"Every Brick in every building": a reminder to the Men whose efforts built and maintain our world.

[–]bravecowboy86 472 points473 points474 points 9 years ago (98 children) | Copy Link

I am %100 for equality. I have no issues if women want to be CEO's, fight in wars, or lay asphalt. More power to you. My frustration is that the "equality" that is generally desired isn't equal. It's a we want equality except for when its advantageous not too.

Example:

Playing in summer soccer men's leagues occasionally women would play to better their performance. Sweet. I like the motivation to improve. But, then they would demand less physicality and special treatment when they had the ball. If it was a coed league then sure, I understand. But if you want to play in a mens league then you should be held to those standards. You don't get special treatment just because you can't compete at those standards but you want the "credibility" that you can. "Equality" doesn't play favoritism when it's convenient.

Like the original post points out MOST men don't give a shit what you want to do. If you want to stay in the kitchen that's cool. If you want to lay asphalt that's cool too. Just don't cry that things aren't fair when the performance requirement is greater than what you can provide. Lessening requirements when it's convenient is not "equality".

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TechnoSam_Belpois 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfeBane84 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]C4H8N8O8 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Planner_Hammish 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]C4H8N8O8 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lokimonoxide 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]C4H8N8O8 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CynicalRage 51 points52 points53 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran2 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jay212127 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShaidarHaran2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eixan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Traiklin 115 points116 points117 points 9 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]samsc2 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Novashadow115 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]WolfeBane84 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WolfeBane84 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]meatboitantan 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]murphymc 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]allenahansen -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_0bserver 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]billndotnet 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]allenahansen 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackGetsIt 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomsix 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SixteenthRiver06 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ePants 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MindlessElectrons 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MindlessElectrons 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Drudicta -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfeBane84 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladut -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whyalwaysm3 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Muesli_nom 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hitleresque 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bearded4Glory 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nwokilla 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]harleypig 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Drudicta -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConnorBurnsRed 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PuyallupCoug 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]NetPotionNr9 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]stringdom -20 points-19 points-18 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You're struggling with the concept of equality and egalitarianism. Equality is to make everyone and everything the same. This is where your example clashes. To compete on equal terms the women would need to have the same body of a men in terms of muscle mass (some women do but it is rare). That is equality, everything must be the same.

Feminism declares most frequently for egalitarianism. This is equal worth. And here is where most people fail to understand. It is like comparing a dog's capacity to hold his breath under water against a fish and declaring it a failure when the dog drowns. Or the fish ability to climb a tree against the standard of a monkey and then being pissed at the fish.

The problem lies not on the fish or the dog, the problem lies on our own evaluation standards and lack of comprehension that it should not be detrimental to the individual's worth. That is, to believe there is one singular universal standard that is better and above all else. Think about handicaps in golf. It is not done because the lower level player is a dumb noob and nits 2 git gud. It is done to provide an even playing field for everyone involved whilst preserving the spirit of the game. Everyone gets to enjoy the course while competing on a even play field, being held against their own group standard first, against other's standard second.

That's the important bit, that everyone gets to have the same worth, rights and social status. Everything else can be as different as different people there are. But it should not make them less because of their differences.

[–]murt 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're struggling with the concept of equality and egalitarianism.

I don't even think you have the terms right.

Equality of opportunity is 100% fair, as the door is fully open to everyone in society. That access doesn't mean you'll succeed at it, given the wide variety of performance and ability in our culture, but you have that open door. To me, this sounds like what you refer to as egalitarianism.

Equality of outcome, however, forces parity for results, not parity for access, and that bumps up those that perform poorly or drags down those that perform ably, or some combination of both, equalling that outcome. This, to me, sounds like the "equality" you're talking about.

Terms like "equality" and "egalitarianism" only tell you that something is equal. What that something is, ultimately, needs more clarification. Equality as a stand-alone term, for example, is meaningless.

[+]stringdom -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coldjism 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]stringdom -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomethingAboutBoats 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]stringdom -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You say this like smashing doors is the only thing a firefighter does, or as if firefighters enter buildings one by one like some sort of lemming. I have seen women excel in rescue teams, they are lighter so they are perfect as helicopter rappellers, they are just as suited to operate machinery for automobile crash rescue. There's nothing impeding them from carrying equipment into buildings on fire, administering first aids, etc.

You know what happens when a male firefighter can't do one thing? He calls someone who can and finds something else to be useful on. Seriously, just because a women can't do one aspect of the job doesn't mean she can't be a useful asset for a team. As in, not everyone is good at every aspect of a job, that's why human beings have traditionally done stuff in groups, as part of collective efforts.

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

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Moral_Gutpunch 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]Quithi -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ePants 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ePants 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Quithi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is true, but the group should be diverse in experience and qualifications as well. All members should be qualified in some way, but those qualifications shouldn't be the same for every group member. The idea is to have a more diverse pool of insights and ideas to solve the problem. There is more than one way to come at a problem and that's where the increased performance lies. People with different work experiences, ages, ethnicities, sexualities, genders, cultures and nationalities, etc. will have differing ideas and more innovative solutions.

So, while there will probably be some tension because of perceived qualifications, really they should look past that. Shit, there might be a guy there who was hired exactly because he's an idiot who can't seem to do anything right since that might provide valuable insight.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_0bserver 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Azzmo 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quithi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azzmo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I couldn't get anything readable from your link but I checked the citations.

This one, for example, speaks to advantages and disadvantages with heterogeneity. My disagreement is with your blanket assertion that diversity is a positive thing. In my view, they point out more provable cons than pros, with the pros being unspecific assertions (and assertions that if we just treated them better they'd be useful and the cons being the obvious downsides that most of us probably innately understand about diversifying.

It can work out well - especially in a limited form - but if you remove too many white people from the equation in a Western nation or Asian people from the equation in an Asian nation, innovation and profits shrink. And if you remove too many men from the equation in any business in a competitive market...well...that's usually game over, which is why the only predominantly female workforces are in government or in the fields that women are legitimately well tuned for (medical, cleaning, etc.)

Unfortunately, I think we've reached the era of needing to question the political motivation behind academic material.

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

[–]Moral_Gutpunch 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quithi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]urammar 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawnmover_Man 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]forgiv 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]samsc2 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hatefulreason 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]22braden 140 points141 points142 points 9 years ago (141 children) | Copy Link

[–]uDurDMS8M0rZ6Im59I2R 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]kickinwayne45 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

People view gender stuff way too often as absolutist "zero-sum." Like saying "men are generally stronger than women" in their mind = "all men are stronger and all women are weak" In my mind, gender things are more like 60/40 or maybe 70/30.

Exceptions don't make the rule, they are exceptions to the rule.

[–]uDurDMS8M0rZ6Im59I2R 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ISOanexplanation 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On the subject of the debt of gratitude men (in general) owe women (in general) for the bloody, painful misery that is childbirth: In case you haven't noticed, the planet has way too many people as it is.

16 years ago I was working 70+ hours a week, below the line and running a crew on a 1-hour-episodic TV show. It was very stressful and I was trying not to let it get to me. What's always made me angry about those jobs is when I start dreaming about them. Trying to solve interpersonal and logistics problems in my sleep when I'm not even being paid for it.

My then wife, 5 months pregnant, had way too much time on her hands and in the evenings when I got home was just waiting to pounce on me with some accusation or other nonsense about the perceived injustices of her comfortably lazy life. Often something she’d learned on daytime TV after she woke up 4 hours past my arrival at work to buck furniture and beg penny-pinching producers for more men and another truck. And it was time for me to hear about all the things I'd done wrong and needed to improve. Not time for me to unwind a bit on the couch after my day. Nope, it was time for my lecture about the ways I could put more effort into trying to balance out the male:female power differential in our home

One Saturday I was trying to make up for a week of 4-5 hour nights by taking a nap on my weekend. My fucking weekend. I’m lying on the bed trying to sleep and she starts bouncing on the bed all around me, saying stupid stuff like she was doing all the work with the baby and I was just going to be a bystander and my job was basically over and bla-bla-bla. She kept asking this inane question of how that made me feel to be a mere observer while she did her great big woman-only guitar solo.

I was honestly so tired from lack of sleep that I was in that state that interrogators are after when they keep prisoners up for days; you simply can't help but speak the truth. In that state and with my eyes still shut I heard my voice finally respond, "Actually honey, I feel somewhat ambivalent about you doing all the work of childbirth. On the one hand, I can see that childbirth looks quite painful and I don't enjoy pain, but on the other hand I'm absolutely positive that it would be easier just to do it myself than to have to listen to you do it."

My desired nap was officially over as she launched yet another domestically violent attack on my person. Of course it was all fun and games to her but she was hitting my bicep and deltoid as hard as she could and it took some convincing to get her to stop swinging those terribly oppressed pointy little feminist fists.

[–]Dazz316 87 points88 points89 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]peck112 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]girlwriteswhat 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

OMG, I'm so sick of the "women couldn't vote" thing. Not only was voting back then not a right but a privilege, but a lot of women DID have the vote, and a whole lot of men didn't.

Despite huge swaths of working class men not having the vote, they were subject to the military draft (women were not), and subject to civil conscription like bucket brigades and hue and cry laws (women were not).

And before you say this was because women were seen as inferior, yeah no. Women are as capable of taking a bucket from one person and passing it to the next person as anyone else. They were considered to be exempt from this obligation not because they couldn't do it, but because they shouldn't have to do it.

You aren't expected to stand when an inferior enters a room. In fact, it is servants who are not permitted to sit in the presence of their betters. You aren't expected to open the door of a coach for an inferior. In fact, it is the driver who was expected to do so for both men and women of higher status than him, and men who were expected to do so for women if there was no servant to do it. Pulling out a chair? Yeah, that was the servant or the man who was expected to do that--again, the servant would do this for both men and women, and if there was no servant, the man would do this for the woman.

If men were expected to do things for women that servants did for their social betters, this doesn't indicate to me any kind of attitude that women were inferior human beings.

Oh, and by the way. The most well-organized and vocal opponents of women's suffrage were women. One of their primary arguments was that being the equals of men would be a step down.

[–]AloysiusC 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenTVNerd21 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenTVNerd21 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDonki 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And maybe men aren't allowed not to? As the post says: it had to be done.

I know this is hyperbolic, but should slavery-era whites have complained about "not being allowed" to pick the cotton?

I know the experience of men is most definitely not the same as what black Americans faced during slavery, but I think the "wasn't allowed to" argument has its limits, as it would in that case.

Where I often see this logic used is in regards to the labor of the housewife. Feminists will talk about how unfair it was that women essentially weren't allowed to leave the house, and had to do all the of the housework. Feminists have called this domestic slavery. But we're the men any more allowed to diverge from their set path of going out and earning the cheddar to "provide for" and "support" their family?

And when looking at the two gender roles, one who stays at home with the family and one who leaves home to work, who actually bears more similarity with the slave and who with the master?

[–]Dazz316 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dazz316 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dazz316 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bascome 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chaun2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chaun2 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]samsc2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dazz316 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]samsc2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dazz316 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]samsc2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dazz316 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]samsc2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arcosah 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ_Fleetwood_MacBook -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arcosah 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It really is great to hear that. Somewhere along the lines this whole thing got off track... on the flip side OP's post is a great example of how gender issues are double sided-- the limits we place on what women can do mean those tasks can become a burden for men alone and the things we expect women to do can end up excluding men from those tasks. How would a women ever get the chance to do any of the things OP's post talks about? Why should the burden be on men to do those things? But most importantly, why should we try to use what past generations did as an excuse or try to act like some kind of debt is owed? I can see why many men feel they can't be a part of feminism but this is just ridiculous honestly. It's stooping to the level of those most likely fake Tumblr posts everyone gets so worked up about. Those Tumblr posts don't represent feminism and gender equality the same way this post shouldn't represent men's rights and gender equality.

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

Too true. So refreshing to find at least one person here I can see eye-to-eye with. The vast majority of issues that affect men are because of outdated gender roles, outdated expectations and to a certain extent the patriarchy. Like most of us here are actually on the same side as the vast majority of feminists. We want healthier roles for both genders. But the official party line in /r/MensRights is to hate all feminism so this can't be discussed.

Also the stats in this post are shared, but you never see anyone talk about disparities in unpaid work at home, cleaning, cooking and raising kids. Genders clearly are socialized differently, and inherently have differences (women have far less upper body strength, men cannot carry a baby to term), but there are spaces where men pick up the slack and where women pick up the slack.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Because they couldn't.

Women weren't only kept out of doing things like brick laying. They were denied the chance to do a lot of other jobs that had nothing to do with physical strength.

Pre electricity, pre computer, pre air conditioning.

Back then, everything was physically demanding. They didn't have machines to make the work easier. Even household tasks like laundry, cleaning carpets, and preparing food were arduous back then. It's not as if men spent the day toiling while their women sat on their asses doing nothing. For most of history, women had to work hard as well; most have not had the luxury of being a stay-home mother. Only women living in wealthy families were able to live lives of ease, cared for by servants, not needing to dirty their hands or look after themselves and their children. The rest of them had shit to do. Both men and women worked their fingers to the bone because that's what they had to do in order to keep their families fed and clothed.

I understand why a woman would not have been hired back then to be a mason. But there was no equally compelling reason for women to be kept out of colleges and other career fields - science, medicine, politics, etc.

Just another bullshit argument that job title, not output should determine pay?

I never said that at all...that's entirely your assumption at play.

[–]AloysiusC 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

One could argue that men doing physically harder work is still doing what comes naturally.

Of course. It's very remarkable nonetheless. Alone because the results are unlike anything else and clearly far superior to what any other species does.

You realize that women don't just lie around getting laid and popping out babies, right?

Depends on exactly to what extent you phrased that alone for the purpose of hyperbole.

Both genders do more than simply carrying out biological functions and following their instincts.

One could argue that both genders were and still are just following their instincts. The difference is in the results.

Both genders have made huge contributions to science, to medicine, to government, to all the things that set human society apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

This is simply not true. It might not be politically correct but it's just a matter of fact that, what women mostly did in aggregate throughout history, only had a negligible impact on the advancement of civilization. Or to put it another way, if women had literally only ever done the things pertaining directly to procreation, society would probably look, well, exactly the way it looks today.

If you find that hard to believe, just look at the media the sexes consume and you'll see a consistent pattern whereby men uniquely take an interest in how things work and solving problems.

If it makes you feel any better about it, the majority of men also only had a negligible impact on civilization. The 80/20 rule applies here. Although it's probably more of a 95/5 rule.

[–]imbecile -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Of course. It's very remarkable nonetheless. Alone because the results are unlike anything else and clearly far superior to what any other species does.

With that in mind, successfully bearing and raising children is also far more demanding for humans than for any other species. Mentally, physically and intellectually. And since this was. and in most of the world still is, primarily the work of women, it's kind of arrogant to assume that only men have advanced beyond what other species do. This is bordering on comparing women to cattle.

Now it is true, modern science and medicine has taken care of most of the biggest risks and hardships of motherhood in the last 100-150 years, and that has taken a considerable burden from women and mankind as a whole.

But it also means that all that freed up female capacity and productivity needs to be put to use elsewhere. Childhood mortality and childbed mortality have been abolished for all practical purposes. A new role for women as a demographic is inevitable, and we are still in the process of finding that new role. Society, women and men need to adapt to that. And the answer isn't as simple as saying women are men now.

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

And since this was. and in most of the world still is, primarily the work of women, it's kind of arrogant to assume that only men have advanced beyond what other species do.

Firstly, having to raise children for longer is not an advantage. It's a liability.

And fathers play a more crucial role in raising children the further you depart from just giving birth and breastfeeding - which is exactly what animals do. At some point they overtake the mother's importance and it's earlier than most people think. It's a total myth that fathers aren't as important as mothers.

Also, doing the same thing but more of it is generally not comparable to doing something entirely unique. Cheetahs are the fastest running land animal. The running equivalent of what humans do is teleportation. It sounds like I'm dramatizing but I'm really not. There's no comparison. We don't just adapt faster to changing circumstances, we can even foresee changing circumstances and adapt to them before they take effect. No species can compete with that.

This is bordering on comparing women to cattle.

Aw poor women. We MUST make them feel good about themselves and what I wrote sounds like it wouldn't do that so fight it because penis. Wake up and come to your senses. I added you as a friend here some time in the past which means you must have impressed me at least once. Please don't disappoint with this instinctive women-pleasing mindset.

Now it is true, modern science and medicine has taken care of most of the biggest risks and hardships of motherhood in the last 100-150 years, and that has taken a considerable burden from women and mankind as a whole.

I often say women's greatest oppressor was nature and women's greatest liberator was men. Without the accomplishments of men, anything on the lines of equality would be totally inconceivable. And you also just explained why feminism didn't really show itself until round about the same time. It's always the same story: Men break new ground, take risks and build something new. It's often derided or fails or takes time before it picks up. Then, only after it becomes comfortable and safe, women suddenly feel entitled to having an equal part in it. Even today this process is still happening. Gaming is the most recent example. Atheism/skepticism came just before that. Where were the feminists crying for equality when gamers where universally seen as losers? They were busy trying to get women into corporations that men built under great sacrifice.

When MRAs want a proportionate service for men that women have like domestic violence shelters, we get told "build your own". Aha. I'm willing to bet most women's shelters are built and financed by men too.

But it also means that all that freed up female capacity and productivity needs to be put to use elsewhere.

Who says so? I mean, sure, it would be nice when looking at the big picture, but why should women do this when they don't have to? There's no incentive to be as productive as men. In that regard nothing is any different today from the past. The only thing that would truly revolutionize gender roles would be if women received some of the pressure to perform that men have had. Then everything else, including disparities will take care of themselves wherever it's sensible. But what are you going to do? Force women to work as hard as men and sacrifice themselves? I mean what we're doing today isn't just leading a horse to water, it's practically drowning it and wondering why it won't drink. Just help the other horse for a change.

A new role for women as a demographic is inevitable, and we are still in the process of finding that new role.

Women have made their choice. We mistakenly believed that the female gender role was some kind of slavery. We gave women every chance to venture out of it. Some did. Many didn't. We were wrong. Most women prefer traditionally female gender roles. Now we have to deal with it. It's men you have to worry about now.

Society, women and men need to adapt to that.

Actually only women need to adapt to it if changing gender roles is what you want. As soon as women start to change their mating strategy, men will adapt all by themselves. It's absurd how people ascribe the gender roles to men when they have the least amount of control over it. But it's just another stage in the long story of giving women the choice and holding men responsible for those choices.

And the answer isn't as simple as saying women are men now.

Of course not. But while you're mentioning this, I actually think it could teach us all a valuable lesson to really treat women like men for a little while. Not going to happen though. Somebody will complain. Guess who that might be?

[–]imbecile 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Who says so? I mean, sure, it would be nice when looking at the big picture, but why should women do this when they don't have to?

Evolution. Letting nothing go to waste is the biggest selective pressure there is. Having half the population contribute only marginally is a waste on a scale that will ensure extinction.

Firstly, having to raise children for longer is not an advantage. It's a liability.

Yes, a liability, but also a biological necessity. Our prolonged childhood is what makes our neurological adaptability and cultural development possible. You can't claim that men were out there bringing home the bacon all the time, but also were home raising the children all the time. Sure, men can raise children and women can bring home the bacon if need be. But that is not the optimal division of labour and specialization we have evolved for. And there is enough variability between individuals that some women are better than most men at bringing home the bacon and some men are better than most women at raising children. Luckily we have enough rationality that we can recognize this often enough when it happens and are able to reassign roles and don't follow a strict instinctual programming. And that rationality and adaptability is our biggest strength.

We MUST make them feel good about themselves and what I wrote sounds like it wouldn't do that so fight it because penis. Wake up and come to your senses. I added you as a friend here some time in the past which means you must have impressed me at least once. Please don't disappoint with this instinctive women-pleasing mindset.

Well, I don't really care if I disappoint you or please women. All I know is that I wouldn't want to throw out what makes us uniquely human just to cater those self-important sensibilities of yours or of feminists. I'm no woman hater. I don't decide whether I hate someone based what demographic they belong to, especially if that is a biological categorization. My decisions whether I like someone or not comes from seeing what they do and hearing them talk.

I often say women's greatest oppressor was nature and women's greatest liberator was men. Without the accomplishments of men, anything on the lines of equality would be totally inconceivable.

Correct. The world is changed now. It is a whole different game and we need to adapt. What do you expect? Gratitude? You didn't do squat to liberate todays women from the shackles of nature. You just claim credit for something others did. If I hear feminists talking about historic female oppression I will tear them a new one for the disrespect they show their ancestors and their sacrifices. I don't expect them to extend that respect to me. I like to earn my respect myself, thank you very much.
And that's all that is needed to solve this gender conundrum, or most social issues really, for men and women: Don't expect respect for who you are, earn it for what you do.

Women have made their choice. ... It's men you have to worry about now.

So you do expect a biological heritage with the strength of millions of years behind it to just disappear within 2-3 generations (that's for how long we have reliable contraception, the true real game changer). Both men and women need to adapt, and we are still right in the middle of the painful transition where the pendulum needs to find a new balance. And frankly, there are other imbalances in society that I'm far more worried about than gender imbalances, and that are probably the main reason the gender tensions are so high right now.

Actually only women need to adapt to it if changing gender roles is what you want.

Nope. All of society will have to change and resolve this tremendous wealth inequality, and gender roles will fall into place. Because when the social hierarchy flattens out, hypergamy will not be the most successful female strategy anymore.

to really treat women like men

I treat men and women as human beings. Came across many women who were offended by that, but turning around and walking away from them is easy.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Evolution. Letting nothing go to waste is the biggest selective pressure there is. Having half the population contribute only marginally is a waste on a scale that will ensure extinction.

Only if that contribution leads in some way to higher chances of producing successful offspring. But reality shows the opposite is the case. The more women invest into careers, the less children they have and I suspect those children are also less likely to succeed but that's just a guess at this point.

Yes, a liability, but also a biological necessity. Our prolonged childhood is what makes our neurological adaptability and cultural development possible.

It's the price we pay for the advantages. It's not an advantage in itself.

You can't claim that men were out there bringing home the bacon all the time, but also were home raising the children all the time.

I'm not. But you seem to be presuming that spending more time raising children, necessarily translates to being a more effective parent. Consider this: from the father they can learn how to survive and prosper just by watching him leave to go on the hunt. They learn that risks must be taken, sacrifices made and one can't always do what feels nice. They also learn they can't put their own interests first all the time. These are far more important lessons than almost anything else and they can and do learn this without constant mothering.

And there is enough variability between individuals that some women are better than most men at bringing home the bacon and some men are better than most women at raising children.

It's strange that you'd put those two in opposition. Raising children isn't comparable to providing resources. Being good at one doesn't automatically come at the cost of the other. The reason it's branded women's work is probably more because there's little else they' were ever expected to do.

Well, I don't really care if I disappoint you or please women.

Ok let me ask you this then: Supposing (hypothetically) that observation revealed that women were indeed little more than cattle (incidentally that isn't at all what I said but never mind). Would you have a problem saying so? Be honest.

What do you expect? Gratitude?

No. I'm discussing the realities of what's going on. We're living in a time when women are seen as the better humans - they supposedly put the humanity into civilization. Given what I wrote above, I think we can safely dump that ridiculous glorification into the garbage.

You just claim credit for something others did.

How in the world have I done that? Why are you trying to make this about me?

And that's all that is needed to solve this gender conundrum, or most social issues really, for men and women: Don't expect respect for who you are, earn it for what you do.

That would be great and in general it's good advice but I doubt you'll get far in the gender discourse with it. When one part of the population is intrinsically more valued, it is inevitable that it will also be more entitled. Individuals can depart from that pattern but they can't break it.

So you do expect a biological heritage with the strength of millions of years behind it to just disappear within 2-3 generations

No I expect it to disappear in a few days. I'm only half joking. Because if women today decided to prefer submissive, sensitive and fragile men, it would take about that long for men to adapt. Of course you can't make women change their preferences but we can start calling a spade a spade and stop pretending men are making these decisions.

Because when the social hierarchy flattens out, hypergamy will not be the most successful female strategy anymore.

It's absolutely absurd to think that this could ever happen. There will always be the more fortunate and the less fortunate. If the difference decreases, our sensibility towards it adapts accordingly and we perceive the new difference as unjust as we did the old. It's how we're wired to perceive the world.

In short: The problem of wealth/power inequality will never go away because it can't ever go away.

I treat men and women as human beings. Came across many women who were offended by that, but turning around and walking away from them is easy.

Kudos to you. But walking away form it is not always easy. When everyone else in the circle agrees with the woman's perception that treating her equally is misogynist, then you have a problem. This is basically the short version of the history of the MRM.

[–]imbecile 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Only if that contribution leads in some way to higher chances of producing successful offspring. But reality shows the opposite is the case. The more women invest into careers, the less children they have and I suspect those children are also less likely to succeed but that's just a guess at this point.

You still haven't fully realized how much the game has changed. We are approaching the end of possible population growth on earth due to resource limitation. The game isn't anymore a game of quantity to get as much offspring as possible to absorb any available resource as fast as possible with exponential growth. The game now is to utilize the people we have the best way we can ro expand mankinds qualitaty. And to get the highest quality offspring to adapt.
Mortality rates imploded. Procreation is a choice. We have escaped the malthusian trap. The first species to do so. You can't overstate how big of a game changer that is to the very concept of biological life.

It's the price we pay for the advantages. It's not an advantage in itself.

You can't have one without the other.

They learn that risks must be taken, sacrifices made and one can't always do what feels nice. They also learn they can't put their own interests first all the time. These are far more important lessons than almost anything else and they can and do learn this without constant mothering.

The thing that teaches all this more than anything else is contact with other children, may they be siblings, or just the other kids in your neighborhood or preschool. And the thing that destroyed this essential aspect of growing up is the environment capitalism has built.

It's strange that you'd put those two in opposition. Raising children isn't comparable to providing resources. Being good at one doesn't automatically come at the cost of the other. The reason it's branded women's work is probably more because there's little else they' were ever expected to do.

You haven't had to raise kids I suppose. Yes, it's not really hard work in the classical sense, or even that difficult. What gets you is that it is 24/7 and always requires some level of attention. That's why single parenthood is so much harder and a really bad idea. Not because you have less resources, or because the task is so much harder, but because you have no one to give you a little break once in a while, because you can't ever do anything else, but still have to do other things. It drains you until you barely function anymore.

Ok let me ask you this then: Supposing (hypothetically) that observation revealed that women were indeed little more than cattle (incidentally that isn't at all what I said but never mind). Would you have a problem saying so? Be honest.

Sure. But irrelevant, because all observation shows that women, as a demographic, were not just like cattle. Many were, but so were many men. Slavery was a very common thing after all.

How in the world have I done that? Why are you trying to make this about me?

Because you are doing personal soap-box ranting here. No problem with that, but at least admit that it is about you and how you feel. You even even use such words as "disappointed".

That would be great and in general it's good advice but I doubt you'll get far in the gender discourse with it. When one part of the population is intrinsically more valued, it is inevitable that it will also be more entitled. Individuals can depart from that pattern but they can't break it.

Individuals can band together break this by creating social rules and tools. There are a lot of intrinsic human traits that we have reigned in very successfully. The best example being our innate violence and drive to kill each, that are controlled very effectively by our legal system and social services to the lowest rates ever.

No I expect it to disappear in a few days. I'm only half joking. Because if women today decided to prefer submissive, sensitive and fragile men, it would take about that long for men to adapt. Of course you can't make women change their preferences but we can start calling a spade a spade and stop pretending men are making these decisions.

Oh, poor kid. You really are fully under the control of your raging hormones and emotions if that is how you feel. Pussy whipped without ever seeing a pussy.

It's absolutely absurd to think that this could ever happen. There will always be the more fortunate and the less fortunate. If the difference decreases, our sensibility towards it adapts accordingly and we perceive the new difference as unjust as we did the old. It's how we're wired to perceive the world.

In short: The problem of wealth/power inequality will never go away because it can't ever go away.

Yes, inequality will never go away. But inequality is not a single static thing. It is a spectrum. It also exists in the natural world, where differences in skillset and just plain luck translate into varying degrees of success and health. And it is those degrees female hypergamy to chose mates is based upon. But see, in the natural world, those differences are limited to individual qualities, and in this context hypergamy works quite well, because there is a defined upper limit to inequality. Even the alpha male in a social species is limited by group size and age. Inequality in the natural world emerges by linear or low polynomial functions, because it happens on an individual basis.

Humans have twisted this mechanism in horrible ways: we invented class systems, where social standing is not determined by individual qualities anymore, like possessions and fitness, but by social constructs like property and authority. And those social constructs are not individual achievements and merits, but social functions that can grow inequality exponentially, because whole populations contribute to it. But the rewards are still applied on an individual basis.

So I disagree. The levels of inequality exhibited among humans are a special case among all species. It has served us well to organize and grow exponentially to the point we are at now. But as I have mentioned above, we are approaching the end of the line of available resources to grow exponentially in raw resources. The growth that is needed now primarily is in efficiency, complexity and capability. And that can't be done when we deprive most of the brains available on earth of the resources and rights to properly utilize them.

Kudos to you. But walking away form it is not always easy. When everyone else in the circle agrees with the woman's perception that treating her equally is misogynist, then you have a problem. This is basically the short version of the history of the MRM.

Everything has price. Don't complain just because you are not willing to pay it.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You still haven't fully realized

That whole paragraph is completely meaningless to the points about evolution to which it is responding. So before you tell me what I don't realize, try to remember what you're even talking about.

It's the price we pay for the advantages. It's not an advantage in itself.

You can't have one without the other.

Lol ok. TIL: You can't have shadow without light, therefore they're the same. Malice vs stupidity? Which one are you trying to make us believe you're suffering from?

Sure. But irrelevant, because all observation shows that women, as a demographic, were not just like cattle.

Sigh. Even when I explicitly say it's hypothetical, you get yourself baited into arguing over it. It's like talking to a child.

Because you are doing personal soap-box ranting here. No problem with that, but at least admit that it is about you and how you feel.

What the hell are you talking about? I have stated repeatedly that I'm not trying to take credit. Cut the straw man interpreting and stick to what I actually say. Get some integrity.

You even even use such words as "disappointed".

Lol. So did you right there you imbecile. Must be projection then.

The best example being our innate violence and drive to kill each, that are controlled very effectively by our legal system and social services to the lowest rates ever.

I believe I have debunked this myth about inherent violence here. What you haven't realized is that the very creation of those tools is what's inherent in us. In other words, we did all this precisely because we are inherently averse to violence.

Oh, poor kid. You really are fully under the control of your raging hormones and emotions if that is how you feel. Pussy whipped without ever seeing a pussy.

So you honestly want to deny that women's mate selection strategy influences society? They're just innocent fragile angels, helplessly at the mercy of male domination? Lol. And you think I'm the one who is hormone driven. Like I said, projection.

And it is those degrees female hypergamy to chose mates is based upon.

Assuming that was some kind of coherent thought before you vomited it onto your keyboard, what is the evidence of this?

Yes, inequality will never go away.

Again, your reading is failing you. Let me help your regressive mind with some bold font: I said the problem of inequality will never go away. Do you want colors too? How about italics? Will that make it easier for you to read?

And that can't be done when we deprive most of the brains available on earth of the resources and rights to properly utilize them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the gain from having women in the work force vs the cost of burdening men with the responsibility of bringing them into it, results in a net loss. Specialization is often more effective anyway. And that's not even looking at society's apparent inability to treat women on their merits. If you flood a merit based job market with a workforce that isn't judged by merit or significantly less so, things aren't going to go well. You get complaints about sexist air conditioning.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Of course. It's very remarkable nonetheless. Alone because the results are unlike anything else and clearly far superior to what any other species does.

Most things about humans are remarkable and far superior to what other species do, when you think about it. For example, the fact that you can think about it - not many other species on earth have anything even close to our mental abilities.

Or to put it another way, if women had literally only ever done the things pertaining directly to procreation, society would probably look, well, exactly the way it looks today.

That is deeply ignorant on your part. You might want to consider a bit of simple googling. For example, to name just one thing, we would not have gone to the moon had it not been for Margaret Hamilton and her brilliant coding. It's safe to say that her work had a huge impact on society. And that's just one woman. There are a lot more.

If you find that hard to believe, just look at the media the sexes consume and you'll see a consistent pattern whereby men uniquely take an interest in how things work and solving problems.

Now you're just making shit up.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If you really believe that without her contribution we'd still have never landed on the moon today, I think you're going to need some very persuasive arguments.

Could a man have done what she did? Sure. But the fact still stands that she was the one who did that job. In a very large and tangible way, she helped put human beings on the moon. Her work had a big impact on the space program as a whole. This idea that women's contributions are so minimal that if all we did was have babies, society would look the same, is pure bullshit. Look back at history. Women made discoveries too. Women contributed too. And now that we've had many decades of people pushing for women's rights, women are contributing even more than before - when you give us the same opportunities as men to be educated and to do more than sit at home and have children, we can accomplish a shit ton of work. And women have, and continue to do so.

There's just no reason to believe what you're trying to say here.

Except for all the women throughout history who have done things that improved the human race.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Could a man have done what she did? Sure.

Well then your claim is refuted.

But the fact still stands that she was the one who did that job.

Which is incidental to the question at hand. Otherwise you could say we'd never have landed on the moon without the chair she sat on while coding.

This idea that women's contributions are so minimal that if all we did was have babies, society would look the same, is pure bullshit.

Well I refer you back to the example at hand: How different would the world look today without her contribution? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't even notice the difference. And this is your own best example.

And now that we've had many decades of people pushing for women's rights, women are contributing even more than before - when you give us the same opportunities as men to be educated and to do more than sit at home and have children, we can accomplish a shit ton of work. And women have, and continue to do so.

Personally I find the results a huge disappointment. Given the premise that women were just held back for millennia but have the same capacity to create, one would have expected an absolute flood of creativity and discoveries. The mistake was to think that having the choice and having the ability is enough. It isn't. And so all we really see is the occasional exception.

Except for all the women throughout history who have done things that improved the human race.

You're still using individuals to make a case for a demographic. It doesn't work that way. Let me explain by example. Magellan lead the expedition to sail around the world. Now you could make the same argument and say somebody else could have and would have done this and they could have been female. The part you're not seeing though is that, to my knowledge, no women were among the 270 crew in that expedition. Why? Because only 18 actually survived and made it back. I think you don't understand what it really takes to advance civilization and keep it running. You take far too many things for granted. Next time you flush the toilet, consider what happens to the shit and what would happen if the people doing that work were to quit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well then your claim is refuted.

No, it's not, because a man DIDN'T do it, she did.

Which is incidental to the question at hand. Otherwise you could say we'd never have landed on the moon without the chair she sat on while coding.

No it's not. That's ridiculous, equating her work with a chair. As if the person who did the work is irrelevant.

Well I refer you back to the example at hand: How different would the world look today without her contribution? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't even notice the difference. And this is your own best example.

Not my best example; it was literally just the first one that came to mind.

Why are you so eager to dismiss all the evidence that is contrary to your ideas? You are rejecting reality and substituting it with your ideology. Such an SJW thing to do.

Given the premise that women were just held back for millennia

That isn't a premise. It's the truth. They were. Haven't you studied any history?

one would have expected an absolute flood of creativity and discoveries.

There has been.

And so all we really see is the occasional exception.

The same is true of men. Most of you will never do anything that makes the history books, nothing noteworthy. That's life. Most of us don't make history. But to say that men are overwhelmingly better than women, more creative, more capable, better able to invent and discover - history does not bear this out.

You're still using individuals to make a case for a demographic.

So is the dude in OP's image. So are a lot of people in this thread. So are you.

no women were among the 270 crew in that expedition. Why? Because only 18 actually survived and made it back.

Women weren't on the expedition because only 18 people survived? lolwut? What kind of logic is that? It's like saying a donkey has long ears because it likes to carry coffee beans and rocks.

Not to mention, you're doing what you just said I'm doing - using individuals, 270 of them, to make a case for an entire demographic. Again, you don't get to take credit for the likes of Magellan and his crew. You weren't there. You had nothing to do with it. Their courage and sacrifice is theirs, not yours.

I think you don't understand what it really takes to advance civilization and keep it running.

I don't think you do, if you are unwilling or unable to recognize the breadth and scope and value of female contributions.

You take far too many things for granted.

You seem to forget that a lot of things in your life are the result of women.

Next time you flush the toilet, consider what happens to the shit and what would happen if the people doing that work were to quit.

Next time you have to drive in the rain, remember that it was a woman who invented windshield wipers.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're taking this too personally and it's making you not see clearly.

No, it's not, because a man DIDN'T do it, she did.

But your statement wasn't that a woman did it. It was that it wouldn't have been done if it wasn't for her. Since you conceded that a man could have done it, you therefore also concede that your statement was false.

That's ridiculous, equating her work with a chair.

I obviously didn't equate her work with a chair. Try to calm down. I made an analogy not of her work but of your reasoning.

Why are you so eager to dismiss all the evidence that is contrary to your ideas?

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

But to say that men are overwhelmingly better than women

Your emotions are clouding your reading comprehension again. I didn't say anything of the kind. Calm down and stick to the facts.

Oh and now calm down from being so angry over being told to calm down ;)

You're still using individuals to make a case for a demographic.

So is the dude in OP's image. So are a lot of people in this thread. So are you.

No. Even the title goes far beyond anything you came up with - i.e. how many buildings were built by which sex - your only response is to point to an woman and call it even.

Women weren't on the expedition because only 18 people survived? lolwut? What kind of logic is that?

Are you seriously so coddled and safe from reality that you can't even see the connection between an extremely risky expedition and people's reluctance to embark on it?

you're doing what you just said I'm doing - using individuals, 270 of them, to make a case for an entire demographic.

You're still not seeing it. So let's break this down then. For any one individual to be male or female is roughly 0.5 chance without any other information. Therefore, finding an example of a person being male or female isn't adding any information. But if you have 270 people, the odds are 1/(2²⁷⁰⁾ which is ... low as fuck. And we can do this all day with risky expeditions. Your own example of the moon landing shows the same pattern.

you don't get to take credit for the likes of Magellan and his crew.

Why do you keep saying that I'm doing that? What's the reasoning behind this? I call straw man.

Next time you have to drive in the rain, remember that it was a woman who invented windshield wipers.

Do you really want to tally up the accomplishments? I don't think you'll like the outcome of that either. Windshield wipers? Seriously? "oh look boys you better respect us because our windshield wipers are every bit as important as your vaccinations, cars, light bulbs.... Yay for team woman waving windshield wipers FTW"

It's pathetic. Perhaps somebody should tell you that you're not actually making women look good with your efforts. And that's not helping your case either btw.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gaedikus 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]samsc2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MerkuryNj 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]FastFourierTerraform -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]factsmakeyoumad 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]letsfuckinrage 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]factsmakeyoumad -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]rnflhastheworstmods 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposablefleshy 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rnflhastheworstmods 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More birth control and abortion access correlates to less children. The less children there are, the less tax base there is to support all the free shit.

One could argue that women/families who want birth control aren't ready to raise a family and the children they raise may not be brought up to be productive members of society. The mother/family who had a child she didn't want/couldn't support is now a drain on society because she's having to take money out of the system to feed, clothe, and house the child. The child, growing up in a financially struggling household, will also go on to financially struggle, being a net drain on society.

You could argue that birth control will lead to a more efficient use of our tax dollars because we're not paying for "unwanted" babies who grow up to be unproductive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BenTVNerd21 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposablefleshy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Addyct 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Addyct 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rnflhastheworstmods 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposablefleshy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_Your_8008s 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposablefleshy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_Your_8008s 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mars3050 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]22braden 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rnflhastheworstmods 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Queen_Jezza 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women who get abortions or who use birth control are directly undermining their 'reproduction' counterargument. A women who doesn't reproduce at at least the replacement rate (2-3 kids) is a net drain on society even by their own measure.

That doesn't make any sense. What makes you think having more population is better for society? Sure, I guess you benefit from economies of scale slightly more if you have more people, but first you have to spend tons of money educating and providing services for them, and even then you by definition have fewer natural resources per capita to go around.

Who do you think is using that counterargument or that measure of whether or not someone is a drain on society? You seem to be generalising women like that. I'm a woman and I personally think those arguments are stupid, and as a libertarian I am very sceptical of anything that starts with "government funded". Maternity leave should be an optional thing offered by employers, forcing them to offer that is just a method of incentivising people to have more children, which I don't think is a useful thing to do. Government funded birth control makes slightly more sense as having unwanted pregnancies is a big cost to society.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What makes you think having more population is better for society?

Labor is a resource. More people means more productivity. Of course this is limited by how big of a population can be sustained by agriculture but even this can and sometimes is dealt with through import.

first you have to spend tons of money educating and providing services for them

More need for education means more jobs for teachers for example. Services and education aren't something given by the government. It's ultimately what people provide for each other. More people means more jobs.

even then you by definition have fewer natural resources per capita to go around.

Like I said, the work people do is itself a resource. Natural resources (i.e. what you can dig out of the ground etc.) are overrated when measuring the wealth and prosperity of a country. Think about this: More people means more can be digging out coal/iron or farm.

[–]Queen_Jezza -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Queen_Jezza -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On average, people consume the same amount as they make

Well because the premise is false. Supposing it were true, then we'd have never built, discovered or created anything that outlasted anyone. We'd have to reinvent the wheel with every new generation. But the truth is, people born today have a huge number of resources at their disposal from productivity of the past. Knowledge, for example, is such a resource.

And in the context of this discussion, it is mostly men who produce more than they consume. So much so in fact, that women can produce less than they consume and society still winds up with a net positive.

What I disagree with is that men deserve some kind of gratitude for it. Certainly they are massively underappreciated today and even vilified but the productivity of men is no more a "favor" than women's pregnancy is.

It is however very remarkable. It's completely unique to our knowledge. It's unlike anything we've ever encountered elsewhere and has made us the dominant species.

[–]CptNasty -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CptNasty -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's not about counting the costs/benefits, reality isn't positive or negative it just is.

Ok I'll phrase it another way: Do you or do you not think that modern civilization constitutes an improvement of living standards for its members? I trust that atrocities committed, while being part of reality, are still negative to you, right? So now, in short, was it worth it?

My issue is that no one should be forced to feel gratitude to all men just because some men somewhere have done something good.

I agree. Though I'd like to add that, in the current Zeitgeist, men are free game to bash and blame for everything bad - including choices made exclusively by women. In such a climate, I think a little push back can be somewhat refreshing. I mean if there was a post about female contributions and asking men to be grateful, there wouldn't be half the amount of scrutiny over that.

Like, I have a physical disability but I don't expect you to express gratitude and thanks to me for discovering Hawking Radiation.

Lol did you just call the male sex a disability :p

[–]CptNasty -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CptNasty 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Not47 95 points96 points97 points 9 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

[–]livin4donuts 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]PavementBlues 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

And in the process of asking for that respect, the author says that most of these things have been done by men because "usually women are nowhere to be found", and then says, "I don't blame women for this - asphalt is nasty shit." As if women avoid these things simply because they're hard.

I rarely call misogyny, but that's some straight-up bullshit right there. Tell that to Rosie the Riveter and the entire generation of women during World War 2 who stepped up to keep American society functioning and provide supplies for the war effort, the same women who had to go back to being homemakers after the war ended because that was what society said they needed to do. Most women haven't done these jobs not because they're lazy, or because the jobs are hard, but because we still live in a society in which women are told that they can't do them.

That doesn't take away from the same problem that men face, of course. While the ridicule that a man faces trying to become a kindergarten teacher is different than the ridicule that a women faces trying to become a construction worker, both carry stigma. Our society genders a lot of career choices. My single mother hauled trailers for over twenty years to support three kids, and she dealt with that reality on a daily basis. She had to put in extra effort to prove that she was better than the rest to get jobs, because she was the only woman around doing it and managers would always assume that she was worse than a guy.

If you want respect, you have to give respect in turn. This post is insulting for the countless women doing hard jobs that are made unnecessarily harder by the fact that they are women.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Rosie the Riveter

Religious icons now?

Ironically, Doyle said she wasn't even aware of the poster's existence until the early 1980s, when she saw it in a magazine ad and recognized herself in it. Even more ironically, Doyle herself only worked as a "Rosie the Riveter" for two weeks during the war. She quit because she was an avid cellist, and she feared she would injure her hands in a machine accident (she apparently discovered that the woman she was replacing had mangled her hand in the stamping machine).

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-complex-legacy-of-rosie-the-riveter/69268/

had to go back to being homemakers after the war ended because that was what society said they needed to do.

Are you seriously implying that they wanted to keep working factory jobs? WTF

Most women haven't done these jobs not because they're lazy, or because the jobs are hard, but because we still live in a society in which women are told that they can't do them.

The Norwegian paradox disproves your starry belief. Women dont want to do men jobs because they're hard. They want the cushy seat, not the hours nor the stress. If there is no cushy seat they they dont want those men jobs.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LokisDawn 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As if women avoid these things simply because they're hard.

People in general avoid things that are hard. The difference lies in how much pressure the sexes have to perform and provide.

I rarely call misogyny, but that's some straight-up bullshit right there.

bullshit isn't misogyny.

the entire generation of women during World War 2 who stepped up to keep American society functioning

while men went to fight on the front lines. You're arguing against your own case here.

the same women who had to go back to being homemakers after the war ended because that was what society said they needed to do.

Funny how even today, most women choose the homemaker life over the career life. I suspect most men would also choose that if they had the option.

but because we still live in a society in which women are told that they can't do them

Come on. There is no end to the public bombardment with women are better and men are just useless.

While the ridicule that a man faces trying to become a kindergarten teacher is different than the ridicule that a women faces trying to become a construction worker, both carry stigma.

The difference is that one of them is grounded in reality while the other is not.

If you want respect, you have to give respect in turn.

If you want respect, you have to earn it. That's the reality men find themselves in. And you aren't doing women any favors by teaching them something different.

[–]gaedikus 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

As if women avoid these things simply because they're hard.

i don't see women campaigning for equality in the less desirable jobs, just for CEO positions and combat MOS's in the military (which they're trying to lower standards for, while the military already has lower physical standards in the first place for women)

Rosie the Riveter

she quit after two weeks because she was scared to hurt her hands, so probably not the best example

Our society genders a lot of career choices

i'd be willing to meet halfway on this, because while there is a social stigma for some jobs, women are typically gravitated toward caretaker positions like nurses, teachers, etc. and nowadays it isn't like you're barred from getting a STEM degree and working as an engineer, but a lot of people don't, because that shit is hard (more sources)

[–]killcat 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PavementBlues 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

i don't see women campaigning for equality in the less desirable jobs

The National Organization for Women took the right to be considered equally for any job to which a woman is qualified to the Supreme Court after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not able to enforce 1968 legislation making gender-based discrimination illegal, specifically centered around gender-based job postings in newspapers. CEO positions aren't really being advertised in newspapers.

That didn't at all change the stigma associated with women working traditionally masculine jobs, unfortunately. That stigma that still exists today.

she quit after two weeks because she was scared to hurt her hands, so probably not the best example

This is ignoring the entire generation of women that I mentioned.

i'd be willing to meet halfway on this, because while there is a social stigma for some jobs, women are typically gravitated toward caretaker positions like nurses, teachers, etc. and nowadays it isn't like you're barred from getting a STEM degree and working as an engineer, but a lot of people don't, because that shit is hard (more sources)

I work in STEM. I've built software development teams and taught interns, and I can tell you that women don't just avoid it because it's hard. One of the best developers I ever hired was a young lady who had taken an interest in computers at a young age and been mocked by her older brothers, told that girls can't be programmers. Women aren't taken as seriously in STEM, as in so many other fields, because it's difficult and people assume that women can't handle it.

This isn't just anecdotal. Take this study, in which "science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position." In their randomized, double-blind study, they found the following:

Our results revealed that both male and female faculty judged a female student to be less competent and less worthy of being hired than an identical male student, and also offered her a smaller starting salary and less career mentoring. Although the differences in ratings may be perceived as modest, the effect sizes were all moderate to large (d = 0.60–0.75). Thus, the current results suggest that subtle gender bias is important to address because it could translate into large real-world disadvantages in the judgment and treatment of female science students. Moreover, our mediation findings shed light on the processes responsible for this bias, suggesting that the female student was less likely to be hired than the male student because she was perceived as less competent.

Note that both male and female faculty demonstrated this, which I point out to say that this is a societal thing, not a "men suck hurr durr" thing. But by saying that women don't get into these fields simply because it's hard, we shortchange women and promote the kind of thinking that causes this bias in the first place. This problem affects women in a lot of fields, which does play into gender disparities in those jobs.

And yes, I totally acknowledge that this isn't the only reason that we don't have a perfect 50/50 split in every profession. Physical differences do play a role in many of the jobs mentioned in the OP, and I won't discount the importance of strength because it is an important factor. Testosterone is damn handy when you're pouring concrete. I just think that it's important that we address all of the factors that play a role in these differences, so that the next generation of girls won't think that they're not supposed to pursue physical or dirty jobs because that's "what boys do", or that they can't pursue a career in STEM because women aren't as good at math and science.

[–]The_0bserver 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I work in STEM. I've built software development teams and taught interns, and I can tell you that women don't just avoid it because it's hard. One of the best developers I ever hired was a young lady who had taken an interest in computers at a young age and been mocked by her older brothers, told that girls can't be programmers. Women aren't taken as seriously in STEM, as in so many other fields, because it's difficult and people assume that women can't handle it.

Wow. Which country do you live in? I work in a company with a few girls. (agreed much lesser ratio of women in tech team, then again every other team has higher number of women, including top brass - CEO, CFO are women. CTO is a guy).

I work in teams across India (I'm Indian), Swiss, Lithuanians, Russians, Ukranians etc. None of the girls are treated any differently. They are considered as programmers, nothing more nothing less, and you are considered based on what work you do.

I see the same thing across many companies, with no bias.

[–]PavementBlues 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jiropracter 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gaedikus 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That didn't at all change the stigma associated with women working traditionally masculine jobs, unfortunately. That stigma that still exists today.

i don't know what to tell you here. i don't disagree.

This is ignoring the entire generation of women that I mentioned.

that's not what i was saying, just that rosie herself is not a great example. plenty of women contributed in hard jobs while the majority men were off fighting a war.

Women aren't taken as seriously in STEM, as in so many other fields, because it's difficult and people assume that women can't handle it.

can you deny that some of those "many other fields" requiring equal physical standards between men and women make it near impossible for a lot of women to not only be eligible to work in them, but then also be competitive? is there not a current average physical limitation of women compared to the average physical ability of men? i believe that mentally, women and men are equally as capable, but there are physical limitations (on average) i see that you addressed this.

Note that both male and female faculty demonstrated this, which I point out to say that this is a societal thing, not a "men suck hurr durr" thing. But by saying that women don't get into these fields simply because it's hard, we shortchange women and promote the kind of thinking that causes this bias in the first place. This problem affects women in a lot of fields, which does play into gender disparities in those jobs.

this is so very interesting to me. what do you believe would be an adequate solution to, as you put it, "shortchanging women" when both sexes are doing it? there isn't a direct target to identify, i feel, because in a study you presented, women are getting it from both sides. thoughts?

[–]PavementBlues 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The beginning of the solution, in my totally subjective opinion, is to try to pick apart and understand the stories that we tell ourselves and each other about gender roles. That's incredibly difficult, though, because culture is incredibly difficult to analyze when you grew up in it. It's one of the tenets of anthropology that those within a culture take many of its fundamental assumptions for granted, because they grew up with them. Fish don't notice that they're surrounded by water.

Still, you can see an example of how early this stuff starts in this touching post about a guy who taught his nieces that girls don't need to be scared of bugs and creepy crawly things. Or there's the inverse situation, where young boys are told that they are weird and gay if they want to play house or dress up dolls. They're expected to be rough and tumble, less emotionally aware than girls, and to never express their emotions. That programming would play out later on by driving them away from nurturing roles in employment and towards roles that better fit what our culture tells them they should be.

That's why I think that it's a matter of encouraging kids to explore fields that they might have otherwise written off. I'm getting involved with a local women's group to help encourage young girls to learn about STEM and show that this is an industry where both men and women can contribute, and I think that we need groups like this to also reach out to sensitive young boys who could be amazing in nurturing jobs, and to show them that those jobs are perfectly legitimate if that's what they find fulfilling.

Anyway, I'll stop before this turns into another textwall. I just find stories so fascinating, and how our culture seems to be knitted together with the stories that we tell one another and pass down to our kids. It's kind of wild, really.

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gaedikus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Not47 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not47 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ulshaski -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ulshaski -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordCharidarn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because the oppression of children by adults is institutionalized in Western (and most) societies. We habitually deny them the right to body autonomy, control of their own finances, representation in Government (even though they will be the ones longest influences by policy).

We do this because we can, and no one has stood up for children. They are too inexperienced or innocent or weak. They can't protect themselves without someone to guide them and it's our duty as adults to keep them safe. Sounds a lot like the arguments used for keeping racial minorities and women in second class positions, huh?

But the commenter before you is still correct: the direct benefit is power for those doing the controlling. And of course males dominating females makes sense. It's the only way males can guarantee reproductive rights for themselves. Up until modern genetic testing if you allowed a woman to interact with other men, you would never be one hundred percent positive that any child of hers was a child of yours. The only way to be sure would be for a man to keep her sequestered away, available only for his own reproductive use. There's your incentive: genetic immortality.

[–]Vertical807 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Because the oppression of children by adults is institutionalized in Western (and most) societies."

What?

"We habitually deny them the right to body autonomy"

Children do have body autonomy (except for circumcision, but that's another debate), they're free to move about as long as they don't hurt one another or themselves. Same applies to adults.

"control of their own finances"

Yes, because they are uneducated on spending/budgeting till they hit about the end of high school were they are TEENAGERS, not children.

"representation in Government (even though they will be the ones longest influences by policy)."

Again, children have no idea how government works, imagine spending a 5 yr old diplomat to foreign countries.

"We do this because we can, and no one has stood up for children."

What are you talking about, there are people all over the place putting children before adults.

"Sounds a lot like the arguments used for keeping racial minorities and women in second class positions, huh?"

What argument?

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

[–]Not47 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moral_Gutpunch -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stringdom 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

These are called structural conditions. You don't owe it to anyone. But on the flip side. If a structural condition is detrimental to you, does someone owe you? This is the argument. Just because you were unable to choose your condition, does not mean that someone, somewhere at some point didn't actively made an effort to make it that way. Albeit not specifically thinking about you, someone did struggle and pushed to make universal free healthcare a thing that exists. Out of which you are benefitting, even if you don't have a choice, even if wasn't meant for you. If you are grateful or not is irrelevant and anyone trying to hold it against you is dumb, you are not responsible for it but you are privileged by it. And being conscious about it is the crux of the stupid "check your privilege" phrase. Are you aware enough to recognize that you have it better than 90% of humans out of no action on your part other than being you and having been born where you did?

[–]Not47 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Except, nobody is asking you to give up or hand over anything. I mean, just because you, personally, have access to free health care doesn't mean that others don't have a right to it too. In the same manner that just because you, personally, have been subjected to oppression and suffering doesn't make it right for others to suffer too. But the true of the matter is that many people at some point or another did a lot of things to make it possible for you to be you. Unfortunately this was not free, thus why people ask for recognition. Just accept that someone has to pay for all of that free stuff you've been enjoying. The question is, are we willing to be altruistic and do our share of the effort for others, or are we going to be entitled idiots who just freeload all of our lives and then complain when privileges get taken away?

[–]avicek 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xMoody 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iyja 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]iyja 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Only thing it would have been one of negligible quality compared to publicly funded services.

There is huge variability of both country to country. That isn't necessarily true.

His issue was that he chose to utilise public healthcare and schooling and yet claim there was "no other options" when there was an option to not use it at all.

Well when the public option you're forced to pay for either way, and the private competition are also taxed, the public option is basically monopolizing by forcing its competition to subsidize its costs.

So effectively it's not a like for like comparison for what is or isn't an option.

I admit that my second sentence is inaccurate. It should have been "the alternative is homoeopathy and home-schooling".

This contradicts this:

His issue was that he chose to utilise public healthcare and schooling and yet claim there was "no other options" when there was an option to not use it at all.

Emphasis mine.

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

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]iyja 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

I am puzzled that your 'private' context requires expertise that would definitely cost more than what the OP could afford, and hence his best option was public services.

As I illuminated earlier, it only costs more because it's artificially low being subsidized by its competitors in the private market.

Imagine if Wal-Mart could tax Costco. Wal-Mart could lower its prices and then appear to the best option, even if it's artificial.

That doesn't prove Wal-Mart is inherently better.

It is not a false dichotomy for the simple reason that it was the only 2 options available to OP. Your option was never available to OP owing to his limited resources.

OP's entire point is that government providing X doesn't mean government necessary to acquire it, because in its absence private entities can provide it, thus meaning there aren't just two options.

It's just government artificially limits what appears to be good options, which happens to be good for government.

[–]iyja 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's precisely that it's being paid for by tax and artificially low that's why it's the best option for OP. Let's not kid ourselves that full privatisation will result in better alternatives.

I agree with you that "government providing X doesn't mean government necessary to acquire it" and I acknowledge that in its absence, private entities can provide it. Reality however, has always shown us that when governments don't provide, exploitative monopolies or cartels take over (i.e. Internet Service Providers, Prison Services, Specialised Healthcare, etc.)

So instead of Public services vs DIY, in which he was offered the option to choose from, it is now Private vs DIY which effectively results in OP forced into the DIY route as he cannot afford the private costs.

In any event, OP has already benefitted from services provided for by the government and thinks that he doesn't owe the government anything. That was my issue. Don't like the government services? Don't use it.

[–]forgiv 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]forgiv 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Not47 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not47 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Not47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]otw points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused you aren't the person I was talking to? What is the relevance of this comment?

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]otw points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh okay sorry I thought you were just being an ass. My name is Frank Simon I am located in the East Coast area. I'm not anyone one big but I have talked at a lot of domestic shelters and various political organizations (largely ones with gender politics on a forefront) mainly in NYC.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]otw points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

ignorant extremists hijack both these movements

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Not47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Not47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]meatboitantan -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Not47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDonki 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghettodabber 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]acekingdom 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moral_Gutpunch 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]meatboitantan 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]ulshaski -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_fens99 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

God damn, is this sub turning into a punch of alt-right idiocy too? Hard to say women "owe men a debt of gratitude" when they generally weren't allowed to participate in any of the mentioned things in the past. Men didn't do it because they were men, they did it because they needed a job, or because women couldn't be conscripted.

Also, to add to how thick skulled this is, we're mostly talking about people in the past. This has the ancient, stupid sentimentality that your ancestors are a part of you in some way. That because I'm a man, I am part of what men did in the past. Women "owe" me now because of what some guys the past did? Incredibly stupid.

Today men and women (in "modernized" countries) have essentially the same opportunities. Nobody owes the category of one gender for doing something that is what they prefer to do. These guys become construction workers instead of nurses for themselves. They made their own decision. It wasn't to spare women the dirty work.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDonki 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackhole885 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quithi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Banned_By_Default 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheUniverseis2D 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladut 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]probably_a_squid 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]livin4donuts 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mightier_mouse 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Drag0nV3n0m231 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]intensetbug 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheAlbinoRhinoWins 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]welcomtocostcoiloveu 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_0bserver 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fshifty 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]junkerlol 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ishii points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd be interested if you could expand on this comment about women being lazy. You truly believe that women's stuggles for equal opportunity has nothing to do with opression and everything to do with their innate laziness?

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You truly believe that women's stuggles for equal opportunity has nothing to do with sexual violence/abuse/the belief they're not good enough or strong enough and everything to do with their innate laziness?

Believe? Lol You make it sound like a religion. Yes, believing in God is an act of faith with no real evidence, the evidence of women's laziness is on full display right in front of you everyday in a million ways.

I have to assume you're too LAZY to see it (?) Most women only major in the absolute easiest majors in college, only work in the absolute easiest jobs that require the least amount of effort, demand 'flexible schedules,' which is another way of saying, "I'm LAZY and don't always feel like coming in to work," - you say there is a 'belief' that women aren't 'good enough' or strong enough; we don't know if they are or not, because women can barely even show up for even their piddly little jobs they choose, they're constantly trying to get out of work, bribe and flirt with men at work to do all of their work for them, women BRAG to each other when they get to quit their jobs and become housewives like it's a badge of honor and all the other women "Ooo!" in anger and jealousy because they all want to be exactly like her. 84% of women polled said they want to be housewives: http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/#726431843095

I could go on all day giving the evidence of how LAZY women are, but the greatest 'evidence' of all is actually an extreme lack of evidence: Women's accomplishments. Where are all of the significant inventions invented by women? (Not the all the fraudulent female inventors feminists invent every other day: REAL ones).

Where is everything they've built? Nowhere. And where are all the women working tirelessly everyday to maintain and repair the infrastructure of our civilization? Nowhere. MEN do all of that and more.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]ishii points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Sexual harassment creates a hostile work environment. That's an important point, when it comes to women working the same jobs as men.

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ishii points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The harassment started because the men didn't believe women belonged in a manual labour workplace.

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel like the generation of women that were pulled out of their traditional roles to support the war economy during WWII really got it. They understood that they had a role to play, that people counted on them and by and large they truly appreciated the value of a bit of graft. There wasn't any demands for an easy ride or preferential treatment, they just got on and did what was up until that point seen as man's work.

When the bombs stopped falling and the men returned home, it was only natural that they pushed for equal standing with them. They proved themselves every bit as capable as their male counterparts and their ambition was just; they wanted to be equals, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that their movement has been twisted the way it has into new wave feminism is frankly disgusting. It treads all over what was a noble social movement.

[–]EricAllonde 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That is why feminism is a 20th century social construct.

Women had to wait over 2000 years until a modern civilization was built before they could start to replace men. All the heavy lifting has been done. In the past when people had to grow their own food and fight for their survival on a daily basis, no one had the time for feminism or women's studies, it wasn't useful to women at all, a man was far more useful and necessary for survival. Now, in a society with free daycare and prepared meals delivered to your door, what is there for women to do but advance their careers? What's worse is social media has made it even easier for feminists to push their agenda with politically correct propaganda—they don't even have to get out of bed in the morning. Did feminists invent the internet or twitter? No they did not, it's all men, white men. The main drivers of science, technology and social progress has been white men sharing the fruits of their knowledge and paving the way for the rest of humanity, and what did they get in return? Hatred. They hate us. We're racists, we're bigots, we're oppressors, we're the cause of society's problems. It's unbelievable...

I predict the first half of the 21st century will be about the removal of white men from positions of power and authority in Western civilization, it will be done in the name of "equality" and "diversity." The second half will be white men fighting for their survival and taking back everything they have built.

[–]v573v 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the 10 babies a woman would typically have in her lifetime and the care she would have to provide the ones that survived.

Modern medicine, corporate commercialism and government taxation is why women are entering the workforce en masse - they have to become an additional family provider in order to maintain their parent's lifestyle.

The type of people you are discussing were the same type of people pushing a racist agenda towards non-whites up to about 30 years ago. Media, academics, and political candidates - it's almost as if those people don't want the unwashed masses to speak to each other. White men aren't up for playing the game anymore but there's a untapped group of people all too eager to play the game - who have been taught racial pride since the 90s.

Instead of teaching racial pride (which creates racist people) we should of taught that a belief in racial traits is superstition and ridiculed the practitioners of it.

This thread and your post in it is an example of the phenomenon being played out, but instead of race there's sex at play and you fell for it. This thread is nothing more than the superstition of male pride.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the 10 babies a woman would typically have in her lifetime and the care she would have to provide the ones that survived.

Another one who can't make the distinction between a woman and a feminist. But tell me, how many babies are feminists having these days?

The type of people you are discussing were the same type of people pushing a racist agenda towards non-whites up to about 30 years ago.

Meh, slavery was abolished a long, long time ago. Racism or prejudice towards another race is extremely rare among white people, that is why so many races want to live in the multicultural West built by... you guessed it... white men! If you want to know who the real racists are in today's society they're the ones using terms like "white privilege" and "cultural appropriation."

Instead of teaching racial pride...

Yeah, tell that to MTV that teaches their audience to hate white men.

This thread and your post in it is an example of the phenomenon being played out, but instead of race there's sex at play and you fell for it. This thread is nothing more than the superstition of male pride.

Male bonding is one of the strongest forces in nature, it is very real and the reason why black cops and white cops get along so well. If you think male pride is a superstition that's only because you haven't slept with any women. Ironically, most of my pride comes from a woman, my wife, I'm very proud to have her.

Anyway, my post is really a response to all the bashing of white men that's been going on, we are sick of the double standard, if it were any other minority group it would be blatant racism and sexism, and all it's doing is making white men feel they are under siege and see other groups as a threat. Good luck with that.

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stringdom 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So now I'm going to assume, based on your posting history, that you are either delusional or a troll. But just for the record.

There's evidence of feminist ideas on ancient times. The myths of the amazon women were based on real, almost entirely female, tribes. There are written feminist ideas as soon as the 12th century. There were many movement with feminist like ideas in the 17th century. Also, we mostly agree on the fact that human civilization and patriarchal domination can be traced as far back as 20000 years before the christian era (because humans have been around for at least 2 million years). Even though anthropology agrees that prehistoric man wouldn't have been able to survive without the gathering capabilities that were traditionally the responsibility of females. Since a single hunt can be many days for one kill, while gathering can be made daily. In the same way many of the scientific discoveries were due to the interest of women on science like the discovery of pulsars, radiation, mathematical advances, quantum physics and graphite. Just to name a few in a million. Likewise, many non white scientist have been responsible for the advancement of science and engineering that make modern civilization what it is today, technologically speaking. As for the internet, there were many women on the team that developed the first Arpanet as well as people of color. Actually women were the first programmers because it was considered secretary work and thus unworthy for males to do it, even though many of those secretaries had degrees on mathematics. So go ahead and spin on your head as much as you like, but all of your arguments for justifying yourself are indeed, false. Your premise is flawed, your arguments are void of facts and your prediction is fear mongering. Your post don't stand to logic and reason.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see you're being up-voted by feminists for making them feel good with your rhetorical statements, so I'm going to dissect everything you said point-by-point, just for the hell of it.

There's evidence of feminist ideas on ancient times.

Ideas are not a political movement, nor are they anything approaching the power grab you see today by feminists. Why is that? Go back and read what I wrote.

The myths of the amazon women were based on real, almost entirely female, tribes. There are written feminist ideas as soon as the 12th century. There were many movement with feminist like ideas in the 17th century.

Nothing became of it so it's irrelevant.

Also, we mostly agree on the fact that human civilization and patriarchal domination can be traced as far back as 20000 years before the christian era...

Patriarchal domination! Whatever... you might as well be saying the penis has ruled humanity for all of its existence. So stupid, so facile... what a gender-centric worldview you have.

Even though anthropology agrees that prehistoric man wouldn't have been able to survive without the gathering capabilities that were traditionally the responsibility of females.

Uhm, where do you get this stuff? No one is belittling women's role when it comes to human survival, it is the modern day feminists that belittle the achievements of men under the false claims of oppression and patriarchy. Fortune favours the bold, so does history, and the achievements of women pale in comparison to the achievements of men. It wasn't a woman that crossed the Atlantic to discover the New World, it wasn't the Wright sisters that flew the first airplane.... Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein all men... so where are the feminists? Oppression? Fuck you, it's the opposite of oppression, men were responsible for the enlightenment.

In the same way many of the scientific discoveries were due to the interest of women on science like the discovery of pulsars, radiation, mathematical advances, quantum physics and graphite. Just to name a few in a million. Likewise, many non white scientist have been responsible for the advancement of science and engineering that make modern civilization what it is today, technologically speaking. As for the internet, there were many women on the team that developed the first Arpanet as well as people of color.

Other than the Arpanet you offer nothing specific, why is that?

If you look at Nobel prize winners in science there is no comparison, white men completely dominate the field and have been the main drivers of science, technology and social progress. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad but that is a fact. Women have won a few Nobel prizes for peace and literature but have done nothing that has changed the course of humanity. You probably think it is racist to champion the achievements of white men, well fuck you, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors without Borders... all founded by white men, they have been the drivers of social progress and will continue to do so, the best feminists can do is try to limit freedom of speech on social media, they are a walking talking parody of an Orwellian novel.

Actually women were the first programmers because it was considered secretary work and thus unworthy for males to do it, even though many of those secretaries had degrees on mathematics.

No doubt.

So go ahead and spin on your head as much as you like, but all of your arguments for justifying yourself are indeed, false. Your premise is flawed, your arguments are void of facts and your prediction is fear mongering. Your post don't stand to logic and reason.

Yeah, okay, you're the one who is delusional if you think you won this one. Right out of the gate you attacked me as being delusional and a troll, then you called me a hater after pointing out how factually incorrect and full of shit you are. Humans have been around for two million years? You know nothing about human history, just platitudes and laughable timelines.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]killcat 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stringdom 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sol0_Artist -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sol0_Artist -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]womblefish 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]junkerlol 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]junkerlol 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]junkerlol 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]junkerlol 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDonki 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proteus_Marius 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]flee_market 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]womblefish 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]headphones66 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]charbo187 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men and women are either a primary provider or a primary caregiver in a relationship.

Typically men are the providers and women are the caregivers.

Providers are paid for their labour and typically they share their wealth with the caregiver in a trade of goods and services.

A man's demand that women show gratitude and recognition for their labour is as absurd as women putting a price on domestic labour and then demanding to be paid for it.

It's an exchange of goods and services.

A house over your head, clothes, and food are payments.

A clean house, clean clothes, and prepared meals are payments.

It further breaks down today by primary provider and secondary caregiver vs. secondary provider and primary caregiver.

This arguement is only valid as a counterpoint to this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/leah-mclaren-should-women-be-paid-for-emotional-labour/article28048091/

The rest of the time - it's as bullshit as that article.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]callsyourcatugly 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]colorless_green_idea 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]conspiracy_thug -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]iHeartCandicePatton 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]conspiracy_thug -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iHeartCandicePatton 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]El-Scorcho12 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AgingAluminiumFoetus 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgingAluminiumFoetus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]conspiracy_thug 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poorpersonality -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JinkyJ -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Simple question....If you're a 240 lbs male who is trapped unconscious in a building which is on fire, would you want a male 5' 8" 170 lbs firefighter coming to drag you to safety, or a 5' 2" 110 lbs Filipino woman who's achieving her life dream of becoming a firefighter?

Despite what rabid feminists claim, there ARE very valid reasons as to why certain standards for obtaining employment in particular fields should not be lowered simply so women can meet some politically-motivated quota. But the only way it's going to return to sanity is if politicians start dying in fires fought by 50% female firefighters.

This is not to say that women should not be allowed to become firefighters, but rather that they should only be considered for the position if they're 100% capable of passing all of the screening tests that males are subjected to, without any special considerations or allowances for being female.

[–]Abdul_Marx -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IAmAdamsApple 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Just maybe not be so shitty to them.

Why is that the assumption being made - that being shitty is what women do by default?

Maybe we could even recognize that a 17% raise for suffering over 90% of workplace deaths and injuries doesn't amount to 'oppression?'

That's illogical - why should men in general be paid more because other men die on the job? If you are not the one doing the job that caused the death to occur, why should you be paid more? That's ridiculous. You don't deserve to be compensated for someone else's risk just because he has the same hardware as you. The two have nothing to do with each other.

That said, I don't agree that the "wage gap" is a sign of oppression. Almost all of it has been accounted for - it is mostly a result of the choices men vs. women make regarding career path, wage negotiation, number of hours worked, that sort of thing. And the small percentage remaining that is not accounted for cannot be proved to be a result of oppression.

But I also don't think that men deserve it because others of their gender do dangerous work. That's just dumb.

Can you thank men as a group?

I will gladly thank my grandfathers - or would, if they still lived - for the choices they made and for the hard work they did for their families. I will gladly thank my dad for putting up with my shit and raising me, for working hard so we could get by, and for caring more about us than he did about his job. He has always been there for me and I'm so glad I got to be his kid. I will thank my brother for being an awesome friend. I will thank my husband for his love and faithfulness and for all he does for us. I will thank my son for bringing me so much happiness; he's young yet, but I think he will be a fine man when he's grown.

But I don't see the point of thanking men as a group. Not every man has done something that benefits society, and therefore me indirectly; not every man deserves thanks just because he's got a dick and others with dicks have done awesome things. This is what I'm talking about - people don't get to take credit for the actions of others. I'll thank the men in my life who have earned my respect and gratitude. I will treat everyone around me with kindness and respect even if I don't know them. But beyond that, no, I don't feel any need to thank men as a group.

If I am expected to thank all of you for the actions of some, then I think I should be reasonably permitted to blame you all for the other actions of some men. You know, the ones who actually have oppressed women. The ones who abuse and rape. The ones who marry little girls and shit. If I have to thank all of you for stuff that other men did, then I guess I can also blame all of you for stuff that other men did too. If you want the good then you have to also take the bad.

Perhaps even acknowledge their bravery and sacrifice?

I will gladly acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of those who are brave and sacrificial. My husband's grandfather's war medals are hanging on our wall as an honour to his courage and sacrifice. My own grandfathers' photos and memories are something I cherish; both of them were in the war too. If you are a soldier, or an EMT, or a cop, or a firefighter, then I will acknowledge your courage and sacrifice, and thank you for your service. Otherwise, stahp.

[+]sakkara -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vertical807 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MotherFuckin-Oedipus 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Mars3050 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]petemate 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]sakkara -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]El-Scorcho12 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]petemate -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iHeartCandicePatton -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tombomb345 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElectricBlumpkin -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFuckYou -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stilljustkeyrock -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mtomtom -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]FratOfGlod -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]iHeartCandicePatton -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	"Every Brick in every building": a reminder to the Men whose efforts built and maintain our world.
Author	Coluphid
Upvotes	2434
Comments	473
Date	December 30, 2016 1:29 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5l3fki/every_brick_in_every_building_a_reminder_to_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/every-brick-in-every-building-a-reminder-to-the.934900 https://theredarchive.com/post/934900

Comments