It's not Islam, is it?

[NovaKart]

[1.] You can't really point to much suffering on the part of men, now can you?

[2.] I don't mean to offend your sensibilities, but history says you're wrong. Consider the slaughter of WW1.

Oh, and I don't consider women to be saintly. They are just human beings.

But for goodness sake, let's keep some perspective. Just look at the women in your life around you. See how much work they do. See how much trouble they cause for society in general. And then compare the same things in the typical man.

Of course, you will be the exception to the general rule. You are no doubt hardworking and law abiding at all times. And it just so happens that the only women you have so far encountered have been fat slags who do nothing but whine and abuse you.

Maybe I overstate the case, a little. But it still looks sound to me.

Yes I can point out the suffering of men in many instances, world war one is a good example. There are advantages and disadvantages that both men in women have in society.

And you are certainly overstating things. I'm definitely not a hardworking and law abiding person at all times and most women I know are not fat slags. I just see people as people and I'm realistic about it. Women are not better than men. They're not more hardworking than men. I know a lot of men and women who could be described as hardworking and a lot who could be described as lazy troublemakers. I wonder how many people you know.

And how does the slaughter of WWI show that women are more valuable than men? That's absurd.

 

[Disgustipated]

At this point it's obvious he is trolling. That's the only explanation.

 

[NovaKart]

Well I don't think it's trolling personally but I think it's an overemphasis of flaws that men have and not recognizing flaws that women have and I think it may be easier for men to do that because being different from women men can personalize women as being very different from men. I don't see them as very different.

 

[Borachio]

Yes I can point out the suffering of men in many instances, world war one is a good example. There are advantages and disadvantages that both men in women have in society.

Now we're talking at cross-purposes. Here, I was referring to the suffering that men experience because of sex-discrimation.

And you are certainly overstating things. I'm definitely not a hardworking and law abiding person at all times and most women I know are not fat slags. I just see people as people and I'm realistic about it. Women are not better than men. They're not more hardworking than men. I know a lot of men and women who could be described as hardworking and a lot who could be described as lazy troublemakers. I wonder how many people you know.

Most women certainly work harder than most men. I can't understand really how you could dispute this. Very strange. Still, maybe conditions are remarkably different where you are. I remember when I was a dock worker, at the time an all male environment generally considered "moderately" hard physical labour, and there was talk about letting women into the "trade" - since all-male refuges were coming more and more under threat at the time. The general consensus by the men was that this would be a bad thing, as they all agreed their wives worked much harder than they did, and they didn't want to be shown up.

How many people do I know? Loads. Hundreds. Quite realistically I have been well acquainted with thousands.

And how does the slaughter of WWI show that women are more valuable than men? That's absurd.

Well, I picked on WW1 because civilian casualties were so much less noticeable, so that the "victims" were overwhelmingly male. If you look at a demographic graph of the time, say 10 years either side, you will notice that the fatalities of the war make scarcely a blip despite there being nearly a generation of men missing. I would have expected a noticeable effect myself. Also notice that although the slaughter went on for four years, it hardly caused any significant unrest (though there was some, I have to admit). It would seem safe to conclude that men's value to society is not very high, all in all.

Consider too the Mormon experience and polygamy in general . Where a man could/can easily "service" (to use a rather crude term for want of a better) several wives.

But all this seems too obvious to mention.

Btw, I'm not really trolling. I'm intrigued that you disagree. I wasn't expecting that at all.

Well, blow me down, CFC logged me out. And I lost most of the post I was editing. Can't remember all of what I was saying now. Never mind. It was probably just more rubbish, I'm sure you will agree.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

This says you are incorrect.

And if a person of any religion may run for President, yet the likelihood of getting elected is remote in the extreme, isn't it a bit irrelevant?

I don't think West = United States only.

 

[Borachio]

No. Just so. And if your point was that such discrimination is very rare, then I'd agree with you. I suppose, looking back at it, you did say in just about every western nation.

I think it strange though that the US does seem to openly discriminate in this way.

 

[NovaKart]

Now we're talking at cross-purposes. Here, I was referring to the suffering that men experience because of sex-discrimation.


Most women certainly work harder than most men. I can't understand really how you could dispute this. Very strange. Still, maybe conditions are remarkably different where you are. I remember when I was a dock worker, at the time an all male environment generally considered "moderately" hard physical labour, and there was talk about letting women into the "trade" - since all-male refuges were coming more and more under threat at the time. The general consensus by the men was that this would be a bad thing, as they all agreed their wives worked much harder than they did, and they didn't want to be shown up.

How many people do I know? Loads. Hundreds. Quite realistically I have been well acquainted with thousands.


Well, I picked on WW1 because civilian casualties were so much less noticeable, so that the "victims" were overwhelmingly male. If you look at a demographic graph of the time, say 10 years either side, you will notice that the fatalities of the war make scarcely a blip despite there being nearly a generation of men missing. I would have expected a noticeable effect myself. Also notice that although the slaughter went on for four years, it hardly caused any significant unrest (though there was some, I have to admit). It would seem safe to conclude that men's value to society is not very high, all in all.

Consider too the Mormon experience and polygamy in general . Where a man could/can easily "service" (to use a rather crude term for want of a better) several wives.

But all this seems too obvious to mention.

Btw, I'm not really trolling. I'm intrigued that you disagree. I wasn't expecting that at all.

Well, blow me down, CFC logged me out. And I lost most of the post I was editing. Can't remember all of what I was saying now. Never mind. It was probably just more rubbish, I'm sure you will agree.

Yes I disagree, men and women are equally valuable to society and the idea that one sex works harder is absurd, how can you compare?

One person works long 12 hours shifts a few days a week, one person works shorter shifts but more days. One person does manual labor or is in his/her feet all day, another person sits at a desk for longer hours. One person does light housework, another person does yardwork on the weekend. It's all subjective and considering there are all types of men and all types of women with different personalities and lifestyles it just seems ridiculous to compare.

And how can you point out WWI as an example of men being useless to society? Who fought the war? What would the Mormon polygamist women do without a man to support them? Which sex is responsible for more advances in society? Now I recognize that women haven't had as much of an opportunity to have careers in the past and women will likely contribute more in these hours in the future but now that things have changed in industrial societies, women's biological worth has also gone down in overpopulated societies with immigrants and women typically having less children so I wouldn't use the women are biologically more useful argument.

And if we're talking about sex discrimination, men more often suffer from discrimination at the hands of other men, in many ways it's not blatant discrimination, as in denial of opportunities, but ways that they are treated differently. That doesn't make it any less effectual.

 

[Disgustipated]

What he's saying is that men are useless because few men can support a population genetically where as more women are needed (mainly because of the length of pregnancy, breast feeding, rearing etc.). It's why we "save the women and children" first. I'm inclined to agree with him on this point actually. Although useless is way too strong a word to use. But he's right that men aren't as important individually as women are.

He still hasn't answered my question on why being president or CEO is considered good. I have no desire to be a president or CEO. Why does he place so much importance on money and power? I seek none of those things. The best things in life are being with the ones you love, not money and power. In this regard, women are smarter than men. I see no problem with so few women CEO's and presidents. Being a housewife make their life no less worthwhile than Barack Obama's.

 

[NovaKart]

Yeah I figured that but in modern industrial societies with large populations and immigrants, women are not primarily valued for their reproduction. And besides that single factor, I wouldn't say that women are better than men because they're more hardworking and just better people, that's hugely subjective and lumping everyone together.

 

[Quackers]

Borachio must have issues if he thinks he is useless and valueless when compared to woman.

 

[Disgustipated]

you don't meet many male misandrists.

 

[Borachio]

Yes I disagree, men and women are equally valuable to society and the idea that one sex works harder is absurd, how can you compare?

One person works long 12 hours shifts a few days a week, one person works shorter shifts but more days. One person does manual labor or is in his/her feet all day, another person sits at a desk for longer hours. One person does light housework, another person does yardwork on the weekend. It's all subjective and considering there are all types of men and all types of women with different personalities and lifestyles it just seems ridiculous to compare.

Yes, I suppose it is subjective. But sticking to hours worked in the absence of a better metric, let's work out something fairly typical (you can argue about the details if you wish).

Say a husband goes out to work for 50 hours a week comes home puts his feet up, fiddles about with some electrical equipment, little bit of light decorating, watches some sport on TV, drinks a few beers, maybe mows the lawn and that sort of thing, and just maybe, maybe does a bit of hoovering, maybe cooks the occasional meal. And let's say this amounts to 20 hours a week. Total 70 hours per week, maximum.

A wife might go out to work for 35 hours a week, comes home puts some washing in the washing machine, cooks a meal, irons some clothes, dusts round a bit, changes the bed linen, cleans the bathroom - are you getting the picture yet? - watches some TV while darning a sock or two or knitting. Total 70 hours per week? I think not. Just you watch them.

And how can you point out WWI as an example of men being useless to society? Who fought the war?

And what a bloody useless war. The war to end all wars, that didn't.

What would the Mormon polygamist women do without a man to support them?

So that would be one man to how many women? I reckon that, given the same opportunities, women could, and sometimes do, support each other very nicely.

Which sex is responsible for more advances in society? Now I recognize that womehaven't had as much of an opportunity to have careers in the past and women

You've hit the carrot square on the head here.

will likely contribute more in these areas in the future but now that things have changed in industrial societies, women's biological worth has also gone down in overpopulated societies with immigrants and women typically having less children so I wouldn't use the women are biologically more useful argument.

Things have really changed surprisingly little, IMO. Not that there haven't been any changes at all. And I wouldn't say women are biologically more useful, just that their individual biological worth is necessarily higher. But maybe that's only a subtle distinction.

And if we're talking about sex discrimination, men more often suffer from discrimination at the hands of other men, in many ways it's not blatant discrimination, as in denial of opportunities, but ways that they are treated differently. That doesn't make it any less effectual.

True, men treat other men badly too. But it isn't sex-discrimation in that case. That's like saying white men treat other white men badly as if that legitimizes racial discrimination. Now, I know (I think) that you wouldn't intend to say that, and I'm not sure that's a valid implication of what you are saying. What are you saying?

What he's saying is that men are useless because few men can support a population genetically where as more women are needed (mainly because of the length of pregnancy, breast feeding, rearing etc.). It's why we "save the women and children" first. I'm inclined to agree with him on this point actually. Although useless is way too strong a word to use. But he's right that men aren't as important individually as women are.

Yeah, useless is too strong. Did I say that? I may have done. I don't mean it, though.

He still hasn't answered my question on why being president or CEO is considered good. I have no desire to be a president or CEO. Why does he place so much importance on money and power? I seek none of those things. The best things in life are being with the ones you love, not money and power. In this regard, women are smarter than men. I see no problem with so few women CEO's and presidents. Being a housewife make their life no less worthwhile than Barack Obama's.

Well done you for getting your priorities right.

But money and power (which seem virtually interchangeable to me) are what most people seek. It enables them, I am told, to live in nice houses, drive expensive cars, eat well, take expensive overseas holidays and generally live it up. People also seek status and the respect of others. And they like to think they are valuable members of society doing valuable work helping ameliorate the lot of others generally. That sort of thing.

Yeah I figured that but in modern industrial societies with large populations and immigrants, women are not primarily valued for their reproduction. And besides that single factor, I wouldn't say that women are better than men because they're more hardworking and just better people, that's hugely subjective and lumping everyone together.

Well, OK. Maybe my perspective needs some nuance to it.

Borachio must have issues if he thinks he is useless and valueless when compared to woman.

What? Me? Issues? Me useless and valueless compared to a woman? Believe me I go out of my way to proof my worth and value to every single woman I meet.



Without, I hasten to add, a hint of desperation about me. Just an air of quiet confidence, capability, and determination. Possibly.

you don't meet many male misandrists.

And you haven't met one in me. Some of my best friends are male. Though not my closest friends. Not that close at any rate, if you know what I mean.
But that's just my preference.

 

[Dachs]

Also notice that although the slaughter went on for four years, it hardly caused any significant unrest (though there was some, I have to admit).

Revolution in Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Ireland, Italy, and China. Strikes, unrest, and mutiny in metropolitan France, Algeria, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Greece, the United States, Japan, South Africa, India, Iraq, and the Dutch East Indies.

The First World War caused more global unrest than any other single event in world history, including the Great Depression (although it's arguable to what extent the Depression was a "single event").

And what a bloody useless war. The war to end all wars, that didn't.

Useless for whom?

 

[Borachio]

Revolution in Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Ireland, Italy, and China. Strikes, unrest, and mutiny in metropolitan France, Algeria, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Greece, the United States, Japan, South Africa, India, Iraq, and the Dutch East Indies.

The First World War caused more global unrest than any other single event in world history, including the Great Depression (although it's arguable to what extent the Depression was a "single event").

Well, quite. Serves me right for not being exact. I meant that, during WW1, it is remarkable how little unrest actually happened within the participating nations. With the notable exception of Russia, which, even so, managed 3 years of a losing war.

If it had been me, I'd have been hopping mad by Xmas 1914 if not earlier.

Useless for whom?

Define useless, please.

 

[Dachs]

Well, quite. Serves me right for not being exact. I meant that, during WW1, it is remarkable how little unrest actually happened within the participating nations. With the notable exception of Russia, which, even so, managed 3 years of a losing war.

If it had been me, I'd have been hopping mad by Xmas 1914 if not earlier.

Again, there was plenty of unrest during the war. France is the most obvious example, but Italy also fits. India and China also endured considerable problems during the war and as a direct cause of the war. So did the United States. Ireland attempted to rebel during the war. And revolution in Germany hastened the end of the war.

Define useless, please.

Uh, you're the one who described the war as useless, not me. A definition would be incumbent on you.

 

[Borachio]

OK. I define as useless something which costs 37 million premature deaths; indeed worse than useless. Is this metric unsatisfactory?

Other definitions are available.

 

[NovaKart]

Yes, I suppose it is subjective. But sticking to hours worked in the absence of a better metric, let's work out something fairly typical (you can argue about the details if you wish).

Say a husband goes out to work for 50 hours a week comes home puts his feet up, fiddles about with some electrical equipment, little bit of light decorating, watches some sport on TV, drinks a few beers, maybe mows the lawn and that sort of thing, and just maybe, maybe does a bit of hoovering, maybe cooks the occasional meal. And let's say this amounts to 20 hours a week. Total 70 hours per week, maximum.

A wife might go out to work for 35 hours a week, comes home puts some washing in the washing machine, cooks a meal, irons some clothes, dusts round a bit, changes the bed linen, cleans the bathroom - are you getting the picture yet? - watches some TV while darning a sock or two or knitting. Total 70 hours per week? I think not. Just you watch them.


And what a bloody useless war. The war to end all wars, that didn't.


So that would be one man to how many women? I reckon that, given the same opportunities, women could, and sometimes do, support each other very nicely.


You've hit the carrot square on the head here.

Things have really changed surprisingly little, IMO. Not that there haven't been any changes at all. And I wouldn't say women are biologically more useful, just that their individual biological worth is necessarily higher. But maybe that's only a subtle distinction.

True, men treat other men badly too. But it isn't sex-discrimation in that case. That's like saying white men treat other white men badly as if that legitimizes racial discrimination. Now, I know (I think) that you wouldn't intend to say that, and I'm not sure that's a valid implication of what you are saying. What are you saying?


Yeah, useless is too strong. Did I say that? I may have done. I don't mean it, though.

Well done you for getting your priorities right.

But money and power (which seem virtually interchangeable to me) are what most people seek. It enables them, I am told, to live in nice houses, drive expensive cars, eat well, take expensive overseas holidays and generally live it up. People also seek status and the respect of others. And they like to think they are valuable members of society doing valuable work helping ameliorate the lot of others generally. That sort of thing.



Well, OK. Maybe my perspective needs some nuance to it.


What? Me? Issues? Me useless and valueless compared to a woman? Believe me I go out of my way to proof my worth and value to every single woman I meet.



Without, I hasten to add, a hint of desperation about me. Just an air of quiet confidence, capability, and determination. Possibly.


And you haven't met one in me. Some of my best friends are male. Though not my closest friends. Not that close at any rate, if you know what I mean.
But that's just my preference.

It is subjective, and it's entirely useless to put people into 2 very broad categories such as male and female and compare how much they work. And your example of married couples seems to come entirely from sitcoms like the Simpsons. How many women darn socks these days?

And if you're going to use the example of polygamy, that by definition is men and women in a plural marriage. If women support each other in a commune that's a different thing.

Women can and do make contributions to technology, art, literature and so on, but if we're going to count men as far less worthy than women, it's worth pointing out the fact that if it weren't for men, we'd all be living in grass huts, which actually comes from Camille Paglia but I'm paraphrasing a bit. If things have changed so little then we shouldn't be so quick to count men as worthless while we're using technology like the internet. The reason why there aren't as many successful women in certain fields can be attributed to sexism but it also pays to look at the broader picture and other reasons for that.

I don't want to argue about semantics but sexism, whether it comes from someone of your own gender or someone from another gender is the same. Some women discriminate against other women and it has just as much effect if it comes from a woman as if it comes from a man.

 

[Borachio]

Well, that's the end of that subject then. You win.

Everyone's the same. And women and men should just be grateful to each other. And any perceived inequalities are simply faulty perception.

 

[NovaKart]

I never said that inequalities don't exist. But I do like the idea that people should be grateful to each other and that we're mostly the same, I wouldn't say exactly but mostly.

 

[Borachio]

I think we agree in principle then.

But I believe the world would be a better place if the powers that be were not so overwhelmingly dominated by men.