ForumGarden

koan;1369129 wrote: fuzzy is the person I was hoping to attract to this conversation because she seethes women's rights from every pore. I used to be like that but I've come to the opinion that those rights have come at a price.

I am not a women's libber. I think we've backlashed.


What a weird thing to say? I seethe womens rights? lol ...that's actually quite funny.

I don't think it's about womens rights anymore , women think they have equal rights but we don't . The glass ceiling is still there. Women and children are still the poorest in most countries (including both of ours) Acknowledging that isn't seething womens rights it's seething human rights.

when women thought they finally got the vote and burnt their bras for the good of mankind etc etc do you really think they got their rights? or maybe in name only?

Why is it that when you send your old sewing machines, books and low interest loans, that it goes to women in the poorest or poor countries? It actually goes to the women, not men, why do you think this is so?



What do you see the backlash as being?

Attract me or lure me into a trap?

littleCJelkton;1369130 wrote: Yeah the feeling of revenge against those who oppressed a minority cause some in that minority to want to oppress back unfortunately it that feeling of revenge ends up being geared towards the original oppressor's offspring who had nothing to do with it.




So women today are evil in your eyes? Wanting to rape and pillage out of revenge for past wrongs .............those wrongs aren't past they are here today . But if you're only going to think of your own backyeard then what you see is what you will see ...........unfortunetly it will not be the whole truth.

Oh and as I said I saved a mans life ...I'm owed.

oscar;1369225 wrote: Here Is a notion...

How about, as human beings, we would do whatever to save another human beings life?


That's altruistic, but not realistic.

fuzzywuzzy;1369231 wrote: So women today are evil in your eyes? Wanting to rape and pillage out of revenge for past wrongs .............those wrongs aren't past they are here today . But if you're only going to think of your own backyeard then what you see is what you will see ...........unfortunetly it will not be the whole truth. No but in your eyes that is what you want to think I believe as a man and thus proving the point of the backlash effect thank you again for you kind and caring words.

IMO it's difficult to create a moral dilemma on physical gender because most likely the male may have female children, wife, or relatives that would be harmed by an act of likely suicide. Also, I don't see this as the same type of case where 'women and children first' would apply. It's not a mass evacuation or disaster. It's a person who didn't look both ways before crossing the street. On that level, it's more like having a policy like 'captain first' on the U.S. Titanic...

fuzzywuzzy;1369230 wrote: What a weird thing to say? I seethe womens rights? lol ...that's actually quite funny.

I don't think it's about womens rights anymore , women think they have equal rights but we don't . The glass ceiling is still there. Women and children are still the poorest in most countries (including both of ours) Acknowledging that isn't seething womens rights it's seething human rights.

when women thought they finally got the vote and burnt their bras for the good of mankind etc etc do you really think they got their rights? or maybe in name only?

Why is it that when you send your old sewing machines, books and low interest loans, that it goes to women in the poorest or poor countries? It actually goes to the women, not men, why do you think this is so?



What do you see the backlash as being?

Attract me or lure me into a trap?
I don't have the energy for traps, either setting or escaping.

Yes, I thought seethe was a good word for it. I used to think men had it easier in today's world but no longer believe that is true. I've also seen a lot of women fight for mens' jobs by becoming the thing they fought against. Perhaps equality doesn't mean having everything the same. Perhaps we've let anger and urgency push us in the wrong direction.

No trap. I have a lot of thoughts. Some of them are well defined and some are still in the form of questions.

Strictly from an objective PoV,

Since a woman can carry and care for children, and one male could impregnate a different woman everyday, from the perspective of species continuation, then more females is better. I suspect there might be an instinctive reaction that males, as a rule would react to save a female at the expense of their own life.

It seems to be normal among many mammalian species.

yaaarrrgg;1369329 wrote: On that level, it's more like having a policy like 'captain first' on the U.S. Titanic... :)I confess to not liking the name of the Titanic appear in a sentence like that, not even in jest. Captain Smith was an exemplar of his profession, going down with his ship without leaving his station and shouting, it is reported, "Be brave, lads, be brave" as the final moments arrived. Three quarters of the women aboard from all classes combined, and over half the children, survived compared with a fifth of all the men aboard. The comment from gmc that "the titanic is unfortunately a bad example to use" is, I believe, quite mistaken.

spot;1369338 wrote: I confess to not liking the name of the Titanic appear in a sentence like that, not even in jest. Captain Smith was an exemplar of his profession, going down with his ship without leaving his station and shouting, it is reported, "Be brave, lads, be brave" as the final moments arrived. Three quarters of the women aboard from all classes combined, and over half the children, survived compared with a fifth of all the men aboard. The comment from gmc that "the titanic is unfortunately a bad example to use" is, I believe, quite mistaken.


From just your response here and I am sure your not the only one who feels this way or at least similar the Value of Captain Smith was greatly increased in the eyes of others, for his actions as I am sure any person's value would have been if they had made the same decisions at the time regardless of gender. On a similar note of risking your own life to save others we yesterday marked one of the more recent days in which a lot of men and women had to make these types of Ethical Dilema decisions.

I wished to avoid "Scruples" game analogies like the OP presented but I needed a starting point. I'm not one to write a half page intro. I prefer to open a topic and let it evolve. Sometimes the resulting conversation is more interesting than the original presentation. The intended topic of this thread, whether it becomes that or not, is the question of whether or not men are pressured by society to sacrifice themselves for women. This can happen in a lot of ways, some literal and some figurative. The thread is an attempt to address the derailment of men's rights and ignorance of the societal pressures on men through an insistence that women's rights are the only rights that are flawed.

Perhaps we'd all benefit, or this thread at least, by defining what we expect men to be. Be honest. Ideals are great but we don't live in Utopia. Part of the women's/men's rights problem line is that people are speaking with their fantasy world voice. I want a man to be a provider, to be strong physically and emotionally, that strength involves the willingness to tell me what their fears are but does not include crying more than I do. I don't expect him to die for me but I do expect him to have a protection instinct. I want intellectual equality but I don't know if I want to trade all my self indulgence for the responsibility for the household. I am capable of tending to my household singlehandedly if I am a single parent but I won't tolerate being the main provider if I have a spouse. For that reason, I'm not a feminist. Perhaps I should be ashamed but I have bigger things to spend my shame on.

koan;1369418 wrote: Perhaps we'd all benefit, or this thread at least, by defining what we expect men to be. Be honest. Ideals are great but we don't live in Utopia. Part of the women's/men's rights problem line is that people are speaking with their fantasy world voice. I want a man to be a provider, to be strong physically and emotionally, that strength involves the willingness to tell me what their fears are but does not include crying more than I do. I don't expect him to die for me but I do expect him to have a protection instinct. I want intellectual equality but I don't know if I want to trade all my self indulgence for the responsibility for the household. I am capable of tending to my household singlehandedly if I am a single parent but I won't tolerate being the main provider if I have a spouse. For that reason, I'm not a feminist. Perhaps I should be ashamed but I have bigger things to spend my shame on.


See to me that's sexist. I don't know what your idea of feminisn is.

I was brought up in a home where mum stayed home with the kids and dad was the main bringer of money (you see I don't use the term main provider because mum provided just as much in other ways. Mum was responsible for raising us, keeping hte house, and all the money matters. Dad would hand over his pay packet to her after taking out what he needed and she would be the bill payer ...except at tax time in which he took over. My dad would have his own thing going, gold panning/dredging, rabbiting and fishing . Which afforded us private schooling.

I met someone who was all for equal rights of women because that's the way he was raised. Both his mother and father worked and both had control over their own finances . I asked him who did the cooking .....mum ...who did the housekeeping and washing ...mum . What did your dad do? ..hhhmmm not much . Now according to this man every woman should work...it's her right. and she should be treated equally. well that came into it's own at his work one day because he could find everything a particular woman did there as wrong ...he also backed it up by saying "she owns six houses and combined, her and her husband bring in over 300 grand a year." i said so? he said "there are men out there without jobs and she's taking their jobs away from them. she doesn't need to work" .......................oh really?

So when the value of either sex comes up, as long as there is a true equatable relationship then all's okay .

Women asked for the "sensitive" man and were horrified when they met him.

The number one complaint in relationships I've seen on the verge of collapse or headed for nightmare where ones were the woman brought in the household cash.

There's what what we want and there's what we're willing to compromise to get it. They don't mesh.

koan;1370061 wrote: Women asked for the "sensitive" man and were horrified when they met him.Bugger! Back to the drawing board...

On the value of man france judges the value of man to be around 1.80 dollars a day well the man was ordered to pay 8500 pounds to his wife for not having sex over 21 years.

Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright: Suing over Sex -- Now That's Criminal

I thought this was a pretty accurate list from AskMen

Top 10: Ways To Be The Man Women Want

Number 10

Learn to attract women by just being yourself

Number 9

Get “unstuck” and grow up

Number 8

It’s OK to be a man

Number 7

Never follow the woman

Number 6

Take personal responsibility

Number 5

Stop giving away your power

Number 4

“Man up” about your insecurities

Number 3

Stop needing a woman to need you

Number 2

Give up “girly man” behavior

Number 1

Constantly grow yourself to get an unfair advantage

I think too many people are listening to too many gurus.