as men are, I'm sure men do love their kids".

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Edit: Also, Single Digit percentages for Single Motherhood...are you serious? If there's a section in your link that had data on life before the 1900s it really didn't show it.

I don't think there's data that shows this, but single motherhood from before 1850, and probably into 1900, was extremely rare. Not just because divorce was rare, or because welfare wasn't a thing. But because men were the ones who usually got custody in a divorce. Men were the ones who could afford to raise them. And at the time, men were also the ones who educated children and taught them how to become adults. So generally it was seen as advantageous for the father to get custody.

The role of the mother was mainly only for the first few years of the child's life. After that, the father was primarily responsible for most of the parenting (in part because childhood mortality was so high... While dad was teaching the kids to do chores, mom was pregnant again, or at least breastfeeding the younger kids, in case the older ones passed).

It was actually the women's movement and their push for tender year laws that eventually changed the status quo. Our modern social views of women as caretakers and men as breadwinners was created by the woman's movement during thia era, well over 100 years ago.

Look up the tender years doctrine if you're interested in more information or sources about this. Basically that's when child support was introduced. Which allowed women to take care of their kids without having to work to support them (like fathers had always done in the past).

Note also that modern day feminism continues to protect the status quo. Father's rights activists have been trying to change these laws and make them fair for men, for decades. And feminist lobbying groups are always at the forefront in opposition to it. Afaik, not a single state has passed comprehensive child custody and divorce reform. Kentucky got a few laws passed recently but only with major compromises to feminists.

See for example:

Franklin, R. (2014). Karen DeCrow, Last NOW President to Support Shared Parenting, Dies. National Parents Organization. Available from: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

Reid, P. (2015). Opposing Shared Parenting: The Feminist Track Record. A Voice For Men. Available from: https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/opposing-shared-parenting-the-feminist-track-record/

RECALCULATING THE GENDER WAR. (2016). Most powerful American feminist organization kills another shared parenting bill: N.O.W.’s crusade against actual gender equality slips into the limelight. Available at: https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumblr.com/post/142883164331/most-powerful-american-feminist-organization-kills

u/ThePigmanAgain (2019, Oct). Feminists are trying to get parental alienation delisted from the WHO ICD-11. Here's how you can say "Hell, no!". r/MensRights. Available from: /r/MensRights/comments/dnl1b7/feminists_are_trying_to_get_parental_alienation

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]konous -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]konous -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]logic_iz_2_hard -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]konous 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some points often ignored by feminist society:

Men's household labour is systematically under-counted. Warren Farrell has written essays and books about this.
When household labour, childcare, and income-earning are all fairly counted, men generally put at least as much effort as women - and often more - into the family.
Women's household labour is not "unpaid". It is paid luxuriously. Women in living-together arrangements are essentially receiving the benefits of half of the male's income. Many female partners are spoilt, receiving thousands and an absurdly elevated lifestyle just for caring for their own offspring (sometimes with the help of nannies and maids).

Over a century ago, the playwright August Strindberg wrote a refutation of the "unpaid work" claim:
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4bly91/strindbergs_refutation_of_the_unpaid_work_claim/

I'll try to update the links. They included one Strindberg story of a housewife who tried to bill her husband.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeehawdolphins 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]auMatech 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]rborens1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

He just lost my vote for this. Sorry Andrew.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cynical_Silverback -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ice_mountain2221 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Lmao incel in denial

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DubsPackage -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

To a certain extent, I understand it's all rhetoric.

Pandering to different demographics.

Politicians pander to women all the time, saying stupid shit like "motherhood is the hardest job in the world."

So how do we know that this - his repeated and constant attempts to degrade, dismiss, and attack men - are "just rhetoric"? How do we know it's not his vague and meaningless statements about 'caring about men' that aren't rhetoric?

His "rhetoric" is the #1 reason men can't get help, people see things like this and say "Men are oppressive and cruel, women work for free, poor women!" and they see the Wage Gap nonsense on his website and go "See, Women are Oppressed, Men have it so easy!". People like Yang ensure Men will never ever get help.

We shouldn't take it personal, but just take it for what it is, getting women on board the Yang program by saying nice things about them (and it's not all just lip service, women do end up being caregivers alot, taking care of old people, taking care of sick people, etc etc.)

So we should support skin deep liars who manipulate women, but we shouldn't dare to say they're manipulating us. Of course.

Think about it like this.

Propaganda incoming, can't wait for more "Ignore all the horrible evil things this person says because of x thing I want".

If you're the bread winner, your SAH wife can generate $1000/mo to help with the bills with UBI, that takes some of the load off you, and she can feel good about making some money for herself for taking care of the baby.

Um no this is nonsense. She's not "Making money for herself" she's stealing money from a taxpayer, the tax base being overwhelmingly male. So your idea is to enslave men so that women - already living in homes paid for by men, in homes furnished to their tastes by men, off electricity and water paid for by men, spending the majority of the money earned by men - can feel like they are entitled to even more money earned by men.

So you're agreeing with Andrew Yang, you're saying men are worthless and greedy and that Women's labor is "Free" that they're not being compensated for child care and such, you're saying that women are entitled to (i.e. it's money they "made") more money by taxing men.

So TL;DR the Andrew Yang/Yang Gang pitch is:

- The Wage Gap is real and Women are Oppressed.

- Women are slaves to men, Men use them as free labor. Women are entitled to even more money via UBI because the men working hard to love and support them aren't "giving enough".

- Men - the overwhelming majority of the tax base - should be taxed even harder and have more of their wages stolen from the backbreaking work they do so that women can quote "Feel Good".

- Andrew Yang only lies and panders to women, but he's tooootally not lying and pandering to men.

Here's a question:

Has Andrew Yang ever acknowledged that "Sexism Against Men exists"

(Hint: The answer is No.)

Andrew Yang has never in any situation under any circumstance uttered anything to the effect of "Sexism against Men exists" he has also never admitted that Feminism harms men and that society has anti-male policies. That's right the candidate that "totally only panders to women" has never even once mentioned male victims of sexism.

[–]DubsPackage 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So if "the tax base is overwhelmingly male" does that mean only men are being renumerated for their contributions and women aren't?

Or are you saying that women don't actually make any contributions?

The whole thing with feminism in the beginning was, that %51 of the population wasn't taxable (housewives, women, mothers.)

So they began pushing women out to work so they could tax them.

That agenda has gone as far as it can go, largely because procreation is a human need and requires time and energy to care for children, women can't be bullwhipped to produce any more than they already do.

So yeah, I guess you can call Yang a redistributionist, but one who's actually been in business and isn't some airy-fairy hippie.

Your buddy Trump has also said (and done) some horribly anti-male things, like removing the tax-deduction for paying child support, I don't see you frothing at the mouth over it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Your buddy Trump

Please cite where I've ever said Trump was my "Buddy".

Trump has done some great things (Betsy Devos for example has finally given male students due process again) and not some not great things. I don't think he's the Men's Rights candidate of the ages, but he at least says things like "You'll get the same if you earn it" in response to questions on Wage Gap and sexism. He also opposes the culture of demonizing men which is important.

So if "the tax base is overwhelmingly male" does that mean only men are being renumerated for their contributions and women aren't?

Or are you saying that women don't actually make any contributions?

Women are a net financial drain on society, if you took all the women away the deficit would decrease. Women take more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

The whole thing with feminism in the beginning was, that %51 of the population wasn't taxable (housewives, women, mothers.)

No, that's idiotic and untrue. Feminism is a marxist movement, the whole point of Feminism was destroying masculinity and eliminating the Nuclear Family.

More people doesn't inherently mean more wealth, the massive deficits and ballooning debt are evidence of that. Additionally increasing the number of workers increases competition and decreases wages. This is basic economics.

So yeah, I guess you can call Yang a redistributionist, but one who's actually been in business and isn't some airy-fairy hippie.

So you admit he hates men and wants to steal the fruits of their labor? That's honest of you.

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Women are a net financial drain on society

I'll ask you again, are you saying that women don't make any contributions?

If we start from a basic idea that men and women both contribute to society and their families, but only one of them is the "tax base" then doesn't that point to an overall flaw in the economic scheme?

So you admit he hates men and wants to steal the fruits of their >labor? That's honest of you.

Well now you're just being silly, I'm pretty sure he doesn't "hate men" quite clearly being one himself.

You just don't like the fact that he's a socialist, and you believe in the economic scheme we have in this country (that doesn't work out so well for some of the people in it.)

Because you consider socialism to be "a tax on men" aka "the tax base."

Well maybe men shouldn't be the only tax base, maybe women should be part of that tax base, maybe their contributions should be renumerated and taxable.

PS - Pretty sure the Rockefellar family aren't Marxists, they supported feminism for the reason that I stated, which is that %51 of the population (women) wasn't taxable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'll ask you again, are you saying that women don't make any contributions?

They do, and in doing so they are given housing, food, insurance, and countless other benefits. It's the reason they spend most of the money men earn.

If we start from a basic idea that men and women both contribute to society and their families, but only one of them is the "tax base" then doesn't that point to an overall flaw in the economic scheme?

No it points to the biological differences between Men and Women, it also points to the rampant sexism against men in that Women and only Women benefit from big government.

Well now you're just being silly, I'm pretty sure he doesn't "hate men" quite clearly being one himself.

There are self-hating Male Feminists, there were Self-Hating jews in Hitlers forces, and there are absolutely self-hating men among the left. Andrew Yang is a male feminist who hates men.

You just don't like the fact that he's a socialist, and you believe in the economic scheme we have in this country (that doesn't work out so well for some of the people in it.)

No, I don't like that he says bigoted, hateful, sexist things and pretends Men hate women and give them nothing in exchange for "Free labor". The guy insinuates that men are at work doing nothing while women suffer in homes men pay for, with utilities men pay for, eating food men pay for.

It's bullshit and I won't put up with it. The fact that he wants Men to be financial slaves to women is just icing on the cake.

Because you consider socialism to be "a tax on men" aka "the tax base."

No all taxes are "a tax on men" because men don't benefit from big government. Women are part of the tax base but they take more in benefits then they pay in taxes i.e. there's wealth redistribution from Men to Women.

Well maybe men shouldn't be the only tax base, maybe women should be part of that tax base, maybe their contributions should be renumerated and taxable.

Look I'm going to say this one more time, so listen reeaaal hard.

Women are taxed just like Men, but unlike Men the government loves women, the government protects women, the government WORSHIPS women as a result Women take more out in benefits than they pay in taxes.

The best solution is to abolish the policies giving women these unearned benefits, and pass new ones giving Men equal benefits.

The best way to do this is to ensure anti-male candidates who hate men and say asinine and bigoted things don't win.

The government hates men and is fairly powerful, a socialist government would fucking loathe men and be even more powerful.

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You didn't answer my question.

If we start from a basic idea that men and women both contribute to >society and their families, but only one of them is the "tax base" then >doesn't that point to an overall flaw in the economic scheme?

Answer that properly.

Look I'm going to say this one more time, so listen reeaaal hard.

Women are taxed just like Men, but unlike Men the government loves >women, the government protects women, the government WORSHIPS >women as a result Women take more out in benefits than they pay in >taxes.

Um "big govt" is mostly men too lol.

If you ask me the way it works is like this.

Let's say you're a father.

Let's say you have a daughter.

Without "big govt" you would constantly have to be chasing after her, vetting the men she dates, and bailing her out time and again.

The job of "big govt" is that you as a father don't have to do that, because big govt will make sure she's taken care of (to a large degree, women are taken care of in society, I'm sure you agree.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You didn't answer my question.

Yes I did.

Answer that properly.

I did, it went over your head. Our economic system is fine, our government loves women and hates men that's why there are little to no resources helping Men.

Um "big govt" is mostly men too lol.

No, Big Government serves women and only women. The government does not help men.

If you ask me the way it works is like this.

Why the hell would I ask you? You think Men don't contribute, and you think Women are oppressed.

Let's say you're a father.

Let's say you have a daughter.

Of course because who cares about Sons.

Without "big govt" you would constantly have to be chasing after her, vetting the men she dates, and bailing her out time and again.

Because it's Mens job to protect women? Let women suffer from their bad choices, it's not the job of men to save them.

The job of "big govt" is that you as a father don't have to do that, because big govt will make sure she's taken care of

Yes Big Govt will subsidize her terrible choices and allow her to rob men of their hard earned money, the government will allow her drive her children's father out of their life and reign hell on their future.

Government will coddle her and protect her no matter how despicable and evil she is - even giving her slaps on the wrist for rape, murder, or child abuse.

(to a large degree, women are taken care of in society, I'm sure you agree.)

Women are the most privileged class of human beings in the western world. They are also the most entitled.

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll ask you again, are you saying that women don't make any contributions?

Individual women contribute, and individual women who are a net negative are net positive during parts of their lives. But as a net and as a whole, no. Women receive far more from government than they put into the system.

but only one of them is the "tax base" then doesn't that point to an overall flaw in the economic scheme?

Yes, because women control 56% of suffrage while only contributing 75% of taxes. And women increasingly vote for higher and more progressive taxes because the top of the tax curve is men.

Because you consider socialism to be "a tax on men" aka "the tax base."

Because it is. Because, again, men pay 75% of the taxes while women receive 80% of the welfare. But you seem to think that more of the poison is somehow the cure?

maybe women should be part of that tax base

So you support flat tax and federal sales tax? Those are about the only two things that will significantly increase women's percentage of taxes paid. Along with that, a massive shrink in the size of government is necessary to prevent the welfare state that goes to women 80% of the time (which is all non-taxable income).

So do you support those ideas?

[–]DubsPackage 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what I support just yet, but my thinking goes like this.

Step 1. Men and women equally contribute to the world, life, society and everybody's general well-being.

Step 2. But mostly men do it "professionally" or get paid for it, in other words, generally women are unpaid carers (their contributions to society are generally unpaid.)

Step 3. This prompts the powers-that-be (mostly men) to extend most benefits, welfare and quotas to women, due to paternalistic concern and TradConnish sensibilities.

Step 4. People start asking, "If women hold up half the sky, why aren't they paid for holding up half the sky so we can fucking tax them?"

In my view, so far it just seems like Capitalism is a scam. Not only are most of the workers underpaid, but some of the workers are working in exchange for food and board, while their spouse has to support them.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men and women equally contribute to the world, life, society and everybody's general well-being.

On what basis do you believe that? Are you willing to accept that this priori of your beliefs is false?

But mostly men do it "professionally" or get paid for it, in other words, generally women are unpaid carers (their contributions to society are generally unpaid.)

No, women are very well paid. They get access the man's income (if married) in return for their services. If single, they get access to all men's incomes via welfare. They are very much "paid" it's just that we don't tax those payments.

This prompts the powers-that-be (mostly men) to extend most benefits, welfare and quotas to women, due to paternalistic concern and TradConnish sensibilities.

Not really. The welfare state was very minimalistic until after women's suffrage. That's because politicians figured out they can increase taxes on men to provide welfare benefits to women in order to bribe women's votes. Women control the majority of suffrage in every first world nation. That's why taxes in the USA have increase 2000% relative to GDP since women's suffrage.

Step 4. People start asking, "If women hold up half the sky, why aren't they paid for holding up half the sky so we can fucking tax them?"

They're paid, generously. It's just that most of it comes in the form of tax-free welfare. If you run the numbers, you'll find that a single mother of two can earn around $37k tax free from government. Add 10k for the man's expenses and the taxes required on top of that and you'll find that government has replaced every man earning under $60k... government becomes the better financial deal.

In my view, so far it just seems like Capitalism is a scam. Not only are most of the workers underpaid, but some of the workers are working in exchange for food and board, while their spouse has to support them.

It's the socialism that is our government taking $2T/yr from men and giving it to women that is the scam. And most workers are underpaid because college-educated women flood the entry-level jobs and then >50% of them mommy-track out within 10 years. That's why men's wages have been flat relative to inflation since the 70's (when women entered the work force en-mass).

The proposed "fix" of UBI is to take even more money from working men to give to women.

[–]DubsPackage 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On what basis do you believe that?

On the basis that my mother wiped my ass and my father paid the bills, hence I judge that they made an equal contribution to my life.

Even had my father been a deadbeat, I would still say men hold up half the sky, because how could they not?

This is a basic almost "religion" type of belief, that men and women contribute equally to everything the world is and everything the world has, both good and bad, including problems.

Like I don't believe that men are solely responsible for crime or violence, I think men are simply the ones who carrry it out as part of their gendered requirements, but the "need" for crime and violence is part of the collective human psyche that is both male and female in equal measure.

No, women are very well paid. They get access the man's income (if >married) in return for their services. If single, they get access to all >men's incomes via welfare. They are very much "paid" it's just that we >don't tax those payments.

Right but they're paid by the political system, not the economic system, which is the main point.

It's the socialism that is our government taking $2T/yr from men and >giving it to women that is the scam.

Well 1/3 of the budget is the Pentagon, another 1/3 is Social Security, does that only pay women or are there a few men in there as well?

And most workers are underpaid because college-educated women >flood the entry-level jobs and then >50% of them mommy-track out >within 10 years.

Is it women's fault that half the economy are "McJobs?" What difference would it make if they were in the market or out of it, those "McJobs" would still exist and pay the same 8 or 9 bucks an hour.

[+]blueyb -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RIPOldAccountF 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilLothar 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FUCK. I wish there was a place I could talk about MensRights that wasn't completely alt-right

Whelp, you're gonna have an issue with that. Any MRM site that is intellectually honest will eventually trend conservative. The problem is that the left tends towards big government and big government is already responsible for $2T/yr wealth transfer from men to women.

Under the right, a man supports a woman he chooses to support via marriage (or none at all if he becomes a bachelor), does the work necessary to keep society going, and is rewarded for it.

Under the left, all men support all women via government and taxes (and has no option to escape), does the work necessary to keep society going, and is shit on for it.

That's the reason almost every MRM site trends conservative. If you think reddit is hard alt-right, I suggest you don't look up the MRM outside of reddit, because reddit is the most left leaning MRM site out there.

[–]DubsPackage 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bigbossman123 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bernard_Sanderz -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Feminist Andrew Yang says Men who work to feed, house, and pamper their wives are stealing labor
Author	FeminismMustGo
Upvotes	123
Comments	250
Date	November 26, 2019 10:07 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e1vyyh/feminist_andrew_yang_says_men_who_work_to_feed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminist-andrew-yang-says-men-who-work-to-feed.864110 https://theredarchive.com/post/864110

Comments

Women’s influence on government, welfare, and taxation

Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf

Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1

Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331

Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning

Franklin, R. (2014). Karen DeCrow, Last NOW President to Support Shared Parenting, Dies. National Parents Organization. Available from: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

Reid, P. (2015). Opposing Shared Parenting: The Feminist Track Record. A Voice For Men. Available from: https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/opposing-shared-parenting-the-feminist-track-record/

u/ThePigmanAgain (2019, Oct). Feminists are trying to get parental alienation delisted from the WHO ICD-11. Here's how you can say "Hell, no!". r/MensRights. Available from: /r/MensRights/comments/dnl1b7/feminists_are_trying_to_get_parental_alienation