~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
lifegasm
[–]tallwheel 739 points740 points741 points 9 years ago (340 children) | Copy Link
They've actually got it backwards. Men financially supporting their female partners is still more common than the reverse. Past societies actually understood this on some level. Then in the mid-late 20th century feminists convinced us all that it was actually housewives doing unpaid labor for their husbands.
[–]AnarAchronist 484 points485 points486 points 9 years ago (193 children) | Copy Link
I just argued this same point recently.
Basically if you never had to work, what would you do with your life?
Answer: spend more time with kids/famly, focus on own hobbies/interests.
Guess what stay at home wives do? Only in this age could a person be so narcissistic so as to state that raising children is a chore.
[–]provocateur__ 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
My wife thinks women are stupid to think that being able to be with your kids all day is as hard or harder than me working 12 hour days and stressed out. She loves being a stay-at-home mom and I never give her shit for not making money. We would rather have our kids raised by us and not a housekeeper / daycare center. There's nothing wrong with it if you don't have a problem with it.
[–]amanda66778899 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's nothing wrong with it if you don't have a problem with it.
r/ThatsHowThingsWork
[–]ThatNinaGAL 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree with your wife. I heard somebody describe the kids/housework slog as "unalienated labor," i.e. the work is real, but even during the toughest bits you are putting your effort into something you actually care about. The same cannot be said of most jobs. The purpose of most jobs is the same purpose of SAHP duties - to preserve and protect the home and family. But you have to isolate yourself from your home and family for most of the daylight hours in order to do most jobs, and spend your days with people you don't much like working on projects you don't much care about.
[–]wardrich 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
Raising children really isn't a walk in the park, though - especially if you're taking on the role of a single parent.
The entire system is fucked. Childcare is expensive AF and hard to find. If you can't find a job paying more than minimum wage, you're almost better off living on the system.
I think a lot of things need to be reworked both on a social assistance level, and a family court level.
Saying that raising a child isn't a chore is definitely an unfair statement.
Source: am a father of two kiddos
[–]Seanmrowe 104 points105 points106 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You know what else is a chore? Owning a house, taking the trash out, cleaning dishes, mowing the lawn, doing laundry everyday....guess what life requires effort and when you choose to have children they require work as well....not sure what the point is.
Life also requires us to provide value to others usually in the form of our personal labor, or we live self sufficient and don't rely on others. Both ideas require us to do things we don't get paid for, it's all part of life.
[+]wardrich -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
So how do you propose the woman of the house gets money while also avoiding daycare/babysitting for the kids while she is at her job?
[–]Seanmrowe 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Essentially what /u/Brexit-the-thread said...
Nobody pays you for something unless it provides them value. Nobody is going to pay me to take out my own trash and nobody is going to pay me to take care of my own children. Furthermore it is nobody elses responsibility to pay for or do those things but me.
If a woman doesn't want to stay at home with children they (parents) need to figure out the logistics of child rearing and decide what they should do before having children.
[–]wardrich 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Shit, yeah... somehow I was thinking about a situation where the couple is together, and she is in the role of stay-at-home mom while the father is at work. Not in the case of "break up with the guy, take the kids, and reap the free money to use 100% on myself"
Sorry for being a doofus.
[–]Pandamonius84 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
/u/Seanmrow never mentioned anything about reaping free money to splurge on himself, breaking up with someone and using the kids as an ATM card.
He was just pointing out that if 2 people are together, both work, but they want children, then they should discuss the pros and cons before having a child. Whether it is the mother/father working full time, one of them goes to part time, or one wants to stay with the kid until they are old enough to start school where the other parent can go back to work.
[–]Brexit-the-thread 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
traditionally her husband(or wife/non binary life partner I suppose, it's 2017 after all) would earn the cash. but that isn't good enough for feminism is it?
[–]wardrich 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand. I'm not at all in favour of the batshit insane "feminism" that exists today, but I think being a family comes down to trying to balance out workloads. I work in an office for a paycheque while my wife stays at home with the kids. My money goes toward just about everything, with the only extra money being from baby bonus.
I see nothing wrong with this, as the alternative would be for us both to work and somebody to be paying for childcare. In this case, it could be argued that I'm paying her for childcare, but it's still cheaper than actually paying for a babysitter... and it's a hell of a lot better of an environment for our kids to grow up in.
Maybe I'm just not on the same page of the core argument here?
[–]panther455 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're on the same page I think, I dont want to speak for you, however the issue is when women speak against men saying that they're providing more of a service, "for free," than men do being stay at home moms.
I wont argue that being a stay at home parent isn't difficult... or at the very least very busy, but you dont have anyone talking down to you, you dont have strict deadlines outside of children schedules which can be planned for weeks in advance. There are much more liberties that stay at home parents might have, compared to a full time employee, especially one with a particularly rude boss.
At least I think? Idunno.
Also, what you said about the system and if you cant find a job more than minimum wage, seriously, shits kinda fucked. I don't even have kids but... eh, thats another issue I guess.
[–]orcscorper 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The notion that stay-at-home moms labor for free always irked me. Yeah, you raise your child, and you don't receive a salary for it. Nobody does. But you live for free; your husband pays the mortgage. You eat for free, and you don't pay for your clothes. You don't make any of your own money, but you get to spend his.
I know a few stay-at-home moms, and two stay-at-home dads that I used to work with before they decided they were better off staying home. They all have it better than I do, and I don't have kids. It's not like they do anything when their spouses are at work, that the spouses don't do when they are home. They watch a lot of TV, play with the kids, yell at the kids and clean up after the kids. If you have young children, that's your home life. It's just what you do.
[–]panther455 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol and then they grow up and go to school, then what?
I dunno, the problem for me is never what people do in their own homes, of course, as long as their happy and not affecting others, it should be fine. But I just dislike when people get all uppity and act like being a stay at home mom is SOOOOO much harder than a full time job, even comparing it to a full time job. And again, sure, its work, but if you're gonna tell me that I get to take care of some kids, do yard work, etc., or work on a huge tractor in a hot as shit tunnel, welding or other things, risking life and limb if only by being in proximity to the environment, I'm gonna go with the stay at home one, because the risk and comfort can't even compare.
And then again, money is kinda nice, which is why men don't stay at home, because they're willing to take risks to provide for themselves and others. Thats why it sucks, because this sacrifice, even in office jobs dealing with bullshit office politics and assholes every day, to come home to some fucker whos supposed to be there for me, telling me that they're doing more in this relationship, they're doing the most. Its just... fucked up.
But what do ya do? Lol, thats the whole mens rights issue, we can't complain, we got it great, apparently.
Eh, anyways. Not all women, not all men, etc. Probably/hopefully not even most.
But still.
[–]Brexit-the-thread 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not implying that you are in favor of the insane feminist dogma, I'm making that statement because feminists seem to be against the concept of women staying at home to raise children to such a ridiculous degree that they will refuse to engage in any form of dialogue, they treat the idea as if it is some form of slavery.
This is incredibly damaging to society as a whole, it's causing more and more children to be forced into expensive and dubiously trustworthy childcare programs(and doesn't that just suit the government just fine, it means they get more opportunities to brainwash children outside of Nursery/Primary Education/Cartoons.)
repetition is a powerful tool when aimed at those of a suitably young age
[–]Jex117 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Buddy of mine at work came to a realization with his fiance - they just had their first child together, and after checking the numbers, they realized if she got a full time job, nearly 2/3 of her monthly income would go towards daycare / transit.
Why work full time if 2/3 of your income is just going towards daycare / transit, which you wouldn't have to pay if you weren't working?
[–]Pz5 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Another 1/4 no doubt goes to government.
[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Here in Canada that's no joke. Minimum wagers give around 10% of their income to taxes. A few years ago I was making $15 with crazy overtime, so I was in a high income bracket - I was paying just shy of 1/4 of my income to taxes.
[–]nictytan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The tax brackets are significantly more lenient in Canada for low income workers.
When I was working part-time in high school / college at the minimum wage of 10$/h for 15h/week, I was paying zero income tax. My American buddy in Alabama worked more hours at lower rates and was bringing home a gross amount similar to mine, but he paid substantial taxes.
Sorry I can't provide more accurate numbers since this all happened years ago, but the meme that "taxes in Canada are so high!" is only true in the middle and high tax brackets.
[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Was that because you were only doing 15h/week, or were you under 18 / living at home? I paid taxes when I made minimum wage.
[–]slayerx1779 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It isn't a walk in the park. But no one on their death bed says "I wish I spent more time working"; they all wish they spent time with their families. Even if raising kids is harder, I'd rather raise my flesh and blood than grind out the pennies I need to feed him.
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This exactly. It's hilarious how many feminists and similar-thinking people don't understand this.
[–]bakedpotato486 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
especially if you're taking on the role of a single parent.
Well, there's your problem right there! Whatever happened to the bread-earning/home-caring couple paradigm? Oh, yeah, feminism deemed it evil.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Or that room and board isn't a form of compensation.
What? A man is expected to provide for his family. It's his duty. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't get married and have kids. But mothers are special; they have the most difficult job in the world. They slave all day over a hot stove, and this is the thanks they get?
If you hired a chef, a chauffeur, a nurse, a teacher, a housekeeper and whoever else to do all the things a mom does, it would cost nearly a million dollars a year. The chef wouldn't be microwaving chicken nuggets, the chauffeur has a chauffeur's license, and the nurse has 2-4 years of schooling, but let's not quibble over details. Stay-at-home moms are worth at least a million dollars per year.
[–]AnarAchronist 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If anyone is looking for compensation for feeding, teaching, nursing and taking care of their children then perhaps they should be charging their kids. Its their kids that are getting the free ride here. The world doesnt give a crap if they starve, hence sudan, darfur, etc.
Take out a life debt on them.
[+]ChurroSalesman -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wow. Your ignorance is astounding. You have clearly never raised a child, cared for sick family or managed a household.
[–]AnarAchronist 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Im a single dad. Cleaning up after my house i.e. washing clothes/linen, paying bills/managing finances, cooking and cleaning my mess is called basic human hygiene and maintenance. To call it a chore is like calling 'breathing' an exercise; you just do it. And looking after my daughter is the only truly rewarding activity i enjoy. Feeding, bathing, reading entertaining, educating, and cleaning up after is not a chore if you understand the importance and value in it. To call parenting a 'job' is the single most messed up way you can perceive being a parent. I hate my job. Im happy when i clock off.
I never clock off being a parent, and i would never think, "oh i cant wait til her mum takes her so i can clock off". It just doesnt work that way.
[+]Googlesnarks -176 points-175 points-174 points 9 years ago (162 children) | Copy Link
yeah that sounds great except you have no financial freedom and are basically someone's pet.
[–][deleted] 237 points238 points239 points 9 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link
Grown ass adult able to do whatever they want within a spectrum of moderate responsibility to keeping their offspring alive is a pet
IT WRITES ITSELF
[+]Googlesnarks -133 points-132 points-131 points 9 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link
"being kept in a house because you don't have any financial freedom to pursue whatever interests you, without negotiating for an allowance from someone who now has authority over you by virtue of them having all the money and you not having a fucking job"
you're a dipshit idiot if you can't see the problem with this.
you know who else stays in the house with no resemblance of an income or responsibility?
CHILDREN. being treated like a child when you are actually a grown ass adult is a fucking problem.
[–]flyingwolf 127 points128 points129 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
No financial freedom, hmm, gee what is the most common target market for consumers?
Oh yeah, women, ages 18 to 34, married with children.
And you know what, no one forces them to be married.
[–]BigAl265 70 points71 points72 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't forget that women control something like 80% of all the money in the US. There's a reason they're the most targeted demographic.
Oh, but they have no financial freedom...what a damn joke.
[–]Jesus_marley 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My grandmother would stand at the gates of the railyard on pay day when my grandfather would get off work. He would dutifully remove 20% for himself and then hand over the rest to her. But she had no freedom at all. No sir. not a lick.
[–]ironoxidey 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, most of my married guy friends have no idea what their financial situation is. They just make the money, and their wife sets the budget and determines the most beneficial way to use the household income.
Most of my married guy friends get an allowance from their wife, and never argue, "I make the money!"
I feel like people are acting like husbands aren't loving their wife—like they lord the money over them as a manipulation tactic or something. If a guy is doing that, he's a shitty guy. And women need to do what they can to avoid marrying those guys.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership. If your husband isn't acting like a partner, but more of a tyrant, there's a problem in your marriage that needs to be sorted out.
But partners aren't supposed to contribute identically to the organization—they're supposed to compliment one another. I don't need a spouse who does exactly what I can do; I need a spouse who can do things I can't.
I'm not saying that every husband should make money, and that every wife should raise the kids at home. I'm saying that every couple has to sort that out for themselves to determine what role each will play to make their marriage the most effective partnership. Why be married if you're going to spend the rest of your existence in competition with one another, rather than benefitting one another to be more effective in your life than you would've been apart?
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And women that divorce seem to do pretty well.
I pay for my ex-wife's lifestyle as well as supporting my children, shit, we wouldn't want an ex-wife contributing to her children's financial welfare as well right?
[+]Googlesnarks -64 points-63 points-62 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
except, when they couldn't get jobs, they had to marry in order to have any money via the man making money and giving it to them as an allowance
so, actually, in order to SURVIVE, they did have to marry.
[–]mexicono 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Seriously? Anyone with a pulse can walk into a low-paying service job. They make more money receiving that "allowance" than they do in a job. If they valued that financial independence so much, they could find it.
I mean, I agree that a lack of financial independence is important, but claiming that a woman HAS to get married to receive money and have a roof over her head is a hair short of laughable.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]mexicono 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for that. /u/googlesnarks ought to hire you as his/her googlesnarkstranslate :p
[–]Rob__T 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're conflating past issues with present ones.
Back when, yes you are right. That may have been the best way to financial freedom, and the most viable one to the point of calling it a necessity. It is not now, however.
Married women with children are currently the target demographic for most businesses. Since women do not need to get married to have dependable income anymore, this should not be the case. But it is.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Its not like there is welfare, financial aid, thrift stores and other ways to help them.
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What century are we talking about? This century, where you can argue with morons on the internet on your phone, or some other one?
[–]foxinthesky 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you can't get a minimum wage job than something is probably wrong with you
[–]Taylor1391 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
Authority over you, lmao. Are you going to tell me my husband has authority over me because I'm disabled and don't have a proper job?
[+]Googlesnarks -34 points-33 points-32 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
he definitely has some semblance of power over you based on this. how could he not?
he may not exercise it, or realize it but your relationship is fundamentally asymetrical in regards to financial authority.
the same way when I visited my friend in California on his dime, he had power over me. not a lot, mind you, but I felt it.
[–]Kalkaline 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
So don't go to California...
[+]Googlesnarks -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
to visit my friend who bought me a plane ticket?????
[–]twodogsfighting 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
BUY YOUR OWN FUCKING TICKET.
[–]Hydris 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't want to be taken care of don't accept the handout. What, had stay at their house so you had to abide by their house rules? HOW DARE THEY! Pay your own way and stay in a hotel.
[–]bananastanding 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You are literally too stupid to make fun of.
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're, ridiculous. You realize that it's not uncommon for the woman to be responsible for actually attending to the bills, the budget, and the bank account?
That normally it's the man negotiating a budget from the money he works for because the rest of it is used to support the wife and children? Hell, I get to spend 100 dollars a month in the way I choose because the other 95* I don't even see. It hits our account, because the account where my money is deposited has both names on it. And gets redirected towards bills, gas, food etc.
As long as she isn't accruing debt for the family or costing money we don't have by spending money we don't have (we've had some talks about overdraft fees) I check the account maybe twice a month, on payday to make sure the balance is present.
[–]iSeven 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I felt it.
[–]Taylor1391 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Actually no, he doesn't. Want to know why? There are two reasons. One, he's not an asshole (why would I have married him if he was?). Two, I wouldn't allow someone I was in a relationship with to have power over me. I have every bit as much say over where money goes as he does. Sure, I don't do whatever I want whenever I want. But guess what? Neither does he. When you're married you're no longer only answerable to yourself.
Maybe get better friends. Your idea of money and power must make Christmas gifts really weird.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The power struggle thing is a 100% postmodernism play.
[–]Gruas 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Uh, galaxyfox-kin don't celebrate christmas.
[–]Taylor1391 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh shit, my mistake for assuming his mental illness gender. 😂
[–]blaze261 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So. Your friend did you a favor, as friends do and you are using this as an example of financial power? "OMG you bought me all this stuff, I'm your slave now." This adds up. Next time I buy my dudes a round I'll make sure to have them vacuum my house.
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
he definitely has some semblance of power over you based on this. how could he not? he may not exercise it, or realize it but your relationship is fundamentally asymetrical in regards to financial authority.
You know, this is why feminism is getting the social drubbing it deserves.
So proud of being a little peeping tom, aren't you? Poking their nose into a woman's life and projecting all sorts of assumptions of power her husband has over her. When you don't know what their arrangement is and the agreements they made together as a couple.
Ah, and we see the source of that projection.
[–]Taylor1391 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I just realized that he's a man telling a woman what's supposedly going on in her life, against what she actually says, in the name of feminism. What???
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
so you've never felt obligated to act differently around someone who is financially supporting you?
this is as simple as not making fun of someone for something as hard as you wanted to because they took you out to dinner that night and you don't want to be a complete dick.
this is not a complicated notion.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm not playing your game, Rowdy Roddy Peeper. You're here to make judgements, not discuss anything. Just like all you self-righteous ideologues are wont to do in your spare time.
EDIT: Oh, and let me give you some advice. Better start appreciating the support your friend is giving you. If they were me and you started laying the "You're just doing this to exert your oppressive power over me" on thick, I wouldn't give you even a PENNY to finance your plane ticket. Worried about my "Power"? Pay your own way.
[–]Staubathehut 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It sounds like you had a friend that wanted to see you and they offered to fly you out there to visit. I have friends like this and it doesn't make me feel powerless. Why would someone doing something nice for you make you feel powerless? If you didn't want to go to California you should have said no.
You powerlessly accepted a free ticket to California and had a vacation. "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!"
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
that's... not at all what I said lmao.
[–]FeierInMeinHose 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did they not choose to forego a career and instead be a stay-at-home parent? You seem to be arguing for all the financial freedom that a career gives without any of the sacrifice it entails, which is what's known as entitlement.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
It's not like they're being forced to stay at home. If a housewife desires, she could get a job easily and bring in money for herself. Most children are too young to work, and are too irresponsible to be trusted with anything more than a small allowance.
[–]Googlesnarks -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
they were, at one point when they couldn't get jobs for themselves, forced into marriage so that they don't die from not being able to buy food.
[–]mexicono 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
at one point
key words there
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I thought we were talking about the past the whole time :/
[–]orcscorper 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
That's because you're...special. Not like Mozart and Einstein were special. The other kind.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, you're the one stuck in it. So...
[–]SchalaZeal01 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
at one point when they couldn't get jobs for themselves
Unless disabled, this means never. Women have always worked. You're under the delusion that middle class stay-at-home was the norm historically for all classes of income. You'd be wrong. And previously, you needed to be much richer than just middle class to support someone at home.
[+]Regent_Hope -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Worked =/= equal access to money. Dont act like women working minimum wage shit jobs in the 1900s meant equallity.
[–]SchalaZeal01 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It meant equality to their husbands also working minimum wage shit jobs in the 1900s. And probably their kids working if they could.
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There was no minimum wage in the 1900s. Unless you mean the whole century, and just worded it stupidly. Either way, you are wrong and should educate yourself. May I suggest the internet? There are many ways to inform yourself, for free, on the internet. If you can Reddit, you can Google.
[–]Pandamonius84 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
"Being kept in a house". Nobody is forcing that person be it man or woman to stay inside. I would assume that they are allowed to leave home when they want to and not have ask permission. But of course there are scum like this, but they are a minority.
"Financial freedom to purse whatever interest you."
There are plenty of activities that don't require money or are cheap to do. Bird watching, jogging/running, biking, painting, creative writing, poetry, reading, basic exercise, to name a few.
You also know what they can also do, participate in the workforce by submitting applications for a job. If they're spouse doesn't like it, than they should consider why they are together if having some extra money is bad.
"Authority over you." Nobody has authority over someone when they are in a relationship. If someone does, that is abusive and they should break it off because of the lasting damage abusive relationships can do to someone physically and mentally.
"Virtue of having all the money." Not if they have a shared bank account, than it's technically both your money.
Also children do have responsibility. It's called chores, school, and homework. And if the parents give them an allowance, than they do get an income.
[–]BroaxXx 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Again, if you are treated as a child that's your choice and your responsibility...
[–]Kalkaline 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes there are instances of abuse, and they are plentiful, but it doesn't mean that is the majority of cases with stay at home moms.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
are you daft? for one example. my brother works and his wife stays home with their 2 kids. his money goes directly into an account that she has access to because he is working he doesn't have time to go shopping etc. she literally has all the financial freedom and if he is lucky she left him something to play with when he is done work for the week.
he is not in some weird relationship where the woman has access to his finances he is in a regular old fashion marriage where his responsibilities are going to work and support the family financially and hers are to make sure the dishes are dirty there is always a mess made when he comes home and that her facebook is thoroughly checked.
me and my wife both work and there are days when she works a 12hour shift and I am home with the kids. its not a fucking job or a trap I can go out and do whatever and I don't really even need to use money to enjoy some hobbies or enjoy my freedom reading a book while my kids play in the yard.
don't call people dipshit idiots because you think you need to negotiate an allowance with your partner if you are a stay at home parent. if you think that is the case and you feel like you are trapped or a child then you are in a dysfunctional relationship and I recommend you seek help.
[–]-do-I-have-to- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My husband works 50 to 60 hours a week. We build a budget together based on the needs of our children. We both get a small allowance for whatever we want, the amount is the same for each of us. I buy the food, clothes, homeschooling supplies, and whatever else we need from our checking, staying within our budget. If I want supplies for my knitting or sewing, we budget for it and save up. We do the same if he wants a new video game, d&d supplies, or movie. We split up actual chores. I do most of the child care and schooling, and my hubby always spends time with each of the kids and teaches them when he is home and awake. In my opinion, we are a team, one that would break without each other. Neither is more or less than the other, just different. I can also leave the house whenever I like. I have a nice trip out of state planned to see my brother next month, I am going by myself, sans kidos or hubby. It should be fun.
[–]thesquataholic 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No financial freedom, yet women spend most of the money in the US.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -38 points-37 points-36 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
you can't freely spend money that isn't yours. unless someone gives it to you, but you have to negotiate with that person for an allowance.
like a child.
I can absolutely see why women wanted that to change and you're all idiots if you can't, sorry fellas.
this doesn't erase the notion that suddenly doubling the work force by adding women to it was the worst thing that happened to the lower classes wages, which I'm still salty over, but I would have done the exact same thing probably.
being a pet isn't cool.
[–]Taylor1391 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Except that if you're married, it is yours.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm pretty sure neither employed men nor women can do that.
And yes, most homemakers are occupying that role by choice.
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
unless it's not because your finances are actually separate????
[–]Coontang 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Divorce and take, more than likely, over half of current assets plus much of future earnings?
Being married with separate finances would require both parties to be employed. Otherwise, only one person has finances, if you are not a stay at home mom, cause kids are a lot of work on their own, don't manage the budget or assist with the finances in anyway, including grocery shopping or paying bills then yeah the relationship is asymmetrical. However, outside the word of law no one has power over you unless you make the choice to let them. If you have no kids, don't help pay bills, and don't work then you aren't contributing.
[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
if you strictly keep finances separate, then ultimately she should obtain a job, if she chooses to rely on him, increasing his burden, because she wants to be a stay at home partner, then she chooses to accept the limitations he puts in place, because he is the one sacrificing his home and social life to perform that work. It is still a choice.
Historically there was no need to for this (her working once married - or atleast "paid work"), because legal fiction dictated otherwise (atleast in the uk) which effectively male and female when married fused into "the male" (hence taking his name) and she was as free to use his credit as he was (due to english law of agency) and she could still work, it just became the husbands in name. The wives would often spend what they made, or claim what was left in divorce etc., which was normally successful. Husbands pretty much only fought against this, when they needed it to pay the alimony, remain solvent, or raise the children just like any of the other assets brought to the marriage would have). UNLESS he revoked that power of agency publicly (and there was serious debate over how public it had to be, did you need to contact every shop or just the town-crier) and they had to provided an allowance or provide for the wife. This likely lends itself true for most societies in some way or other.
To quote
A married woman could not contract debts in her own name. Instead,the common-law device of the law of agency provided her with the right to purchase necessaries in her husband’s name, according to his rank and wealth. A husband’s consent to his wife’s pledging his credit was assumed from the couple’s cohabitation. As The laws respecting women stated in 1772, ‘the husband shall answer all contracts of hers for necessaries, for his assent shall be presumed to all necessary contracts, upon the account of cohabiting’.This implied authority meant that retailers and traders could deal confidently with a wife without checking whether she had her A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband’s credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. The right still applied if her husband turned her out or if she was forced to leave her husband to escape his violence. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance. Since in most cases a married woman was automatically given the right to pledge her husband’s credit, a husband had to take public steps to deny her the use of his credit and explain why he did so. This was done by giving personal or general notice to traders and retailers. The passing references to the use of bell-men (town criers) and the consistent placing of press advertisements shows that many husbands chose to give general notice.However, the legal handbooks differed over which form of notice was best Advertisements were structured around husbands’ legal obligations and fell into three main categories, the majority of which did indeed refer to separation. Firstly 56 per cent (157) of the husbands denied their credit to wives who had eloped. In 1749 Thomas Spetch announced in The York Courant ‘Whereas Anne Spetch, the Wife of Thomas Spetch, of Ouse-Bridge, York, has left her said Husband this is to caution all Persons not to trust her hereafter, for that he will not pay any Debts on her Account’. Secondly, 12 per cent (34) explained that the couples were separated by mutual consent with an arranged alimony. In August 1771 Ephraim and Dorothy Anderson of Sunderland placed an advert informing the public that they ‘are now parted by Agreement, and he allows her a separate Maintenance’; therefore he would not pay her debts. Thirdly, another 24 per cent (68) of the husbands refused to pay their wives’ debts without mentioning elopement or separation and it seems that the couple continued cohabiting. Thus in 1749 Robert Thompson ,a farmer, simply warned ‘that he will not pay or discharge any Debt she [his wife] shall contract from the Day of the Date herof’ . The legal status of this announcement is questionable and more typically a man would explain that his refusal was due to his wife’s extravagance, which endangered their economic well-being. Robert Wright of Sunderland advertised that no one was to give credit to his wife after 29 September 1768 because she had ‘contracted several debts ,unknown to me, to my great in jury’. The particular strength of the advertisements in this context, therefore, is that they confirm what the legal handbooks imply: that the law of agency was routinely and consistently used during matrimony.
A married woman could not contract debts in her own name. Instead,the common-law device of the law of agency provided her with the right to purchase necessaries in her husband’s name, according to his rank and wealth. A husband’s consent to his wife’s pledging his credit was assumed from the couple’s cohabitation. As The laws respecting women stated in 1772, ‘the husband shall answer all contracts of hers for necessaries, for his assent shall be presumed to all necessary contracts, upon the account of cohabiting’.This implied authority meant that retailers and traders could deal confidently with a wife without checking whether she had her A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband’s credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. The right still applied if her husband turned her out or if she was forced to leave her husband to escape his violence. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance.
Since in most cases a married woman was automatically given the right to pledge her husband’s credit, a husband had to take public steps to deny her the use of his credit and explain why he did so. This was done by giving personal or general notice to traders and retailers. The passing references to the use of bell-men (town criers) and the consistent placing of press advertisements shows that many husbands chose to give general notice.However, the legal handbooks differed over which form of notice was best
Advertisements were structured around husbands’ legal obligations and fell into three main categories, the majority of which did indeed refer to separation. Firstly 56 per cent (157) of the husbands denied their credit to wives who had eloped. In 1749 Thomas Spetch announced in The York Courant ‘Whereas Anne Spetch, the Wife of Thomas Spetch, of Ouse-Bridge, York, has left her said Husband this is to caution all Persons not to trust her hereafter, for that he will not pay any Debts on her Account’.
Secondly, 12 per cent (34) explained that the couples were separated by mutual consent with an arranged alimony. In August 1771 Ephraim and Dorothy Anderson of Sunderland placed an advert informing the public that they ‘are now parted by Agreement, and he allows her a separate Maintenance’; therefore he would not pay her debts.
Thirdly, another 24 per cent (68) of the husbands refused to pay their wives’ debts without mentioning elopement or separation and it seems that the couple continued cohabiting. Thus in 1749 Robert Thompson ,a farmer, simply warned ‘that he will not pay or discharge any Debt she [his wife] shall contract from the Day of the Date herof’ . The legal status of this announcement is questionable and more typically a man would explain that his refusal was due to his wife’s extravagance, which endangered their economic well-being. Robert Wright of Sunderland advertised that no one was to give credit to his wife after 29 September 1768 because she had ‘contracted several debts ,unknown to me, to my great in jury’. The particular strength of the advertisements in this context, therefore, is that they confirm what the legal handbooks imply: that the law of agency was routinely and consistently used during matrimony.
this power was used and enforced
Married women under-stood and claimed their right to be maintained. One of the most frequent secondary complaints (21 per cent, 78 out of 365) was made by wives who claimed that their husbands failed to ‘provide for’ or ‘maintain’ them, using the terms interchangeably. The complaints took two forms. Firstly wives alleged that during cohabitation their husbands removed necessaries from them or refused to supply cash or credit to purchase them. They categorised this as cruelty. In 1744 Mary Giles advertised that her husband had denied her and her children ‘the common Necessaries of Life, and even carried his Cruelty so far as to insert the said Advertisement [denying her credit], in order to prevent their obtaining Relief’. Secondly, women accused their husbands of failing to provide for them and their families by deserting them or turning them out
hell a woman couldn't steal from their husband (or steal from others in the presence of her husband) - this only covers from her husband though.
The laws respecting women stated that a ‘wife cannot herself take away her husband’s goods feloniously, and if she takes them away, and delivers them to a stranger, it is no felony in the stranger’
Thus basically unless they eloped, you had to either provide for them (legally that could be enforced) or grant alimony (based on his income level). they didn't "depend" they demanded, and the law granted.
even in marital breakdown, men phrased their demands for the return of property taken by wives to emphasise that they needed it in order to remain solvent, bring up their children or to pay their wives’ alimony, rather than simply because it was legally theirs.
https://www.academia.edu/746242/Favoured_or_oppressed_Married_women_property_and_coverturein_England_1660_1800
Of course that's only a small part of English history, but there is no evidence to suggest any of this varied that much over the course of our history, minor differences existed of course, but it seems to have existed that way consistently, there were distinctions between England and Europe, and between English and Roman law (women had better inheritance there), but in practice it all seemed to play out relatively similarly.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
maybe you should learn how to comprehend language lmao
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
the option that you don't know how to read isn't on the table?
weird that you'd arbitrarily limit the available choices to make yourself look good, you false dichotomy motherfucker ;)
[–]Grasshopper21 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Weird that you've gotten yourself downvoted into oblivion for being a trite cunt.
[–]Babill 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then they can stop whenever they want, keep the children and live off alimony. Ain't it great being a woman today?
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]Painislove2016 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
Says you. I'm sure the housewives of millionaires/billionaires wake every day to a depressing existential crisis.
"No financial freedom", this is such a typical woman attitude. "What's yours is ours, what's mine is mine"
[–]Taylor1391 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
If they married for money, they're a legal prostitute and probably do struggle with self worth issues. If they married someone for the right reasons who just happened to be rich, I bet they're fine.
[–]Grasshopper21 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They still made those choices and probably should feel bad about themselves for marrying someone for money.
That's why they probably struggle. I don't feel sorry for their free choice.
[+]ICritMyPants -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
If they married for money, they're a legal prostitute
What the actual fuck..
[–]Taylor1391 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Well, do you have a counter argument?
[–]ICritMyPants -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
It's just a fucked up way of looking at things honestly
[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Not really. If your primary interest in someone is a financial one (as opposed to, say, their personality), it's not that far off from the truth.
There definitely are people out there who just see dollar signs in the dating world.
[–]Taylor1391 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's a fucked up thing to do. I'm just curious how you look at it. Is it okay in your mind that someone gets married with the intention of leeching off a rich person? If so, why is it okay to do that, but not okay to call an exchange of sex for riches prostitution?
[–]Googlesnarks -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I don't know about you, but I was completely fed up with having to ask my parents for money when I was 13 years old.
now imagine having to ask for money for everything you've ever wanted, even when you're a grown adult.
and you wouldn't want to change that system???? yeah, ok buddy, you're basically a fucking sheep then.
[–]foxinthesky 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you don't want to ask for money get a job like how thick is your skull
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You aren't a child in an adult relationship, though?
It's all in your mindset. Is a working husband a slave because he goes out to work 40-60 hour weeks? You know how much of his own money he gets to spend at work? 0. But, as an adult, you have something called "responsibility". You understand what has to be done, and if you are lucky enough to get someone to share the workload, all the better.
I'm not sure where your toxic view of life came from, but get help.
[–]PillTheRed 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
So don't be a stay at home parent. Are you trolling? Serious question. I mean, the solution to this issue you brought up is incredibly easy to solve. If you don't want to be reliant on someone else for money, don't. It isn't fucking rocket science. How you turn being a stay at home parent, with tons of free time, and not having to work because someone else pays everything for you, into some weird victimhood scenario, is beyond me. I've done the stay at home parent thing. Easiest "job" I've ever had. The only way a person could think that is hard, or even the hardest job in the world. Is because they have never actually had to work in their entire existence. Oh no, you might have to wake up at night!!! Give me a break. I'd rather that, than being on call somewhere and having to leave at the drop of a hat at any time.
Either you're trolling. Or, you are literally one of the most shallow, intellectually vapid people I've talked to in quite some time.
A man who is the sole breadwinner in the family, but an equal partner in marriage, asks his wife for money. Not petty cash, but any spending that could affect their ability to pay bills or save for retirement? That's something you discuss with your wife. Similarly, no grown woman should have to ask her husband for walkin' around money.
Women don't ask their husbands for money, even if they depend entirely on his income.
That's called "being married with shared finances," whether you are a man or a woman. Most married couples discuss all major purchases.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
You're kidding, right?
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
.... no that's pretty much exactly how it was. if you ain't got nothing for yourself, you rely on someone else to give it to you.
that fundamentally asymetrical power and finance structure is something I would have wanted to alleviate for myself, if it were the case for me.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If you're in a good relationship, you have spending power. Women in america spend way more money than men do, despite this social dynamic.
If you're in a bad relationship, spending power is irrelevant. You should fix your relationship.
[–]Googlesnarks -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
and all of that was pretty much up to the man's discretion.
I wouldn't want to live my life on the off chance I was going to be treated nicely. I would want to ensure I lived a good life on my own, freely, with my own fucking money.
your are a blind fool if you don't instantly understand this.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are you saying you had no choice in being with this man?
[–]Coontang 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In this person's mind women were just slaves or something. Never mind women's aggregate happiness is taking a nosedive in recent decades within Western culture.
[–]Aegi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can get a divorce for free if you apply for assigned counsel.
You will then have around 50% of your husband's assets.
[–]Wambo45 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Sounds like you should be more upset with your ability and competence in picking a husband and mate, rather than the institution of stay at home mothers, who do so willingly and spend enormous amounts of money in our economy.
yeah I can also decide to change the entire system :)
they decided to change the system, for better or worse, and I completely understand why they did it.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Who's "they", and what did they change for better or worse?
[–]Thorpolice 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What if everyone else in the system doesn't want it changed?
[–]Aegi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why not get a divorce if you feel trapped?
Also, with social media, how does your husband socially isolate you?
You are using reddit right now, is he with you/over your shoulder?
[–]Coontang 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You need to read up on history. Men had all the liability in a marriage. Financially responsible and liable for the entire household, including debts incurred by their spouse. It's called a partnership. If they divorced, the man was still responsible for all the debts incurred during the marriage.
I believe that women should definitely have equal rights and the ability to do as they choose. But you can't have all the freedom without any responsibility.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Anecdotal, but many of my colleagues (esp. the older ones) still have SAHWs, who, among other things, manage the checkbook. These people def. have a leg up on those of us with working spouses, as they do not need to come late or leave early to pick up/drop off kids, their wives take care of the housework/dry-cleaning, etc. On the other hand, they are always bitching about how they need to work longer hours to pay for their wives' spending habits.
[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Older guys I've worked with have often told me that they'll have a day off only to be given a honey-do list.
It's one thing to have shit that needs doing around the house, everyone does, but it's always depressing hearing from guys that work long hours only for when they manage to get time off to have to spend any "free" time working. They get "allowances" from their wife. Work long hours to fund their wives spending habits. And their reward? More work. Yaaaaaay.
[–]trenescese 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Everything comes at a price. You get no financial freedom, you gain no responsibility and all the time in the world.
[+]Googlesnarks -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
you've clearly never actually had all the done in the world with nothing to do.
it's depressing AF.
[–]trenescese 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Then don't do it. No one forces you to. In my opinion, though, it's clearly a better option. What's your problem?
[–]1-281-3308004 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
If you live in the first world and own a computer, it's pretty fucking difficult to have 'nothing to do'
[–]Googlesnarks -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
you misunderstood what I mean by "nothing to do".
I'm talking about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs type shit. when you are making enough passive money to never have to lift a finger for anything.
it was seriously depressing because I didn't have anything to struggle against, and the struggle is what we're here for in the first place.
we're never satisfied.
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wait. This entire time, you were bitching and moaning about how hard life is when you're financially dependant on someone else, and now you admit that you were just another spoiled rich bitch? Cry me a fucking river! Ohhhh, life is so hard when all my needs are taken care of, like a child. I'm so depressed that my life is so easy, and I'm a useless human being. You working stuffs will never understand my pain. My god, you're entitled. My hands curl up like talons when I relax them, thanks to carpal tunnel, my shoulders and knees are shot, and my hips are going next, all from a lifetime of physical labor. Now I should sympathize with you because you're a cake-eater? The Morlock pities not the Eloi.
[–]1-281-3308004 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
99% of people would give anything to be in that position. That's the goal of like every other post on r/financialindependence....
Me included. Shit.
[–]NoGardE 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Man, you must have a really awful relationship with your husband if it's not based on mutual respect and division of labor.
[–]Iamdemonspawn 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The problem is your both right under different relationships and really it has to be an intense discussion between what each person wants out of their relationship. If women want to work and split chores why not? If when want to stay at home and can find a man to support them why not?
Edit: Split*
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
oh, of you want to be a stay at home wife, then awesome!
the thing was this wasn't a choice for women because they didn't get jobs for a bit there.
that was the problem.
[–]Thorpolice 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I believe the operative word here is WAS.
I uh... thought we were talking about the past in the first place.
we weren't :/
[–]BroaxXx 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Plenty of women decide to focus on their career instead of staying at home raising their kids. If you miss your financial freedom maybe you should revise your life choices instead of blaming others.
[–]jmkiii 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
While your scenario certainly exists, the inverse is likely much more common. Women spend more money than men.
But really, all relationships are different. You paint with an absurdly broad brush.
[–]blfire 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
no financial freedom
Arn't their laws in place that you are entitelted to a part of your partners income if you don't work?
[–]Onithyr 103 points104 points105 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The easiest way to see the absurdity of all of this is to simply reverse the genders.
When the man is working and the woman is staying at home with the children, she has the hardest job in the world and she's doing it all unpaid.
When the woman is working and the man is staying at home with the children, he's a no good layabout and she needs to leave him for someone better.
The quality of the housework done doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who is in what role. Either way the woman is a victim and the man is taking advantage of her.
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I remember when my wife asked for a divorce and left me. I had to pay $1250 a month in support for 1 kid and alimony combined. Plus I still had all the same bills at home. After about 6 months I realized I was saving money. How did that bitch go thru $1250 a month and STILL always tell me I wasn't providing enough?
[–]KingHavana 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Sounds like you were pretty lucky to get rid of her then! I hope you have a happier life now.
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
so much better and then she killed herself so I never have to hear from her again.
[–]Grubnar 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That is good for you, but how is your kid doing?
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It was pretty hard on him. He was 11 I think. She also killed his 2 year old half brother and that was worse. It was a real shit show for a while, but everyone is doing well now. It's been the least drama filled 15 years of my life. My son got married a couple years ago and is doing well. Thanks for asking.
[–]BeachCruisin22 140 points141 points142 points 9 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link
It must suck to not have to commute, have no boss, be able to do your "job" in your pajamas, have someone else filling your bank account and be the one calling all the shots all day.
Oh the sacrifices they make!
[–]ThrowawayCop51 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I read this as a small business owner
[+]Kennuf22 -68 points-67 points-66 points 9 years ago* (69 children) | Copy Link
No need to trivialize it. A society's greatest asset are great mothers.
Edit:
After much discussion, I would like to announce a winner. The final point tallies are as follows:
U/kennuf22: 17
Insecure men: 0
Thank you all for your time.
[–]BeachCruisin22 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Not trivializing anything, being a mother is far more rewarding than sitting in a cubicle being yelled at by 7 different bosses every day. Perhaps women should realize that when they are in the position of being a stay-at-home mother they are blessed and not oppressed.
I'd also say that great fathers with great mothers are great assets, given the products we've seen that come from single moms.
[+]Kennuf22 -84 points-83 points-82 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Well, first things first. If you're being yelled at by 7 different bosses, you need to be better at your job. Just sayin.
I'm not sure you're in a position to speak on how rewarding being a mother is. Furthermore, why is providing for a family and being a great father not equally as rewarding?
Most women do see it as a blessing, not this prof, obviously- tbh, she is likely in no better position to speak about being a mother than you or I.
Yes, the great-mom-and-father combo is ideal. I just wish you would have included something about being a father in your comment, as you seemingly think being a father entails nothing more than getting shit on at work.
[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Just to address the "7 bosses" thing.
Pretty sure that's in reference to "Office Space" in which the people working in an office have 7 useless middle managers coming around every time any of them make a mistake.
[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For "Office Space", it should be 8.
I swear I'm only a pedant sometimes.
[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But then fire the lower employees to save money. And promote the guy who openly does nothing because its boring.
[–]BeachCruisin22 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I thought the reference was obvious
[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That guy missed it pretty hard.
[–]tallwheel 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I did too, but at least I read it as hyperbole as it was meant to be instead of being pedantic enough to take it literally.
[–]HuntTheHunter12 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
He mentioned good fathers are important, too. You're acting childish.
[–]fmlom 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Flat wrong. Society's greatest assets are tax paying men.
[–]SarahC 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd make the group even smaller: The guys that keep the buildings standing, fix the roads, keep the electricity flowing, fix the sewers, drill the oil, drive the lorries.
Without them - society would crumble into it's "just in time" footprint in months.
[+]Kennuf22 -32 points-31 points-30 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Fair. But, who is generally tasked with raising these men?
[–]LarryBeard 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then why the fuck is it always the mens fault if women are "raising" them
[–]fmlom 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Their in tact family unit, including a father and a mother. Single mothers are shit mothers, the vast majority of the time.
[–]Kennuf22 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I agree, but generally a shitty father is manifested as an uninvolved father leaving the mother to raise children on her own. Making her role more valuable. Even in a cohesive family unit she is generally tasked with the bulk raising children. I completely agree that both sides of the equation are essential, all I'm saying is that in terms of day-to-day child interactions, mothers are more essential.
[–]Cant_touch_my_moppin 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Pick a side, Trotsky. You cant have both being equal but one being more equal than the other.
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For my entertainment, would you mind explaining what you're talking about?
[–]fmlom 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
all I'm saying is that in terms of day-to-day child interactions, mothers are more essential.
Then you're a fucking idiot. The man feeds his children. The man shelters the children. Without him, they die- in a perfect world.
Instead, some dumb cunt and her jail bound spawn leech off another man's taxes.
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Dear God this is ignorant.
Sure, a man feeds and shelters his children. However, without proper and progressive parental interactions, typically carried out in large part by the mother, the children will be well fed, sheltered shitbags that will become very good at nothing more than producing "jail bound spawn".
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
deleted What is this?
[–]fmlom -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Top fucking kek at progressive parental interactions. Are you raising a faggot or a tranny?
The most important thing in a child's life is that his or her parents earn money. Kids raised on welfare end up being pieces of shit like you.
[–]double-happiness 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
Nah, a society's greatest asset are great fathers.
IMO fathers make and define families, because without them there would hardly be any families to begin with. A woman with children is really just a woman with children, nothing more or less. Only by choosing to stay with their children do men actually facilitate and underpin families.
If you think about it, nature is full of species where the young stay with their mother for a time after they are born, usually for nutritional reasons. But it's those species where the male also stays with the young that actually exhibit some sort of family structure.
Having said that, I would concede that same-sex partners, step-parents, grandparents and others all may play significant roles. But overall the growth of fatherhood reflects the growth of families, whereas the growth of motherhood simply reflects population expansion.
[–]Googlesnarks 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
isn't "having a father" one of the biggest factors in a child not turning into a criminal?
[–]CycloneSweep 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It appears to be so. A lot of problems later in life are no common with fatherless people. Although that might just be because you are much more likely to be abandoned by a father than a mother
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
do you play Path of Exile by chance?
[–]CycloneSweep 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I do not.
cyclone and sweep are both popular skills in the game, had to ask.
This might be a correlation. (like the gender pay gap)
I imagine that poor and uneducated people are the most likely one to not have an father.
[–]Kennuf22 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, it's having a two-parent household.
[+]Kennuf22 -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
Fair points, but biologically, women are better and more essential to raising children. Your argument is essentially "well, families are better off with two parents and a supporting cast of family members". Um, duh. In the traditional (most effective) family units the men earn a living and the women take care of domestic duties, including the bulk of raising children. So, why would mothers not be more of an asset when looked at individually?
[–]double-happiness 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Your argument is essentially "well, families are better off with two parents and a supporting cast of family members".
No, it's not, and the fact that you would say that just proves that you haven't understood what I wrote.
In the traditional (most effective) family units the men earn a living and the women take care of domestic duties, including the bulk of raising children.
Citation that they're most effective?
why would mothers not be more of an asset when looked at individually?
What is the use of the mother washing the pots and pans if the father is not out there 'bringing in the bacon'? Better that the household is chaotic and dirty than the family starve. In that sense, the breadwinner role is more important than the 'homemaker'. Funnily enough, that's exactly what you saw in Britain during the industrial revolution: both parents went out to work and people lived on fish 'n' chips brought in from outside. That's exactly why the meal has such a unique place in British social history. Not saying those families lived all that well BTW, but they were sure as hell better off than their rural cousins.
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Citation:
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/identifying-successful-families-overview-constructs-and-selected-measures
Citation #2:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
What type of men typically don't "bring home the bacon" on any level? Well, fathers who either aren't around or not able to earn a living. In both of these cases (removing the obvious health conditions etc.) One can trace these issues back to a poor upbringing, an upbringing (meaning day-to-day parental interactions) that we both agree is primarily facilitated by mothers. So, mothers raise responsible fathers. Mothers are the Foundation of a well-functioning family unit.
[–]double-happiness 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
Umm, where exactly does your citation support your claim??? I searched it and found the word 'mother' appears only once!!
Findings reported by several researchers that members of the same family often score quite differently on family assessment measures further supports the importance of obtaining measures from multiple family members (Christensen and Arrington, 1987). For example, Schumm, in his study of family satisfaction among Anglos and Mexican Americans, found that using just the scores from the mothers results in different conclusions than if the scores of the fathers and adolescents are considered as well (Schumm et al., 1988).
I suspect you're just taking the fucking piss now, seems like you're just throwing a citation at me and hoping I don't actually read it.
an upbringing (meaning day-to-day parental interactions) that we both agree is primarily facilitated by mothers
Where did I say that?? That's the opposite of what I said. SMH
mothers raise responsible fathers. Mothers are the Foundation of a well-functioning family unit.
What an incredibly circular argument. Mother raise responsible fathers so mothers are the foundation of a well-functioning family unit. That just seems a weak argument. 'Car mechanics make for well-functioning cars so car mechanics are the basis of how cars work'. Or something. IDK.
Listen, I was brought up without a father around, so how good a father do you think I would make?? My whole point to women for years has always been, 'listen, I never even had a father, so don't expect me to take well to fulfilling that role'. Hell, I even had a vasectomy to make sure it wouldn't happen. It seems me a much more obvious line would be that mothers who choose men to be responsible fathers raise boys who are more likely to become responsible fathers. This does not support your half-baked and one-sided hypothesis that mothers are the bedrock of the family at all. Like I say, a woman with kids is just a woman with kids, as far as I can see.
[–]Kennuf22 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Umm, you didn't read it. Hence This^ entire comment. You also didn't read my second source, which would explain parts of the first citation.
"... that's the opposite of what I said."
Are you literally saying that all women do is clean pots and pans? And that men are the breadwinners AND primary care-givers? If you are I will gladly bow out of this discussion.
Your analogy is completely off base.
"I didn't have a father... How good of a father do you think ibwpuld make?"
Depends on how well your mother raised you- which I suppose she did a reasonable job? I mean, at least you're not willing to make the same mistakes your father did and have enough self-awarness to not have children. Your situation pretty well illustrates my point.
[–]CharismaticNPC 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
? fuck you, the onus is on you to CITE your statement, otherwise it's not backed, don't just throw a link on there and say "lol read it"
I cite the entire wikipedia biology article. OK
[–]double-happiness 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, what CharismaticNPC said. You can't just throw a link in there, and expect me to read it all, especially one as long as that. It's not at all obvious how it supports your arguments so that's up to you to show.
Are you literally saying that all women do is clean pots and pans?
No, I'm saying that after 9 months of feeling a child growing inside her body and risking death to bear it, it's no surprise that women bond to their children. Men OTOH don't even know for sure that their supposed children are theirs, and must work much harder to create and maintain a bond. That's why I regard the presence or absence of a father as a much more critical and crucial factor in making up a family. If your mother is there that's not unusual; if your father is there that's more remarkable by its very nature, especially considering the great problems facing fathers today. Consider that over 2/3 of black kids in the US are growing up without their fathers around. https://newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/
Essentially what I'm saying is that when families fall apart kids are left with their mothers, when they stay strong dads stay around. I can't put it any more clearly than that really.
you're not willing to make the same mistakes your father did
And how do you know he made any "mistakes" at all?? Your willingness to attach blame to a man you never met and know nothing about speaks absolute volumes.
[you] have enough self-awarness to not have children. Your situation pretty well illustrates my point.
So because I'm not willing or financially able to have a family that supposedly illustrates your point that mothers are more crucial to families than fathers? Not really seeing it, I must say. Besides which, a sample of one is statistically insignificant.
[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 92971
[–]NicoEF 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
women are better and more essential to raising children
Please provide a source
[–]Kennuf22 -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]NicoEF 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
that's sad, given the amount of shit you write I was expecting a serious answer
And btw that whole page doesn't metion the words "female", "woman", "women", "men", "man", "raise" or "better" at all. And while it does mention "raising", it refers to livestock
If you can't read between the lines here I'm not sure continuing a conversation is going to be worth while.
[–]NicoEF 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Humor me then, what am I missing? And btw, you posting a wikipedia link is hardly a conversation
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 92974
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would love to see your well constructed argument for this.
[–]betabydesign 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd argue that a father's role in shaping his children is just as important.
[–]Hitleresque 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Close, but not entirely true. For survival of the species' our greatest asset is good mothers. Society's greatest asset is men. Society was entirely built by and is maintained almost entirely by men.
[–]Kennuf22 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
...Raised by great mothers.
[–]Hitleresque 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
...whose personal survival is facilitated by men.
This isn't a chicken or egg scenario, everybody needs to do their jobs and no one role is more important than the other.
[–]Kennuf22 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Really? Because, "societies greatest asset is men. The entire world was built and is maintained by men." Lol
[–]WadeTheWilson 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You just cut off half his comment in order to prove your point. Don't be a dickhead, read the whole thing.
[–]Hitleresque 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's just a fact. It's also a fact that humanity would go extinct without women. How hard is that to grasp?
[–]jb_trp 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yup. Feminists look at the benefit men get from working like they do (i.e. "The gender wage gap! Male privilege!"), but they never acknowledge the immense tradeoff men make to earn more money. Men often work less fulfilling jobs than women, more dangerous jobs, longer hours, less desirable hours, etc, because so much of their worth as a man is attached to the amount of dollars they make. And that is very dehumanizing.
It is understood that many women don't want to be treated as sex objects, and that it can be dehumanizing for people to value a girl for the size of her breasts or how hot she is... But why is it okay to treat men as "success objects," and then accuse them of "privilege" when they try to become the thing that women find valuable in a partner? It's a lose-lose game.
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
because so much of their worth as a man is attached to the amount of dollars they make
Well I certainly don't see myself like that, and I don't make a lot. I'm just as much of a man as everyone else, and don't need anyone to tell me how much I'm worth. Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree and disagree. Where I agree is that a man shouldn't need to make a lot of money in order to be considered a man. I, personally, would very much like to live a life making only what I need to survive and working as little as possible. This is a MGTOW dream for me.
The problem is that society does in fact see a man's value based on how much he makes. Men, do, in fact typically feel pressure to earn and provide in order to provide worth to their loved ones and society.
Whether you want to play the game or say "fuck society" is completely up to you though. I am solidly with you in the "fuck society" camp... but I know full well how society sees it.
[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, that fucking sucks. Just another example of the "disposable men" bullshit. I guess misandry is kinda systemic too, just like "misogyny".
I'm glad I never gave a shit about what society thinks though.
[–]Mens-Advocate 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
More than a century ago, the famed playwright Strindberg masterfully dismantled the unpaid housewife myth: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7956/7956-h/7956-h.htm#link2H_4_0020
[–]ldt003 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Sounds cool, but I ain't got time for that. Can I get a tldr?
[–]Armigedon 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No idea why they downvoted you, but take an updoot.
[–]ldt003 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Thaaaanks. I'm just too lazy I guess.
[–]KingHavana -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I was too lazy to even click on it.
[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No pain, no gain.
[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Click on the HTML format, then read the very short story, His Servant or Debit and Credit. It's barely two pages and worth reading.
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
There's also taxes. Since men generally make more money (because they're expected to be providers), they also pay more taxes. Those taxes are used to support women's shelters, colleges (majority women), and healthcare (women are more expensive).
[+]ZippityD -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
deleted
[–]raunchyfartbomb 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if they did use the services, the same must then be assumed that all women would use the services. Women would still be more expensive, because they also have child birth + OBGYN + mammograms, etc.
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree. So I'm not arguing against this, but there are a lot of barriers to this happening. I think the biggest is that men are expected to be tough, push through pain, and put others first.
I remember my dad falling off the roof when I was a kid and messing up his leg pretty badly. But he had a family and couldn't afford to miss work, so he never got treatment. This was seen as the manly and dutiful thing to do by him and everyone around. We live in a world where self-sacrifice by men is celebrated.
There's also the issue of lifespans. Women live longer. In part due to the reasons above, but also because they work less dangerous jobs and more research money has gone into protecting women. Longer lifespans means more expensive healthcare.
[–]WolfShaman 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The only thing I would immediately think to change is that self-sacrifice by men is celebrated, to self-sacrifice by men is expected.
[–]tr33beard 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
This doesn't make sense, earlier treatment is associated to with lower costs (long term). Wouldn't the cost disparity increase if men were more proactive about medical treatment.
[–]ZippityD 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]tr33beard 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's my point, if cost of care is lower for men CURRENTLY (because they "... Are more likely to let chronic diseases fester and then die.") than it is for women then improving preventative care would lower costs even more driving up the cost disparity.
[–]ZippityD 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tr33beard 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh, I see what you meant. Makes sense but imo any scenario where we get men to seek maintenance care more I'd think they would be more likely to seek preventative too.
[–]NoGardE 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, if they were healthy and alive they'd keep producing more.
Not that I approve of taxes anyway.
[–]Aegi 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol no, we have less complex sex organs and less shit to go wrong essentially.
[–]blfire 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Its more about woman living longer. Look at the percentage of men / woman over the age of 70. Those people probably use much more resources.
[–]Wambo45 -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, great idea. Let's encourage men to use even more resources that we already don't have, due to the constraints of supply and demand in a universal healthcare model.
[+]Wasuremaru -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Are women more expensive? Have you got a source on that and does it include the expense of pregnancy which really is a shared expense since you need two to tango?
Edit: Thanks for the downvotes, everybody! I love getting downvoted for asking an honest question.
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/
Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700).
Two-fifths of the difference is because women live longer. There might also be some info about pregnancy too, but I didn't read it all
[–]Wasuremaru 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Thanks. This seems to answer my question. It's especially interesting that more than half of lifetime expenditures are made during senior years of life, which means that living longer is a very significant burden on insurance companies compared to what you pay into them.
[–]Regent_Hope 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You are correct.
"From early middle age onward, women's greater longevity explains more than half of their greater total expenditures"
[–]Wasuremaru 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm actually glad to hear about that. If costs incurred were relatively constant throughout lifetime, women living longer wouldn't be a big issue for insurance companies, but if more than half is in post-65, and women live 5 years longer, then they will incur a good deal more cost for the companies, which should be reflected in their charges by these companies.
Thanks for the article!
[–]edxzxz 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I volunteered at the college health center for a semester, and in about 6 months I saw over a dozen women on average every night coming in for routine stuff (no idea what exactly, but they did not appear sick) and in those 6 months I had one male patient come in on crutches with a cast on his leg. Yeah, this is just my own observation at one school for 6 months, but it struck me as noteworthy that out of about 1,000 patients over 6 months time, the only guy that came through the doors had a broken bone, all the women were there for period related issues.
[–]AFuckYou 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Don't forget, women are the true suffers of war. Their husband and sons die, this they can't live for free anymore.
[–]The_Best_01 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I blame that quote as one of the reasons for Hillary not winning. Bernie has said similarly stupid stuff too.
[–]wonderworkingwords 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Then in the mid-late 20th century feminists convinced us all that it was actually housewives doing unpaid labor for their husbands.
Well that's not true, and it wasn't about unpaid labour for the husband, either, originally. The idea goes back to Engels' short treatise on the family under capitalism, which points out that the capitalist can only use the labour of their employee to the extent that their private obligations are fulfilled. A wife's work thus indirectly enables more extraction of labour from the husband, who otherwise would have to spend time on house work, or pay someone for it, thereby introducing a wage-slavery like relationship into a marriage. Roughly speaking.
The thing on the slide is bullshit, but it doesn't originate with feminism, and the principle idea isn't invalid as such.
[–]Quintrell 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
who otherwise would have to spend time on house work, or pay someone for it
This is a falsity. I know plenty of guys that are perfectly happy to live in near squalor. They spend the absolute minimum amount of time on housework and pay no one.
If they had an SO that they were supporting the house would likely be a lot cleaner but it's by no means a necessity. I maintain that girls do more cleaning not because their man demands it, but rather because they value a clean environment more than the man.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So Engels argued that the capitalist being limited in the ability to use others labor by voluntary interactions creates slavery.
Sounds pretty invalid to me. It's barely internally coherent.
[–]wonderworkingwords 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You'd need to look into the theory of you are interested. The whole point of Marx (and Engels) is the analysis of economic relations and how those create the superstructure like culture or gender relations. Class is something that arises out of relations; what people do, simplistically put. Early feminism often had similar ideas. It's modern liberal feminism that puts more emphasis on what you are rather than do, and that introduces contradictions. What were we talking about again?
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OK, but you could still say that Feminists popularized the idea in the later 20th century.
[–]cymrich 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
even if you don't take direct relations in to account... what woman isn't benefiting from roads, cars, buildings, and everything else built primarily by men? taking it even farther... the materials used to build those are almost exclusively acquired by men... logging, mining, etc.
[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men financially supporting their female partners is still more common than the reverse.
The reverse almost never occurs once you factor in taxes, insurance, and use of government services. Once women stopped dying in childbirth, they used the industrial revolution to take babies as hostages and live as parasites.
[–]empyreanmax 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's not either/or. Men have privileges over women and women have different privileges over men. We have to be aware of both if we want to push for true egalitarianism.
Oh, I wouldn't argue against that. Of course men and women both have their own privileges. The OP was referring specifically to "labor" though, not privilege.
[–]Moonboots606 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I just wanted to say that I gave you your 666th upvote. You're welcome.
Hail Satan. \m/>.<\m/
Well, how would SAHM's be able to labour as mothers and homemaker's if they didn't have someone (or govt) providing the financial freedom for them to do so? Traditionally it was always men's labor that made this possible.
[–]o_oM 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Men financially supporting their female partners" - I think many times this was due women's inability to have a job rather than being unable to perform the job or lack of motivation. Many women pretended to be male for this reason.
"unpaid labor for their husbands" - It is unpaid labour. You can google jobs related to keeping a tide house and taking care of children. But the worst part is that housewives/husbands "hoping" to receive some money for personal expenses is an imbalance of power in the relationship. They end up being dependant their entire lives on their partners.
[+]PurpleAriadne -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Yes raising children, being a house keeper, cook, personal assistant, and social networker without financial renumeration is unpaid labor. The social expectation was the husband's income would be used to provide for his wife and family but that was not always the case.
Women were not allowed to have bank accounts without their husband's consent. If the husband was abusive or just bad with money she was stuck without any control to change the situation even if she did get a job(what few existed).
Studies have shown that women are more likely to share their resources than men.
[–]baskandpurr 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
She doesn't share her resources, she shares their resources, which broadly means the man's resources.
[–]SchalaZeal01 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In lots of places, women held the purse strings. They didn't have their own account, but they controlled the joint one.
Even in Japan. Salaryman comes home, gives paycheck to wife, gets an allowance which includes the money he can spend to buy lunches. And they're incredibly backwards in roles compared to the US. Still not the men who control the money.
[–]hork23 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
"Yes raising children, being a house keeper, cook, personal assistant, and social networker without financial renumeration is unpaid labor."
Is brushing your own teeth and wiping your ass unpaid labor as well? People do these things for themselves, they are not being hired by someone to accomplish these tasks so you don't need to be paid for it.
"The social expectation was the husband's income would be used to provide for his wife and family but that was not always the case."
Social expectation? Are you being dense? It was codified in law, read Blackthorn's commentary on English law. When was it not always the case? Provide a source.
"Women were not allowed to have bank accounts without their husband's consent."
Misnomer here, you meant wives. Also, they were seen as a single legal unit, why would she want or need a separate bank account? Was there something preventing her from even getting one? I doubt it, provide a source.
"If the husband was abusive or just bad with money she was stuck without any control to change the situation even if she did get a job(what few existed)."
Yeah, she had no recourse for his bad behavior. /s Again provide a source or you are full of shit. Few jobs existed for women? Please provide your sources.
"Studies have shown that women are more likely to share their resources than men."
Not buying this, give a source.
[–]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's ironic that a majority of women worked, either on farms or factories since times immemorial, but they couldn't find work...somehow.
[–]hork23 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly why I do not believe that rhetoric. What were women doing all that time in which the community is preparing for winter? The bad men kept them in closets, I guess. Can't let them contribute to OUR SURVIVAL, hell no! We're sexist men!
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
"France, 1881: France grants women the right to own bank accounts; five years later, the right is extended to married women, who are allowed to open accounts without their husbands’ permission. The US does not follow suit until the 196os, and the UK lags until 1975. "
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/forty-years-ago-women-had-a-hard-time-getting-credit-cards-180949289/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html
Also, neither you or I are dense enough to know that just because something is written into law realistically it may not be enforced or followed at all. See Jim Crow for an example outside of this topic, or even the recent Wall Street crash to know that laws are not always followed and socially those responsible are never held accountable.
Have you never read "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck or 'Pride and Prejudice" or Shakespeare for school? Even though these are fiction they represent the different places women have held in society over the years.
I doubt I am going to change your mind but you seem woefully uneducated in history. If you want to challenge the feminist paradigm you need to at least learn where it came from.
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't consider a single one of those links an actual source, as all they do is assert that it happened. It doesn't cite the supposed law that was finally passed or a statute or policy that barred women from the practice that eventually was removed or overturned. They each have the same problem as most blogs and major news sites have today, they do not provide the source for their claims. Also, the second link is about credit cards, not bank accounts.
So here's another question, who are the types of people that usually needed or wanted bank accounts back around 100 years? What were the demographics of those who had them? I'd say it's likely that business owners were the majority of those who owned an account, and men were the majority of business owners and still are.
"I doubt I am going to change your mind"
When you put forth shitty arguments of course I'm not going to be swayed easily. You didn't even bother to substantiate the reasons why women weren't able to have bank accounts (assuming your sources assertions are correct) because I'm guessing that would destroy your own argument.
"you seem woefully uneducated in history"
I ask for sources of your different claims and you think I'm ignorant of history based on that? You are arguing from ignorance here, you do not know what I do or do not know concerning the history of feminism or gender relations. You are flailing in an attempt to discredit all I've said just by fiat.
"If you want to challenge the feminist paradigm you need to at least learn where it came from."
Here I will admit that I don't know as much as I could, but I do know enough that the justifications used for feminism's efforts to change society are in many cases not falsifiable and most of the time based on falsehoods, partial or wholesale. Like I implied earlier, knowing about the historical context for many of the supposedly discriminatory (against women) laws and policies will show why it was like that in the first place. Feminism ignores this context and instead asserts that it is solely aimed at harming women in some fashion for the express benefit of men. This is a tenet of feminism, aka patriarchy theory, that women were deliberately disadvantaged.
Another tenet of feminism, is to ignore what men have gone through at the same time as claiming victimhood for women. They do not compare the two situations, if they had they would realize that maybe, just maybe, men have it bad too.
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You can't prove a negative. It doesn't have to be written into law to prove something existed. If you are as well-rounded as you elude you must know that history is written from the viewpoint of the conqueror or winner and the story is much more complex than the laws of the time. Those sources also explain the "inferiority" of women and why they were prevented in participating in governmental, financial, or industrial circles.
Those were a variety of sources and if you did a small amount of digging you would find countless more. Also, literature (even though fiction) can provide a glimpse into the social norms of the day. Hell, read the Bible and learn that the oldest profession and only one for women is prostitution. I do not have links as I am on mobile but I'm sure there are references in there to a woman's place.
I very much care about men and believe the patriarchal structure is just as damaging to men as it is women. That is why I attempt to participate in this sub even though I know my chances of success are nil.
I think women and men work differently due to our biology and it is inherently problematic how our laws attempt to differentiate between the two, pretend to be gender neutral, or codify strict laws based solely on gender.
Shitty, manipulative people exist in both sexes. Those people will use the strengths they have to gain power, success, or money. We must constantly be asking is there inherently bias? How can the issue be fair to all involved?
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"You can't prove a negative."
I am not dead. Need I say more?
"It doesn't have to be written into law to prove something existed."
I understand that but if you want to demonstrate that there was some type of systematic discrimination it's a damned good place to look.
"If you are as well-rounded as you elude"
Never suggested I was, that was a fabrication you put into your own head about my state of mind.
"you must know that history is written from the viewpoint of the conqueror or winner and the story is much more complex than the laws of the time"
So you admit that history is more complex than the feminist narrative of man oppressor, woman oppressed. How helpful of you.
"Those sources also explain the "inferiority" of women and why they were prevented in participating in governmental, financial, or industrial circles."
First source doesn't say anything of the reason, it only lists some of those rights woman were given. Second source also doesn't give a reason for why, it only states that women were discriminated against when they wanted certain financial tools (credit card). Third source they, yet again, does not give the reason why the policy was there in the first place, except in the jury portion to say that women were viewed as being unable to be objective as a juror (which I'd agree). Only when it's convenient to pushing their narrative of "Look how horrible women were treated!" (again, did they bother to look at how men were treated?) did they bother to provide a reason the opposition supposedly holds. Why are you lying about these sources?
"Those were a variety of sources and if you did a small amount of digging you would find countless more."
So you are trying to push the burden of proof upon me, to find the law or policy that restricts women freedom. That's what I asked YOU for, if your sources wasn't good enough why did you pick such terrible ones and so few of them, usually one would choose their best evidences. This is your job, to convince me by providing your evidence, not mine.
"Also, literature (even though fiction) can provide a glimpse into the social norms of the day."
There's a problem here, how can you show that those so called normals within fiction are indeed what is normal of society itself?
"Hell, read the Bible and learn that the oldest profession and only one for women is prostitution."
Because it very likely is despite your protestations of how the bible views women (what about men? nope, who cares). Teach some monkeys about money, soon they pay for sex. What does that suggest about our own species as we are not that different? Are you suggesting the biology somehow does not affect the brain and our behavior? That we are not a sexually dimorphic species with differing sexual strategies?
"I do not have links as I am on mobile but I'm sure there are references in there to a woman's place."
Proscription and description. Do you know the difference?
"I very much care about men and believe the patriarchal structure is just as damaging to men as it is women."
I don't believe you about caring about men. Patriarchy theory is garbage and everything that has been stapled on to it after contradictory evidence has been shown. 'Patriarchy only hurts women to benefit men!' [Someone points at men in the gutter] 'Oh, um.... patriarchy hurts men too!' As if they proved patriarchy is real rather than some other more complex explanation of society, like you suggested earlier. Seriously, patriarchy theory (and feminism) couldn't be more black and white in its description of the world.
"That is why I attempt to participate in this sub even though I know my chances of success are nil."
Do you even know why people are against feminism? Do you even care to know their reasons? What lead them down this path? Good-intentioned as you perhaps may be, if you believe the something will help someone, and it's not based in reality, then likely it backfire.
"I think women and men work differently due to our biology"
So you do believe our species to be sexually dimorphic. How far does that believe go however? Do you think that men have an out-group bias in favor of women? And that women have an in-group bias? Do you think we are a gynocentric society, as in that we will prioritize women's wants and needs over men's, and even children's at times? That the accepted role of a man is to be the provider and protector of the family, which entails sacrificing his comfort, safety, and even life when necessary? This is not patriarchy, this is biological imperative which society is derivative of.
"it is inherently problematic how our laws attempt to differentiate between the two, pretend to be gender neutral, or codify strict laws based solely on gender."
So you recognize that the sexes are different but to put that into law is an issue. Then where might we address the problems that result from the same standard applying to two different-minded people? The court?
The pretending part is a problem, see Duluth Model.
I do not think egalitarian policies will accomplish much other than an unequal outcome because of our innate differences, due to that it is doomed to failure. I am a minority of this viewpoint on this sub.
"Shitty, manipulative people exist in both sexes."
Yes but certain behaviors are more prominent in one sex compared to the other. That difference is denied by nearly everyone for whatever reason.
"Those people will use the strengths they have to gain power, success, or money."
Agreed, though some strategies have been crippled or have systematic bias against it or for them.
"How can the issue be fair to all involved?"
How do you define fair? The same outcome? That disadvantages the better, faster, smarter, etc. people. The same standard? But not everyone has the same capability to follow that standard. The same opportunities? The same laws?
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I provided sources but I am honestly taken aback that you don't seem to have a basic grasp of history.
Women didn't have the right to vote in the states until the beginning of the last century after a serious struggle. Women were thought incapable of machine work until they were the only workforce left to support WW2. After women were out in the world, making their own money, excelling at tasks they had never been given the opportunity to try before they did not want to go backwards. Some women enjoy being Moms but it is not the end all/be all of a women's existence. Just as it isn't a man's end all/be all to be the provider.
There is no way to prove to you that I care about men. I know in my life I have not expected anything I could not earn myself. I took care of a father whose horrible financial planning left me without the savings I had personally accrued for life after college (the IRS seized it). I supported my spouse through undergrad and grad school and we had a 16 year relationship where we both tried to figure out what is fair.
What women do you still have in your family? Any grandmothers? I challenge you to ask them what their experience was then, or stories they heard from their grandmother's. You probably have first hand accounts at your disposable if you are willing to listen.
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Women didn't have the right to vote in the states until the beginning of the last century after a serious struggle. "
And what was the situation of men? Do you even know?
Also, struggle? HAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAH! Until women are drafted for some wars you should never claim that shit again.
"Women were thought incapable of machine work until they were the only workforce left to support WW2."
Seeing how women worked on farms for hundreds of years, I doubt it.
"excelling at tasks they had never been given the opportunity to try before they did not want to go backwards"
Wouldn't call it excelling. Did not want to go backwards? Got a poll for that? Because the welfare state says otherwise.
"Some women enjoy being Moms"
Read nearly all.
"but it is not the end all/be all of a women's existence"
Yes, most everyone understands that and it's only people of your mindset that seems to think their opponents do not realize this.
"There is no way to prove to you that I care about men."
I realize that, nothing really could except some mind meld. However, a history involved in caring for them does provide evidence to that effect.
"You probably have first hand accounts at your disposable if you are willing to listen."
First hand accounts amounting to what? Things that support your point of view? The feminist point of view? Hah! I already talked to them about some of this stuff, and most hate feminism and think it is unnecessary.
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I tried. You have some serious gaps of knowledge and a very pompous view. Where is your source to show that all women enjoy being mothers? How can you even quantify that, women aren't allowed to complain if they aren't. I know multiple women who struggled with post-pardon(sp?) depression and while they dearly love their kids they are severely stressed. This also doesn't quantify good mothers over bad. I know many mothers who never should have had children.
I do know men's struggle, it's taught in history class; women's not as much.
I know strong women I respect that would not call themselves feminists. They enjoy their right to vote, their financial freedom to make their own choices, the access to birth control, and choosing their own husband. Whether they like it or not all of these freedoms were fought for and won by feminists like myself and I seriously doubt they would give them away.
I wish for you the support you need to open your heart.
Good luck.
P.S. Women died in childbirth regularly while the men died in battle.
[–]seriouslees 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How many western civilization women currently alive were barred from having bank account?
[–]Moonboots606 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women do not raise children, contribute to the home and cook alone. That's nonsensical feminist cynicism. And what women did eons ago does not pertain to today's society. And if you could, share those studies that represent your point, cos it's ridiculous.
[–]orcscorper 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
"Social Networker" is a paying job, now? What kind of degree does it require? Does it pay well (you know, if it's not a housewife doing it for free)? And a stay-at-home mom is not a housekeeper, cook, or personal assistant: she's a mom. On her own, she would still cook and clean for herself, and she would have to do it when she got home from her job. And any parent that asks to be paid a personal assistant's salary for spending time with their own children never should have had kids.
[–]PurpleAriadne -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Have you ever taken care of a baby or toddler, even for an evening?
Fixing a meal for yourself and cleaning up your own mess is much different than cooking for a couple of kids who leave messes everywhere including feces, urine, and vomit.
[–]orcscorper 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Of course I haven't taken care of a baby or toddler. I'm a single man. I have no anklebiters of my own, and people don't ask people like me to watch their children (I am not sad about this).
Now in what way does raising your own children entitle you to housekeeper wages? You're children make housekeeping more difficult, but they are your fucking children. You don't like cleaning up after children? Easy solution. Don't have children.
How does cooking for your entire family differ from cooking for yourself? That roast won't cook faster because you are the only one eating. To cook for a family, do exactly what you would do when cooking for one, but make more. It's not hard.
Now about those "social networker" and "personal assistant" jobs: if you believe you should be paid to be nice to your own children, you are a terrible person. Sterilize yourself, now.
You need to be around some children so you can grasp more what it takes.
Of course you should clean and cook after your own children but if you are the only one doing it because the other parent is employed full-time it will be exhausting physically and emotionally.
The social networker and personal assistant roles I mentioned are for the spouse, not the children. Have you never had a girlfriend buy a last minute gift for someone in your family because you forgot? Relied on you parents or partner to do all of the vacation planning? Packed your clothes, reminded you it was your father's birthday? A partner could also be counted on to host a nice dinner for the boss to enhance his chances or a promotion or smoothe negotiations for a business deal.
I have done all of these things for my husband, some when I financially supported both of us and some when he was the bread winner. I would earn my missing income just from the refunds, insurance claims, paper work follow-up he hated doing and was awful at.
[–]theothermod 271 points272 points273 points 9 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
That's not even good grammar. Should be "vary", not "varies".
[–]Lethn 115 points116 points117 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
lol you're right and that's actually being taught at a university.
[–]theothermod 83 points84 points85 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Not to mention that the subject of the sentence changes halfway through, from "the benefits that men accrue from women's labor", to "privileges over women". These are not the same.
[–]theothermod 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
And bringing up the space between the apostrophe and the 's' in 'women's' would be just too cruel.
Who teaches these illiterate freaks?
[–]theothermod 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It should also be "the benefits that accrue to men", not "the benefits men accrue".
Someone should put that poor sentence out of its misery.
[–]Taxus_Calyx 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So, aside from those four grammatical errors, there is nothing at all wrong with this sentence, right? /s
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you just assume the grammatical correctness of that sentence?!?
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://i.imgur.com/mVUh39p.gifv
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Apostrophes are phallic symbols of the patriarchy.
[–]givemealil 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not to derail the conversation, but is that really grammatically wrong?
[–]theothermod 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Perhaps not, but it is awkward and adds to the general ugliness of the sentence.
I don't usually get into this type of hair splitting, but I kept coming back to this post and I saw some new error every time.
[–]Pwnk 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well, it is ASU.
[–]Benito_Mussolini 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Which is one thing I don't understand. They have two of the top 10 high schools in the country. Why does ASU suck so hard?
[–]too_drunk_for_this 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Cuz they let in anyone. They have one of the largest enrollments in the country. That means plenty of brilliant students and professors, but also plenty below par.
[–]JackGetsIt 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The quality of university professor is laughably low right now. The pay is incredibly low as well. The explosion of unemployed college educated people as well as the removal of tenure tracked positions have allowed campuses to force pay way down.
[–]marcooni1 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
This is talk of patriarhs. Real womyn invent own words
[–]theothermod 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
They do.
[–]Anaxagoras23 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
My first thought was "It would be hilarious if a bunch of MRAs decided to start appropriating words from that ironically." Oh my, it's even more ridiculous than I thought it would be.
[–]Anaxagoras23 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I thought it was interesting too, but from a philosophical level I found the list of sources of evidence pretty emblematic of what's wrong with feminist academic culture.
wa known to X because perceived by X (externally or internally) (evidence morpheme): “The reason I claim that what I’m saying is true is that I have perceived it myself”
waá assumed false by X because X distrusts source
wáa assumed true by X because X trusts source
waálh assumed false by speaker because source is not trusted and evil intent by source is assumed, assumed false by X because X distrusts source and X suspects source of acting with evil intent
we perceived by speaker in a dream, perceived by X in a dream
wi an evidential meaning “The reason I claim that what I’m saying is true is because it’s self-evident; everybody can see that it’s true, or everybody is in agreement that it’s true.”; known to X because self-evident
wo imagined or invented by speaker, hypothetical, imagined or invented by X, hypothetical
wóo speaker has total lack of knowledge as to the validity, indicates that X states a total lack of know ledge as to the validity of the matter
(from Here)
Think of these like this:
I'm asserting my lived experience!
I assume it's a lie because it's on Breitbart, even if they do have a video of it.
Jezebel says women never ever beat up men!
Well even if they're correctly quoting facts from the NIPSVS they have an agenda so it's a lie!
I had a dream that I tried to parody the "I had a dream about it" one.
Everyone knows that teenage girls are in more danger than men walking down the street!
What if we give them credit and assume that simply having a hypothetical isn't too outlandish?
This one is actually admitting that the speaker has no idea what the heck they're talking about, just spitballing here.
Notice that there's no evidence morpheme for "Because it was proven" or really any sort of actual proof other than #5 which could arguably be used for an a priori proven argument, such as "Jackie is afraid of blue things. All blueberries are blue. Jackie is afraid of blueberries."
Everything is relational and the language is sort of inherently post modernist in that the standard for evidence seems to be based off of appeals to authority and whether or not the speaker holds that authority in esteem.
[–]WikiTextBot 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Láadan
Láadan is a feminist constructed language created by Suzette Haden Elgin in 1982 to test the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, specifically to determine if development of a language aimed at expressing the views of women would shape a culture; a subsidiary hypothesis was that Western natural languages may be better suited for expressing the views of men than women. The language was included in her science fiction Native Tongue series. Láadan contains a number of words that are used to make unambiguous statements that include how one feels about what one is saying. According to Elgin, this is designed to counter male-centered language's limitations on women, who are forced to respond "I know I said that, but I meant this".
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24
[–]marcooni1 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Mind blown
[–]Almbassman 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I guess it's a language that just deals in feelings and not in reality...imagine using that language to build a bridge or something....
[–]adzik1 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
good bot
[–]GoodBot_BadBot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Thank you adzik1 for voting on WikiTextBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodBot_BadBot 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thank you Hingl_McCringleberry for voting on GoodBot_BadBot.
[–]jmkiii 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
bad bot?
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I know I said that, but I meant this
Isn't that basically what women are saying all the time though? I'm not sure this language is useful.
[–]PandaAttacks 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Please don't tell me anyone takes this seriously...
[–]mens_throwaway 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I could really go full pedant on this whole sentence, irrespective of substance.
Properly phrased, this bullshit should read, "The benefits men enjoy as a result of women's labor varies by class, but all men enjoy privileges unavailable to women."
Of course, stated clearly and concisely, it would be easier to debunk.
[–]nlx0n 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Grammar rules are obviously sexist you neo-nazi alt-right bigot. /s
[–]bananastanding 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"women' s"
[–]fengpi 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Goodness. It's too bad that no woman has ever benefited from the labors of men (p'tui!)
The accursed bearers of the ruinous Y-chromosome are naught but parasites!
[–]phoenix335 140 points141 points142 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The privilege of working in the mines, the sewers, the garbage dumps.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingHavana 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah. I understand child support but this seems odd to me still. You aren't getting anything from the former partner but must continue to work to pay for them. Seems more like a form of slavery than anything else.
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Early death due to society impressing on you that your fuck all if you haven't made it by 40 and I don't mean the made it big type of made it I mean the nodulous notion of making it as a real man.
How many women have killed themselves in middle age cause they weren't a real women compared to the death rate of men in middle age who feel they can't obtain this totally factious status that society insists of us?
[–]spinalmemes 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The privilege of standing on the beaches of Normandy
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The privilege of hiding in the jungles Vietnam.
[–]iainmf 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The benefits women accrue from men's labour is unimportant.
[–]provocateur__ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I bet that professor's daddy paid for her college education too.
[–]sexylegs0123456789 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Bet it was article 9
[–]Aarondhp24 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Addendum: And all women have privileges over men.
[–]Aesthetically 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Was like "here we go, another lame coll-"
Sees ASU West
"No... No no no please not ASU"
[–]MC_AnselAdams 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
While other universities closed after the election in mourning, ASU said "deal with it its just an election"
While other universities spout "yes all men" and support false accusers, ASU said "where is the evidence though?"
While other universities invite radical feminist speakers to mandatory freshman lectures, ASU said "how about we don't give radical ideology a platform?"
This is ASU West, where a majority of Gender Studies and Liberal Arts programs are. Of course they're going to be in bed with patriarchy theories. Do not let them spread, keep ASU #1 in innovation.
keep your hate speech off my campus
[–]Aesthetically 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
claps slowly that was beautiful
[–]ldt003 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Is... is this Arizona?
[–]Aesthetically 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Apparently :/
[–]ldt003 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh. Good. I go to Appalachian. I got worried. But we're full of hippies, so we get this a lot too.
[–]Aesthetically 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've never been to ASU West campus, but I know main campus is so diverse and populated that there is a sizeable hippy population
[–]Dalinair 158 points159 points160 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Ugh this whole privilege nonsense really grinds my gears, I don't have privilege over anyone, especially not women, hell if anything they have it over me. Several women where I work have 'pretty face'd their way to the top'
Being a man gets me no advantage what so ever. Being white gives me no advantage what so ever. The only thing that gets me anywhere is hard work and dedication.
[–]mgtownigga 79 points80 points81 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Apex fallacy. They basically see a bunch of attractive, privileged, and uber talented individuals and assume that's how it is. Meanwhile, millions of invisible, low status whites are ignored in these arguments. They honestly don't exist to these people
[–]TheSourTruth 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Worst class I ever took was intro to sociology. Taught by some old Mexican lady. She hated whites so much. What a total joke of a class.
[–]double-happiness 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's too bad, because sociology actually has a lot of potential to be a fascinating and rewarding discipline. It was originally envisaged as a systematic study of society, and supposed to be conducted on scientific lines, but IMO has been corrupted by identity politics. If you look at its very earliest roots, it was actually aiming to be a primarily quantitative field of study. http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/suicide.html
[–]cacio0 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Right. I remember taking "sociology" in 5th grade and it in no way had any similarity to college sociology. Elementary school sociology was about the study of various cultures and peoples who have lived throughout history, not the Hate Studies and Victimology.
[–]Ikillesuper 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My sociology teacher told me that people can't be racist to whites
[–]double-happiness 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OK, but IMO that's more a reflection of your teacher, in the context of current trends within sociology and education in general. While these sort of approaches are becoming depressingly commonplace, that wasn't always the way the subject was taught.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoGardE 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Make sure to also take credit for the good you've done to get yourself where you are. The whole concept of privilege is useful for the failure when envying the successful. You've had struggles, too, and overcoming those is a lot more meaningful than anything you got easily.
[–]Dalinair 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Near where I work there's a homeless woman, I spoke to her once as she's always outside a shop where I go. She told me how she makes about 10x as much as all the men because more people feel sorry for a homeless woman than the men. I said to her, but sure, it must be more dangerous for you though, being a woman theres more chance of you being attacked, raped etc, to which she said no, because there are many fewer homeless women, she actually finds the other men are super protective of her so if anything she is safer. So even for the bottom level of society men have it worst in many respects.
[–]Regent_Hope 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow! Women sure do have an advantage! Great point.
[–]Googlesnarks 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's honestly like people think the world bends over backwards for white men when really we're treated like completely regular, unimportant assholes.
[–]andy_hoffman 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Being a man gets me no advantage what so ever. Being white gives me no advantage what so ever.
I agree that a lot of the privilege stuff is bullshit, but you can't possibly know that your statement is actually true. What I mean is that maybe you don't get any extra benefits, but being a white male may have helped you not to get discriminated against. Maybe if you were black you'd have had it harder in life than you have so far, which in many places is very likely.
I'm all for an open discussion, but you can't just look at your own experiences and say 'look, there's nothing wrong here because I haven't experienced anything wrong'. That only hurts the discussion, and doesn't help anyone.
[–]Dalinair 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok so its a bit of a blanket statement
"Being a man or white at my workplace doesn't appear to give me an advantage what so ever based on all empirical evidence at my disposal."
Better?
[–]Wasuremaru 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The only "privilege" I will ever yield will be the privilege of having been born to parents who were reasonably well off (entirely through working their tails off throughout their lives), which gives me a better starting point that someone who is economically worse off. Even with that privilege, the majority of, or at least a massive portion of, the privilege of wealth was spent on keeping me and my siblings alive due to premature birth, giving us physical therapies to make sure we weren't going to be in wheelchairs or on crutches throughout our lives, and keeping my mother alive through chemo.
That said, I challenge people to show me how my privilege is responsible for any success I've had in life. I made it through college because I worked to get my a degree from an honors program in the business school. Right now, I'm working my tail off to do as well as possible on the LSAT (and succeeding, if PTs are a good metric) so I can work my tail off in a good law school, and then work my tail off in a good law firm to have a good start to my own life. Yes, having been born to a well-off family has helped, but only in so far as it has been a good launch platform. Where I've gone from there is my own efforts.
[–]Regent_Hope 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Privilege doesnt give you anything. It's not taking away from. Any work you have done necessarily. Privilege recognizes that other people have a more difficult path or have faced hardships you would never experience.
For example, many people get their first job out of college through two ways: internships or knowing somebody (or parents knowing somebody). A black college graduate from a poor background is much less likely to have parents who know somebody or a family friend to hook them up with a good reference in their field. They are also unlikely to be able to take a low paying or unpaid internship in the summer to boost their resume or get their foot in the door. They might have to work 40 hours a week to support themselves through college.
The first argument to this is always "but I'm white and I have to pay for my own college just the same". I would challenge that with the study that showed identical resumes, one with a "white" name and one with a "black" name were sent in with applications. The resumes with black names got 33% fewer callbacks.
I'm not trying to say youve never experienced hardships or busted your ass for what you have. I think it is important to recognize that the path to success is different for some people. That other people have faced hindrances and challenges that you havent. That those difficulties aren't right and that we should recognize them as real and combat them so everybody has a fair chance.
[–]Wasuremaru 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you have a link to one of those name studies? I've heard of them but I've never gotten around to reading through one. I'm curious what they used for "white" and "black" names and how, or if, they controlled for the simple commonality of names (e.g. using names that were neither "white" nor "black" but simply foreign and strange or uncommon enough to be seen as odd), or the socioeconomic status and thus life experiences of people that their names may be taken to suggest about them independent of race.
[–]J2501 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
TIL, single men who provide for themselves (and often others as well) aren't really men, because they derive no benefit from the labors of others, and have no privileges over anyone. Also TIL some people are so hopelessly dependent, they couldn't imagine such a person existing, and if they encountered one, they would insecurely hurl false accusations at him.
[–]goat_nebula 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
OR men and women were designed/evolved to be complimentary of one another. Women are better at some things, men are better at some things. We spent over 10,000 years evolving in to these differences in our mental capacity, sensory perception, thought patterns, and physique. It's ok to be different, doesn't mean anybody is better/worse. That's why gender roles came about. Sure women can now do many jobs men do and vice versa, but it's not privilege; tell that to the men who get to go die in wars because of our physical evolution benefits.
Women see more at close range, men see movement at long range, women have better memories, men have better spatial reasoning. Individual cases break these norms but we don't need to reconstruct our entire political and social systems to meet the fringes of the populace.
[–]dashmar1414 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This guy gets it^
Ding ding ding! Don't tell society though, they hate facts these days.
[–]GoYuckFourAss 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You know how hard it is to get into ASU? You have to open the door.
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And like their Facebook page
[–]lifegasm[S] 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
In real life, privileged white men returning from work: http://i.redd.it/t2x8hlja059z.jpg
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Those entitled assholes, making those poor women open the gates for them like that #maleprivilege #killallmen #freethevulva
[–]mcmur 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes. Clearly, men are the ones who benefit from the Capitalist system.
[–]adamsfan42 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why make it a race thing... This isn't r/whitemensrights
[–]brienf-reddit 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
yeah, this photo clearly illustrates a men v. women issue. the circumstances of this photo have nothing to do with class or worker's rights. the wives of these men are probably sitting at home in a golden bathtub eating steaks and watching soap operas.
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You know, I've learnt to add the /s to my comment where applicable as there is a majority that just don't get it unless you tell them. Trust me, I hate doing it but we are dealing with very special people here.
/s
[–]Techiastronamo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Womble is a faggot.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I will attempt to summon him
u/SovietWomble
[–]Techiastronamo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think this summoning thing is gonna work...
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Explain like I'm not a member of your sub
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well there you go. She put it up on the board so it's indisputable now.
[–]Imnotmrabut 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So that's what a Radical Dogmatic Feminist (RDF) looks like, or is it just Clementine Ford's Mum?
[–]QuasiQwazi 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
She must consider job danger, early death, child support and war as privileges.
[–]RingosTurdFace 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is such utter fucking bullshit. Seriously.
So they're teaching that for example a homeless man, with no job, who society in general treats as worthless has some kind of 'privilege' (granted by the same society that wouldn't notice if said man died).
In what shape or form do they believe this imagined privilege exists? Do they think a man goes up to a store and points to their gender their driving license and women are then forced to bow down and treat him as though he were superior to them? If so how can they explain the way society could hardly care less about men at the bottom of the pile, whilst women at any level (especially homeless and without means) it bends over backwards for to find social housing and benefits.
It really angers me how they aren't properly challenged with regards to this vile bullshit and are allowed to silence with screams of "misogyny" anyone who trys to question them.
[–]Demonspawn 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men pay 75% of taxes.
Women receive 80% of government welfare.
Women control 56% of suffrage.
It is women who benefit from men's labor as a society.
[–]FadingEcho 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We call this, "education."
[–]hatefulreason 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Stalin didn't discriminate between the people he was sending to gulag ;)
[–]ssnider75 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can't be sure but it appears she's going straight to Maslow's Hierarchy on the left.
I am sure this lecture was very enthralling...
[–]Donut_of_Patriotism 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well sure, men benefit from women's labor. It's also true that women benefit from men's labor. It's called an economy and it's the backbone of society.
[–]Bolware 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Deloiusuonal woman.
[–]hardatwork89 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What's the context?
[–]bastardstepchild 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Funny how the only way I ever feel this privilege is when I'm being punished for supposedly having it.
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly what goes through my head when I hear a feminist.
[–]shydude92 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So apparently the homeless guy on the street has privileges over Melinda Gates. Yeah I can totally believe that
[–]alc0 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
He probably doesnt get MANterrupted!
[–]ChaosOpen 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anyone surprised the teacher writing on the board is an old aged bull-dyke?
[–]TigPlaze 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminists are like the witch hunters of the 17th century. They are filled from top to bottom with dogma and are totally unable to see anything from anyone else's point of view. They're totally clueless as to how bigoted and hypocritical they are. Pointing that out to them is an exercise in futility. They believe what they want to believe and reject any evidence to the contrary.
[–]bat_mayn 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This country is dying. I don't think people really understand how bad things are.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think people really understand how bad things are.
That's usually how countries die.
[–]shaboi_mike 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
this is who these people are
[–]Gamersforge 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol ASU represent!
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
I never understood the privilege argument. Privilege is complicated. You can't say that some hardworking Mexican immigrant has it harder than a woman from a rich household.
The social privilege only works on LGBT members because of how oppressed they actually are in society.
Women are not oppressed, they are the majority. And colored people aren't super oppressed either (I would know this, I'm colored).
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Name one thing a gay cant do.
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
Anything publicly.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
Legally speaking?
[–]SpeedDart1 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link
It's 2017 and we JUST got gay marriage legalized. Legally, gays are pretty close to reaching everyone else. But socially, they are behind.
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In some parts of America maybe but in most parts I would say that that is no longer the case.
Those poor women of size though...
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Also it's 2017 buddy
[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Correct, my thumb must have slipped.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still waiting on your response to my other question. Or are you having a hard time finding something gays can't do it America
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
How?
[–]SpeedDart1 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Glad you asked. Well you see, there's this religion called "Islam" and this other one called "Christianity".
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
What about them?
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
They involve homophobia, while being the two big religions in two different locations. Gays don't have it we good as others in the US, but in the Middle East, Gays have to stay closeted.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
What can a gay man or woman not do in the US? State something specific. As for the Middle East, that entire place is fucked up. You can rape chicks and then stone them to death in public for being whores. I'm not against gays and you're acting like I am. I couldn't give less of a fuck who you fuck and how you do it. I just don't see the inequality.
[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What he said below "anything publicly" sums it up.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
This is where the false claim from the family court system - that men would not be able to achieve career success without a woman tending to home comes from.
If she didn't do a good job caring for the home he would not be a house husband, but rather a bachelor enjoying even more career success.
It's for reasons like this you should avoid marriage and go MGTOW.
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
What is the difference between MGTOW and incels?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
MGTOWs dont get married or have relationships with women of any kind -- incels can't get laid.
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
So MGTOWs at least before they became a MGTOW have had sex?
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I've been MGTOW and I have lots of sex. The things desperate overseas students will do for a few bucks....I'm not complaining.
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Are you saying overseas students are prone to whoring themselves?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
wink
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Wow. That's kind of weird. How do you go about doing that? Are you a college student? Do you act interested in them and later on offer them money for sex?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
No, I live in Australia where there are multiple cheap, legal (or otherwise) ways to find girls who want to do the deal. You should come and check it out!
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Nice. I live in the USA and the whores here (except maybe in Las Vegas) are typically pretty nasty.
Maybe someday. As far as MGTOW goes I don't think it is something I am interested in. How did you find yourself joining the movement, if you don't mind me asking? How old are you?
[–]jimbobtoad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That shit. I was passed up three times recently for jobs I interviewed for, by women. I'm not mad, but seeing this being taught in school gets me upset.
[–]sunshinehyperbole 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm a bit over 'us v them'. But I would like to point out that until I stopped thinking like a victim, and assumed personal responsibility for the things under my control, and no longer placed blame for any predicament I was in on others or society at large, I made little to no progress. I don't know how long it will take for various so-called victim groups to learn that personal responsibility and self empowerment will take them far further than screaming "I'm a victim" to anyone who'll listen. While I recognise the stats on men's issues, I doubt replicating the feminist movement for men's issues will be a healthy long term solution. Not accusing this sub or anyone specifically of such a thing. Just sharing my thoughts. I love and respect my wife who is a stay at home mother, a task she does with great effort and pride, and it certainly takes as much energy as me running my company. She does most of the homeschooling of our three children, and I would argue the stability she brings to my life is what enables me to do what I do. I'm thankful to her for that, just as I'm sure she's thankful that I work hard to provide food.
[–]Mr-Zero-Fucks 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Pure and unadulterated Marxism.
Marx made some valid points, but I don't agree with him, that's for sure.
[–]dexfagcasul 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Used to get so much fucking lib propaganda back in university. Made me sick
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It isn't called cultural marxism for nothing
[–]sneakybadness 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What is this capitalism privilege runny baby shit people are spewing? Just because you call it something else doesn't mean people are as stupid as you look.
Its the kulaks all over again
[–]loki-things 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I assume the fat old dike on the left is the origin of this garbage?
[–]lannes 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Marxist would be more precise.
[–]7hunderpants 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Going to make some assumptions, im betting the tutor is the fat short hair lesbian on the left?
[–]Manburpigx 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't worry.
No one learns anything at ASU anyway.
[–]PMMEURNUTS 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You guys gotta start speaking up in class... you can't let this slide
[–]zircontweezers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a college class?
[–]Cant_touch_my_moppin 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A reference to an alegorical novella about communism in tangent with the title of this post; "Animal Farm." If you havent read it, you wont get it.
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Short hair, overweight, (appears to be) not white, and a woman.
Shit can't say I'm surprised.
Time to find a new class.
[–]eratonysiad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Except entering nursing school. Guys aren't socially allowed to do that. It's tolerated even less than Girls in STEM. Pretty sad.
Male nurses are in huge demand due to the obesity acceptance epidemic.
Can they give an example?
[–]Moonboots606 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm an ASU student and I'm embarrassed by this bullshit.
[–]BruceCampbell123 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This reads like something directly out of the Communist Manifesto.
[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So any male student in that class could just stroll up and express his privilege over the instructor?
[–]rottyrantsail 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Something something uhh armed forces blah blah blah police force. Fuck all that men rely on women.
[–]duganaok 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What class is this? I'm actually shocked this is ASU.
Wow what a horrible class. Shame on the university.
[–]chambertlo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Women's labor"? Like what, pray tell? The benefits that women have accrued from the hard and dangerous work that men have done over the last several centuries far outweigh those that any woman has contributed. It's not even comparable. Men are responsible for every fucking thing around you. If any gender benefits from another, it's women.
Who's that fat liberal cunt ?
Next time my gf gets her way again I will remind myself of this.
[–]mgtownigga 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
a fat old hag spreading this is the ultimate hilarity. I mean come on
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
That's western propaganda, its neoliberal feminism.
Its capitalist propaganda taught in liberal capitalist schools in capitalist countries.
http://wiki.ubc.ca/Neoliberal_feminism
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
No it isn't. That couldn't be further from the truth. Neoliberal feminism is essentially libertarianism specifically for women, and actually has some decent arguments. This university, and virtually all others in the U.S are neo-Marxist. Your average social science classroom likely doesn't have a single person in it, who believes in any of the core fundamental values of neo-liberalism. Most modern feminists today, and certainly the curriculum coming out of our universities, is deeply anti-capitalist.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Neoliberal feminism is essentially libertarianism
Right, its about labour market deregulation and getting women to spend as much time in the work place as possible and to do that they have to be convinced to give up being mothers and wives and so on.
They also have to be brainwashed into seeing their relationship to men as compeditive (free market brainwashing).
Do you see how that propaganda on the board could be used to that end?
[–]Wambo45 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Right, its about labour market deregulation
Among other deregulation, yes.
and getting women to spend as much time in the work place as possible
Non-sequitur. Neo-liberalism does not argue one way or the other, that anyone should spend as much time as possible in the work place.
Not as a matter of neoliberal principles, they don't. Not as a matter of free market principles, they don't. The dynamics of romantic relationships inherently carry connotations of competitive market forces at an intra-gender level, not as a whole. Your attempts to conflate postmodern feminism with libertarianism just simply aren't holding up.
I'm not aware of the exact context of the bullshit on the board, but I do notice that it's not written in past-tense. There is no neoliberal argument which states that men have privileges over women, as a universal and exclusive rule. So of course I can see how the board could be used to push the ideas you're suggesting, it's just that there's nothing fundamentally "neoliberal" about any of those ideas, other than the most rudimentary acknowledgement that women should at least be allowed to go to work, or choose not to be mothers, etc. Other than that most base claim about liberty, there's nothing neoliberal about any of it. It's a bunch of class struggle, made up bullshit. And I guaran-fucking-tee you that that professor would never refer to herself as a libertarian, neoliberal, or anything of the sort.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Well of course they won't openly say that. The origional laissez faire system was like this, 20% of the population were middle class and up. The other 80% everyone in the family had to work 15 hours a day just make ends meet.. until labour market regulation that protected women and children from the oppression and limited the amount of work hours for men. And also so we could have weekends off - that was all to do with labour market regulation.
Not as a matter of neoliberal principles, they don't. Not as a matter of free market principles, they don't. The dynamics of romantic relationships inherently carry connotations of competitive market forces at an intra-gender level, not as a whole.
If you want whats best for market you want all individuals competing for market share.
Postmodernism is neoliberal.
The father of postmoderism endorsed Friedman Hayek etc.
Western capitalist systems wouldn't promote ideology that isn't capitalist.
http://www.imavo.be/vmt/13214-van%20Zon%20postmodernism.pdf
There is no neoliberal argument which states that men have privileges over women
Neoliberal feminism does, liberal feminists do.
[–]Wambo45 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
As I said, there are instances where the hedonism of postmodernism jives with neo-liberalism. But as your own link points out, postmodernism came from post-Marxist thinkers, who simply transposed the same power and class dynamics onto a framework that, for all intents and purposes, had no frame in that it made no epistemological arguments.
Neo-liberalism also posits one of its strengths as being the fact that it can either preserve, or destroy institutions, based on a de facto democracy. The former is antithetical to postmodernism, as it only seeks to destroy and question institutions, and even truth itself. The two have nothing in common other than where they incidentally intersect at consumerism and freedom to be different. Your own link is explaining this pretty well.
Most importantly, it's crucial to acknowledge that modern feminists do not hold libertarian or neoliberal political views. They are by and large anti-capitalist, pro-government, pro-regulation, pro-social-welfare, pro-equality-of-outcome, anti-liberty, anti-free-speech, authoritarian, racist, sexist and identitarian. They are not liberals anymore. Those days are long, long gone. They are progressive ideologues, who most likely to refer to themselves as "democratic socialists".
I get the impression that all of this is too obvious that I should have to even point it out, and that you might be making these claims because you're a socialist or communist yourself, and you're doing what you can to distance yourself both from liberalism, as well as postmodernism. Though I admit, this is purely speculation.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Postmodernism is neoliberalism. Western countries try to starve people in socialist countries to death and murder their leaders, we don't teach marxism in the west.
Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a “much less bureaucratic” and “much less disciplinarian” form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn’t project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state. In Stoléru’s eyes, “the market economy is capable of assimilating actions to combat absolute poverty” but “it is incapable of digesting overly strong remedies against relative poverty.” That’s why, he argues, “I believe the distinction between absolute poverty and relative poverty is in fact the distinction between capitalism and socialism.” So, what’s at stake in moving from one to the other is a political issue: acceptance of capitalism as the dominant economic form, or not. From that point of view, Foucault’s barely masked enthusiasm for Stoléru’s proposal was part of a larger movement that went along with the decline of the egalitarian philosophy of social security in favor of a very free-market-oriented fight against “poverty.” In other words, and as surprising as it may seem, the fight against poverty, far from limiting the effects of neoliberal policies, has in reality militated for its political hegemony. So it’s not surprising to see the world’s largest fortunes, like those of Bill Gates or George Soros, engaging in this fight against poverty even while supporting, without any apparent contradiction, the liberalization of public services, the destruction of all these mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and the “virtues” of neoliberalism. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a “much less bureaucratic” and “much less disciplinarian” form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn’t project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state.
In Stoléru’s eyes, “the market economy is capable of assimilating actions to combat absolute poverty” but “it is incapable of digesting overly strong remedies against relative poverty.” That’s why, he argues, “I believe the distinction between absolute poverty and relative poverty is in fact the distinction between capitalism and socialism.” So, what’s at stake in moving from one to the other is a political issue: acceptance of capitalism as the dominant economic form, or not.
From that point of view, Foucault’s barely masked enthusiasm for Stoléru’s proposal was part of a larger movement that went along with the decline of the egalitarian philosophy of social security in favor of a very free-market-oriented fight against “poverty.” In other words, and as surprising as it may seem, the fight against poverty, far from limiting the effects of neoliberal policies, has in reality militated for its political hegemony.
So it’s not surprising to see the world’s largest fortunes, like those of Bill Gates or George Soros, engaging in this fight against poverty even while supporting, without any apparent contradiction, the liberalization of public services, the destruction of all these mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and the “virtues” of neoliberalism.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
socialist or communist yourself, and you're doing what you can to distance yourself both from liberalism, as well as postmodernism.
I'm neither, Im close to the center.
All socialists and communists do that because they know liberalism and postmodernism are capitalist.
American propaganda uses a political compass that's cut in half - it shows nothing to the left.
That's why a centerist like sanders and neoliberals like Obama and Clinton are "the far left", and "leftists" which is total bullshit.
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Postmodernism is not an ethos, therefore it can't be capitalist. You have yet to substantiate that claim in any kind of way, other than suggesting that the father of it - a guy who employed and stood shoulder to shoulder with ultra-leftist socialists and communists through his most active years of work - later came to embrace aspects of neoliberalism in the strictly economic sense, in the later stages of his life.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It should be self evident that western capitalist countries - that will starve the populations of socialist countries intentionally with trade blockaids and work to undermine socialist governments aren't going to promote communism.
The entire field of gender and race studies was funded by capitalist orgaizations.
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
This university, and virtually all others in the U.S are neo-Marxist.
Western capitalist countries limit food supplies and other trade to socialist countries, and do their best to topple the government.
Yet the ideology funded by western capitalist interests taught on western campus's is marxist.
Thats some mental gymnastics you are doing there.
Postmodernism, identity politics and liberal feminism are all neoliberal ideologies.
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
Completely irrelevant point, and quite a dated one.
"Capitalist interests" don't dictate curriculum in our universities, nor do they even fund them. The overwhelming majority of their funding comes from government at both the state and federal level.
The first two are not in any way, shape or form neoliberal. Postmodernism, while not synonymous with Marxist ideology in its original form, specifically, shares all of the same wonderful power dynamics and class struggles that take us down the very same stupid arguments. The only difference with postmodernism, is that it arrives at these conclusions not by having any one unitary theory of class dynamics, but rather a nihilistic, wallowing questioning of the validity and/or legitimacy of virtually every moral concept and social insitution known to man. And that is incidentally why it reads like a bunch of juvenile bullshit.
But I say all of that assuming that you understand its an apples to oranges kind of comparison to begin with. Postmodernism at its core is nihilistic and relativist, which makes it fundamentally non-neoliberal and non-Marxist. It just so happens that its subsequent commentary on class and identity falls squarely on the Marxist side of the fence. And on the contrary, for example, when it comes to consumerism or hedonism, it falls squarely on the neoliberal one.
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link
Its a good point to demonstrate how propagandized people that think the west is promoting marxism and communism are.
If we starve people in communist countries to death, why would we promote it in our own capitalist countries?
Capitalist foundations with links to the cia and a counter communist foundation funded modern feminist research and race studies.
Postmodernism at its core is nihilistic and relativist, which makes it fundamentally non-neoliberal and non-Marxist.
The father of postmodernism endorsed neoliberalism - why else would it be in neoliberal schools in neoliberal countries.
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
"The West" isn't promoting Marxist power dynamics, its social science departments at its universities are, which is a surprisingly insulated community full of echo chambers.
I'm not going to even take the bait on the ridiculous notion of socialism's demise being anything other than socialism's fault, but to answer your question, "we" don't promote it. There is no "we". The education industry in the U.S is not representative of the country as a whole, it is an industry unto itself. And it's one in which the humanities have been co-opted by ideologically motivated professors and faculty.
Oh, did they now? Did they do all of the funding? Are we going into tinfoil hat land now? That's such a vague statement. And ironically, all of these modern feminists and racial studies students identify as some far left socialists or communists. Where are all of these super libertarian feminists?
First off, where did he endorse it so I can go read it in context.
Secondly, it's a moot point because postmodernism today is not defined by its originator's opinion, but by how the subsequent bodies of work expound upon and extrapolate from their ideas, and what people choose to do with them.
And again, and perhaps I haven't stressed this enough, it's not even an either/or question. Postmodernism might sound neoliberal when we talk about a woman's tendency towards promiscuity, which might jive with a certain subset of "sex positive" feminists. And why? Because it seeks to destroy the traditional ideas of sexual selection by women. But then when it comes to feminist economics, postmodernism sounds decidedly Marxist in that it argues a class struggle, and evokes arguments about "slavery" and the like.
So as I said, postmodernism can not be ascribed to one or the other, because it doesn't fit in a box. It makes no claims other than that everything is a bullshit narrative. And narrative is an important word. Now go look up how often feminists use the word narrative.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link
Modern feminism and race studies were funded by capitalist and anti-communist foundations.
You are making excuses for intentionally starving people to death during the cold war.
That's such a vague statement
The ask for sources.
all of these modern feminists and racial studies students identify as some far left socialists or communists. Where are all of these super libertarian feminists?
Just as you can be be propagandized to believe neoliberalism is communism and the center is the far left and the centre right is the left and neoliberal colleges are really promoting marxism, so can they.
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link
Even if true, it's utterly irrelevant when the subject matter they teach in their curriculum is up to its knees in repressive, identitarian bullshit - which isn't neoliberal, by the way.
You can't blame capitalism for a trade embargo, if that's what you're getting at. That is about as ironic and contradictory as you can possibly get, buddy. But really, it's all beside the point because we're way off topic, comrade.
Come on with it.
Just as you can be be propagandized to believe neoliberalism is communism and the center is the far left and the centre right is the left and neoliberal colleges are really promoting marxism, so can they
I have a comprehensive enough understanding of these topics so as not to be "propagandized" into thinking a particular ideology is actually its antithesis. That's preposterous, and I haven't demonstrated that in the least bit. You're ducking and dodging my points, making moot ones yourself and generally trying to distract from the original conversation to have a pissing match about capitalism and communism. I'm bored now, to be honest. I have conceded a revised form of your argument by agreeing with certain aspects of it, but you're not addressing it. You're just repeating your assertions without showing your work. If you care to actually rebut any of the specific points I made, be my guest.
Teaching young women that they are part of a marginalized, enslaved class whose labor benefits men, is Marxist in nature. That is not a liberal view, no matter what irrelevant point you want to make about who donated money to women's studies back in 19-whatever-the-fuck.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
The national science foundation was set up under truman to stay ahead of the soviet union.
They funded McKinnion's critique of marxism that made the bait and switch from class is a social construct to gender is a social construct.
Search Results Catharine MacKinnon - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon Catharine Alice MacKinnon (born October 7, 1946) is an American radical feminist, scholar, ... at Smith and earned a J.D. and a Ph.D. from Yale University. While at Yale Law School, she received a National Science Foundation fellowship.
Cristine Hoff Sommers and other feminists said the ford foundation funded modern feminism.
Here they are talking about Social Justice.
https://www.fordfoundation.org/about-us/a-legacy-of-social-justice/
Ford Foundation - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation The Ford Foundation is a New York-headquartered, globally oriented private foundation with .... that the Ford Foundation funded "gender feminism", ideology that abandoned the feminist quest for equity in favor of a gender war against men.
I have a comprehensive enough understanding of these topics so as not to be "propagandized" into thinking a particular ideology is actually its antithesis.
You think ideology being promoted in western schools is communist, the father of postmodernism endorsed neoliberalism, not socialism or communism which he said are irrelevant ... you think communists starved their own people, when in fact the west were involved in trade and economic warfare that affected the food supply.
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
So they funded a woman who is the epitome of exactly the ideological underpinnings I'm talking about, that which you keep attempting to refute and call "liberal". You're making my point for me.
Here's something else Christine Hoff Summers said:
"When I originally started questioning feminism, I did it mainly because no one else was doing it. I would read these outrageous attacks on capitalism... I mean, I'm not a rabid market capitalist, but, my goodness, what else do they have to suggest that works better. Yet I found that a lot of the Women's Studies texts were Marxist." You think ideology being promoted in western schools is communist
"When I originally started questioning feminism, I did it mainly because no one else was doing it. I would read these outrageous attacks on capitalism... I mean, I'm not a rabid market capitalist, but, my goodness, what else do they have to suggest that works better. Yet I found that a lot of the Women's Studies texts were Marxist."
You think ideology being promoted in western schools is communist
No, I don't actually. Communism is somewhat popular among students in those particular fields, but the faculty are by and large espousing modifications of Marxism, and are teaching material that is fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-liberal. And that's what professors Jonathan Haidt says, Thaddeus Russell says, Christine Hoff Summers says, Gad Saad says, Jordan B. Peterson says, even fucking Noam Chomsky has echoed the exact sentiments that I am right now. Here's his thoughts:
This last point is something Chomsky elaborates on as the impetus for post-structuralism in the academy, saying “it’s pretty easy to figure out what’s going on. Suppose you’re a literary scholar…. If you do your work seriously, that’s fine, but you don’t get any prizes for it.” He makes the claim that humanities scholars use mystifying jargon and cook up “theory” in order to compete with theoretical physicists and mathematicians, who get prizes, grants, and prestige for advancing incredibly complicated scientific work. Even more than this general accusation against theorists in the humanities, Chomsky makes the political point that French intellectuals in Paris, “the center of the rot,” were the last group of leftists to be dedicated, “flaming” Stalinists and Maoists. In order to save face, such people had to suddenly become “the first people in the world to have discovered the gulags.” (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/noam-chomsky-calls-postmodern-critiques-of-science-over-inflated-polysyllabic-truisms.html)
This last point is something Chomsky elaborates on as the impetus for post-structuralism in the academy, saying “it’s pretty easy to figure out what’s going on. Suppose you’re a literary scholar…. If you do your work seriously, that’s fine, but you don’t get any prizes for it.” He makes the claim that humanities scholars use mystifying jargon and cook up “theory” in order to compete with theoretical physicists and mathematicians, who get prizes, grants, and prestige for advancing incredibly complicated scientific work.
Even more than this general accusation against theorists in the humanities, Chomsky makes the political point that French intellectuals in Paris, “the center of the rot,” were the last group of leftists to be dedicated, “flaming” Stalinists and Maoists. In order to save face, such people had to suddenly become “the first people in the world to have discovered the gulags.” (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/noam-chomsky-calls-postmodern-critiques-of-science-over-inflated-polysyllabic-truisms.html)
I mean, come on dude...
the father of postmodernism endorsed neoliberalism
As an old man.
not socialism or communism which he said are irrelevant
Because they were, yet that didn't stop him from employing an entire faculty of professors that were unanimously Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
you think communists starved their own people, when in fact the west were involved in trade and economic warfare that affected the food supply.
I don't know why you're still trying to talk about this here.
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Yet data pertaining to Feminism’s corporate benefactors remains lodged in plain sight for the world to see. The University of Michigan’s background information on the Women’s studies program admits to receiving funding from: “The National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, National Institute of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of Mental Health, and other agencies have given both support and visibility to research on women’s studies.” The University of Hawaii similarly admitted that it received a “prestigious three-year Rockefeller grant on Gender and Globalization in Asia and the Pacific ($250,000).” The Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and women’s studies has also casually admitted to receiving Rockefeller money. The information is freely available but yet few of us can see it. There is something very wrong with our eyes.
Yet data pertaining to Feminism’s corporate benefactors remains lodged in plain sight for the world to see. The University of Michigan’s background information on the Women’s studies program admits to receiving funding from: “The National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, National Institute of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of Mental Health, and other agencies have given both support and visibility to research on women’s studies.” The University of Hawaii similarly admitted that it received a “prestigious three-year Rockefeller grant on Gender and Globalization in Asia and the Pacific ($250,000).” The Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and women’s studies has also casually admitted to receiving Rockefeller money.
The information is freely available but yet few of us can see it. There is something very wrong with our eyes.
https://occidentinvicta.com/2014/04/15/feminisms-corporate-benefactors/
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
From the link you just provided...
For five decades women were lied to by being forced fed a myth that ran as follows: Betty Friedan was a typical housewife until she had an awakening which would culminate in the Feminine mystique. We know that this account is wholly false as Daniel Horowitz exposed her extensive links to the CPUSA which Friedan expended considerable energy trying to cover up. This isn’t entirely surprising considering that feminism is basically Marxism adjusted for gender, as many have already pointed out. Feminism was ideologically shaped by Communism and bankrolled by Capitalism.
For five decades women were lied to by being forced fed a myth that ran as follows: Betty Friedan was a typical housewife until she had an awakening which would culminate in the Feminine mystique. We know that this account is wholly false as Daniel Horowitz exposed her extensive links to the CPUSA which Friedan expended considerable energy trying to cover up. This isn’t entirely surprising considering that feminism is basically Marxism adjusted for gender, as many have already pointed out.
Feminism was ideologically shaped by Communism and bankrolled by Capitalism.
Gloria Steinham was a cia asset involved in counter marxism.
With the advent of the Second Wave of the women’s movement, mainstream philanthropy, too, paid attention to leveling the playing field for women. Major foundations such as Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller—whose white male founders had not been prominent advocates for women’s equality—were nonetheless in the vanguard of funding projects to advance the life chances of girls and women. The Rockefeller family has provided significant support to the African American women’s college Spelman; the Ford Foundation can take real credit for developing the field of women’s studies both in the U.S. and overseas; and the Carnegie Corporation, in the 1970s and 1980s, focused on advancing women’s leadership. http://www.msmagazine.com/Fall2013/Philanthropy.asp
Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a “much less bureaucratic” and “much less disciplinarian” form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn’t project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
The west simply wouldnt tolerate marxism on campus.
The west tries to starve people in socialist countries to death. It tries to murder the leaders.
It doesnt promote it in its own schools.
[–]cubancigar11 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The same reason people buy and sell Che Guevara T-Shirts. There is a market and that is being exploited for personal gain. There is a market of victimhood of women and it is being exploited for personal gain by politicians, celebrities and media. The real question is why there is a market for victimhood of women, and once you start thinking about that you will end up somewhere recognising gynocentrism and that feminism is one of the way it is manifesting in post-industrial society; not some "intellectual revolutionary" theory but yet another mundane human corruption.
Well what if I'm a crippled homosexual male without limbs, am I somehow still more privileged than non-crippled straight white females? I don't get this at all...Why is it so hard for people to get this? Why can't people see the irony in this?...
[–]Pseudonymble 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well here I thought my life was a mess, but at least I've got a leg up over all women... move over powerful lady CEO's, I'm claiming my privilege!
[–]DEMASTAA -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I mean, they aren't wrong. Women have it worse in some ways, just like men have it worse in others. This subreddit sometimes seems to have an issue realizing the odds aren't really that stacked against them, and honestly just seems to be saying gender swapped stuff that the not so reasonable section of the feminists say
Nah. The slide in OP is obviously claiming that women have it worse, and that men are unilaterally privileged. It leaves no room for the nuance you are suggesting.
[–]DEMASTAA -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not saying this person is correct, but this sibreddit is just as wrong 99% of the time.
[+]decadentegalitarian -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
It takes a special kind of stupid to get offended by the obvious. And it takes an incredible degree of delicacy to compare "people teaching facts that hurt my feelings" to goddamn Stalinism.
So, I guess this content fits in perfectly here.
[–]Wambo45 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Substantiate for me the claim that all men have privileges over women, in a way that inherently disavows the counter claim that all women have privileges over men.
If you can do that, your snobby comment might hold at least a little bit of water.
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I think it's pretty difficult to refute. It's just women also all have certain privileges over men. They're just in different areas of life.
[+]decadentegalitarian -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
It's not my job to educate you, that's what college is for.
Like, say, for example, the college class that OP was instinctively attacking out of hurt feelings and anti-intellectualism.
[–]Wambo45 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I can't say I'm surprised that you ducked the question, but I didn't say it was your job either way. I asked you politely to participate in a public forum that you, up until this point anyways, were apparently only pretending to participate in. A simple "no" would be sufficient.
The same one that you're instinctively defending out of hurt feelings? Irony must be lost on you.
[–]cubancigar11 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So it is intellectual because it was being taught in a class? Your statement itself is a proof that you are wrong because what you say is not intellectual.
[+]decadentegalitarian -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Intellectualism means facts which are considerate of my feelings
And MRAs wonder why everyone laughs at their movement.
[–]cubancigar11 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Who are you quoting? Oh wait, false accusation is how you survive LOL.
No they don't. They laugh at people who say something is "the obvious" and "you need to go to college to learn it" at the same time.
Why don't you put all your triggers in a bag and sit on it for a while until you grow up?
[–]Wambo45 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you learn how to make up fake quotations to strawman in college, too?
Fuck, you're smart.
And this is what people do when they run out of arguments against MRA's. They throw up their arms and say, 'Haha. Your movement is a joke,' and refuse to even try to argue anymore. OK. Bye. Thanks for playing.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol, at "obvious facts"
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
[–]PB_n_honey_taco -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And it takes another special type of person to get offended by people getting offended by something that's completely justifiable.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Stand up. Tell the "professor" to fuck off. Sue the University. Rinse repeat.
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't really think we should jump into the whole safe space thing. That didn't seem to go over well for feminism.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
By their very definition courts are a safe space.
[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We're not talking about courts though. We're talking about college. Safe spaces were (supposedly) about keeping people from saying negative things about feminism. What you want is to bring legal action to people who would say negative things about men's rights. "Censorship!" they cried, and "censorship!" they'll cry again.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]tallwheel 739 points740 points741 points (340 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnarAchronist 484 points485 points486 points (193 children) | Copy Link
[–]provocateur__ 27 points28 points29 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]amanda66778899 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatNinaGAL 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wardrich 56 points57 points58 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Seanmrowe 104 points105 points106 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]wardrich -11 points-10 points-9 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Seanmrowe 48 points49 points50 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]wardrich 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pandamonius84 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brexit-the-thread 19 points20 points21 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]wardrich 16 points17 points18 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]panther455 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]panther455 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brexit-the-thread 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jex117 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pz5 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jex117 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]nictytan 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]slayerx1779 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AnarAchronist 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ChurroSalesman -14 points-13 points-12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]AnarAchronist 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -176 points-175 points-174 points (162 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 237 points238 points239 points (81 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -133 points-132 points-131 points (80 children) | Copy Link
[–]flyingwolf 127 points128 points129 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]BigAl265 70 points71 points72 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ironoxidey 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -64 points-63 points-62 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]mexicono 54 points55 points56 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]mexicono 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rob__T 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foxinthesky 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 38 points39 points40 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -34 points-33 points-32 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kalkaline 33 points34 points35 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -8 points-7 points-6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]twodogsfighting 39 points40 points41 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hydris 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bananastanding 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iSeven 28 points29 points30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gruas 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blaze261 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Staubathehut 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose 22 points23 points24 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -3 points-2 points-1 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]mexicono 20 points21 points22 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 11 points12 points13 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+]Regent_Hope -7 points-6 points-5 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 10 points11 points12 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pandamonius84 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BroaxXx 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kalkaline 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]-do-I-have-to- 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]thesquataholic 67 points68 points69 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Googlesnarks -38 points-37 points-36 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 18 points19 points20 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Taylor1391 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coontang 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Googlesnarks -12 points-11 points-10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]Googlesnarks -13 points-12 points-11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grasshopper21 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Babill 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (23 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Painislove2016 15 points16 points17 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 8 points9 points10 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grasshopper21 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]ICritMyPants -6 points-5 points-4 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]ICritMyPants -5 points-4 points-3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taylor1391 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -4 points-3 points-2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]foxinthesky 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PillTheRed 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 9 points10 points11 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Coontang 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aegi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 11 points12 points13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thorpolice 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aegi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Coontang 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]trenescese 16 points17 points18 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]Googlesnarks -7 points-6 points-5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]trenescese 30 points31 points32 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]1-281-3308004 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]1-281-3308004 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoGardE 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Iamdemonspawn 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thorpolice 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BroaxXx 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmkiii 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blfire 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Onithyr 103 points104 points105 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 35 points36 points37 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingHavana 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grubnar 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HereHoldMyBeer 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BeachCruisin22 140 points141 points142 points (71 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThrowawayCop51 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kennuf22 -68 points-67 points-66 points (69 children) | Copy Link
[–]BeachCruisin22 90 points91 points92 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kennuf22 -84 points-83 points-82 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 18 points19 points20 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BeachCruisin22 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HuntTheHunter12 37 points38 points39 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmlom 47 points48 points49 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kennuf22 -32 points-31 points-30 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]LarryBeard 28 points29 points30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmlom 28 points29 points30 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -3 points-2 points-1 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cant_touch_my_moppin 22 points23 points24 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmlom 11 points12 points13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fmlom -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 26 points27 points28 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 27 points28 points29 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]CycloneSweep 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CycloneSweep 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blfire 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Kennuf22 -13 points-12 points-11 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 19 points20 points21 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 7 points8 points9 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]CharismaticNPC 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NicoEF 7 points8 points9 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -4 points-3 points-2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]NicoEF 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]NicoEF 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Kennuf22 -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]betabydesign 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hitleresque 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hitleresque 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kennuf22 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]WadeTheWilson 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hitleresque 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jb_trp 26 points27 points28 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mens-Advocate 46 points47 points48 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ldt003 22 points23 points24 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Armigedon 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ldt003 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingHavana -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 45 points46 points47 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]ZippityD -17 points-16 points-15 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]raunchyfartbomb 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WolfShaman 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tr33beard 11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZippityD 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]tr33beard 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZippityD 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tr33beard 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoGardE 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aegi 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blfire 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Wasuremaru -8 points-7 points-6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]irrelevant_usernam3 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wasuremaru 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Regent_Hope 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wasuremaru 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]edxzxz 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AFuckYou 19 points20 points21 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]wonderworkingwords 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quintrell 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]wonderworkingwords 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cymrich 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]empyreanmax 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Moonboots606 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]o_oM 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]PurpleAriadne -9 points-8 points-7 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]baskandpurr 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hork23 7 points8 points9 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hork23 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]seriouslees 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Moonboots606 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]orcscorper 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleAriadne 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 271 points272 points273 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 115 points116 points117 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 83 points84 points85 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 32 points33 points34 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 30 points31 points32 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Taxus_Calyx 27 points28 points29 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]givemealil 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pwnk 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Benito_Mussolini 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]too_drunk_for_this 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JackGetsIt 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]marcooni1 31 points32 points33 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod 16 points17 points18 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Anaxagoras23 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Anaxagoras23 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot 18 points19 points20 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]marcooni1 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Almbassman 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]adzik1 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodBot_BadBot 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoodBot_BadBot 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jmkiii 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PandaAttacks 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mens_throwaway 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nlx0n 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bananastanding 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fengpi 90 points91 points92 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]phoenix335 140 points141 points142 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]KingHavana 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]spinalmemes 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 111 points112 points113 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]provocateur__ 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sexylegs0123456789 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aarondhp24 28 points29 points30 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aesthetically 19 points20 points21 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]MC_AnselAdams 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Aesthetically 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ldt003 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aesthetically 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ldt003 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Aesthetically 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dalinair 158 points159 points160 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]mgtownigga 79 points80 points81 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheSourTruth 47 points48 points49 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 21 points22 points23 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cacio0 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ikillesuper 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]NoGardE 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dalinair 15 points16 points17 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Regent_Hope 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Googlesnarks 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]andy_hoffman 21 points22 points23 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Dalinair 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wasuremaru 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Regent_Hope 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wasuremaru 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]J2501 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]goat_nebula 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dashmar1414 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GoYuckFourAss 27 points28 points29 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lifegasm[S] 61 points62 points63 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hingl_McCringleberry 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcmur 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamsfan42 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]brienf-reddit 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Techiastronamo 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Techiastronamo 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarkMarksPlayPark 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]QuasiQwazi 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RingosTurdFace 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FadingEcho 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hatefulreason 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ssnider75 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Donut_of_Patriotism 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bolware 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardatwork89 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bastardstepchild 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shydude92 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChaosOpen 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TigPlaze 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bat_mayn 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shaboi_mike 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gamersforge 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 2 points3 points4 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 2 points3 points4 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 1 point2 points3 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]jimbobtoad 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sunshinehyperbole 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mr-Zero-Fucks 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dexfagcasul 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sneakybadness 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loki-things 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lannes 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]7hunderpants 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Manburpigx 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PMMEURNUTS 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zircontweezers 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cant_touch_my_moppin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eratonysiad 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Moonboots606 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BruceCampbell123 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rottyrantsail 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]duganaok 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chambertlo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mgtownigga 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cubancigar11 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pseudonymble 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DEMASTAA -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DEMASTAA -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]decadentegalitarian -12 points-11 points-10 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 12 points13 points14 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]decadentegalitarian -9 points-8 points-7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cubancigar11 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]decadentegalitarian -9 points-8 points-7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cubancigar11 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wambo45 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PB_n_honey_taco -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]g_squidman 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]g_squidman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]