No money, lets make babies

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Michael Angel

I tend to be quoting Australian research
You tend to be quoting USA articles.
Perhaps the USA is a more matriarchal society than Australia?

There is no evidence that one is less matriachal than the other.

As two developed nations, they have seen very similar policies in this area.

Your chart is basic human biology. I don't see the point.

It shows that encouraging women to develop their careers in their 20s might not be such a good idea if they also want kids. Go back to the Platell article (again, I encourage people look it up on YouTube).

No I don't have any objections to "positive discrimination" to help remove a perceived inequality be it of gender or race.
You still are respecting 'choice', in fact you are facilitating it.

I find this view disturbing. "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination. It undermines those who it is meant to benefit, and diminishes the overall performance of the group. And its immoral IMHO.

Also, if you think women are in need of such positive discrimnation, how come it is men who are climbing buildings in protest of their rights? Fathers rights are being trampled in family courts, men's health is grossly underfunded compared to women's, ..... I could go on, but it is men who have less rights these days. Particularly throughout Western societies.

Yes I believe our business/capitalist system is discriminatory. That a boy's club exists in the "City" and top board rooms. Coming from the "right" boy's school also helps.
Many organisations are still structured on the Roman Legion hierarchical model ( a la Catholic Church) which promotes conformity, aggression and lets sociopaths rise to the top. Not a structure many women would be comfortable in. You only have to look about you today, to see multi-nationals falling like dominos, to see how well that system has served us.

The job market is actually stacked in favour of women these days. The traditional jobs that the normal John excelled at are disappearing, and women are finding more jobs available to them in comparison.

Men and women's intelligence, and drives can be plotted on a bell curve, with the average bunched up in the middle. The two extremes though are more likely to be male. ie. men are more likely to have genius IQ or a low IQ. They are more likely to be the top performers in work. Women are more likely to occupy the middle ground.

It is therefore unsuprising that men occupy the top positions. Biology cannot be ignored.

The top jobs are a rarified area of work, and only the top people get there. Those tend to be men. To try to overcome that does not help anyone.

The system has benefitted us in that we now enjoy a better standard of living than any other time in history.

Yes I believe your beliefs are male rationalisations for injustice to women.

I simply look at the evidence. There's been a lot of misinformation in recent years in this area, and what I've shown is only part of it for what it is. I encourage you to look up more Warren Farrell articles (he's done more study in this area than most), or this guy:
Feminism FAQ

"Are women unfairly treated or underrepresented in the workplace?
No. Riach and Rich (2006) made bogus job applications for various vacancies in central London that were identical but for the sex of the applicant. They found direct sex discrimination against men to the extent that men were rejected compared to women at the application (i.e. before interview) stage at the rate of two-to-one for postions as a chartered accountant and four-to-one for postions as a computer analyst. Among Europeans of working age, only one in seven women are work-centred careerists who give priority to careers over family life (Hakim 2003: 84–87). "

We could go on arguing that point for weeks, but I have run out of testosterone I'm afraid

LOL. Respect to you!



I love this cartoon. Wonderful!
Part of a great series of cartoons.

[Wobs]

Another quality article regarding men and women's choices:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/arc...uality_Pub.pdf

Quite academically heavy, but thorough.

[albannet]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Erm no.
The women I mentioned are no less female than any other. I'm sure they wouldn't thank you for suggesting otherwise.

Women are no more moral or peaceful than men.

You suggest women who have done good, and then claim men are "conquerors and destroyers every chance they get".

Your sexism is disturbing.

Why don't you consider that your "men are destroyers" idea and then think of the building you're sat in, the computer you're in front of, the food you buy..... All are developed by mostly men.

Fortunately, instinct is not an absolute determinant of our human behavior. Men like me can and do learn to be gentle, but the contest between cooperation and violence goes on today as high tech weaponry competes with green technology for everyone's attention and taxes. I say giving all women their full civil rights will tip the scales of history in favor of peaceful cooperation to live in balance on a green and healthy planet.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by albannet

Fortunately, instinct is not an absolute determinant of our human behavior. Men like me can and do learn to be gentle, but the contest between cooperation and violence goes on today as high tech weaponry competes with green technology for everyone's attention and taxes. I say giving all women their full civil rights will tip the scales of history in favor of peaceful cooperation to live in balance on a green and healthy planet.

Women already can vote, and infact have more legal, economic and political power than men throughout the Westernised countries. We still have wars.

Weapons do not compete with green technology. Its a different playing field.

There is no evidence that they are any more peaceful than men.

Women are just as competitive as men, just in different ways.

Women are just as violent as men, just in different ways.

Instinct is one attribute that we all try to use, but the evidence does not support what you are saying.

[albannet]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Women already can vote, and infact have more legal, economic and political power than men throughout the Westernised countries. We still have wars.

Weapons do not compete with green technology. Its a different playing field.

There is no evidence that they are any more peaceful than men.

Women are just as competitive as men, just in different ways.

Women are just as violent as men, just in different ways.

Instinct is one attribute that we all try to use, but the evidence does not support what you are saying.

Women definitely do NOT have "more legal, economic and political rights than men throughout the Westernised countries". Battered wives and children are daily reported in the news and wage and salary descrimination continues because so many husbands and male employers regard themselves as innately superior and get angry if they're not always directing events for higher rewards. They actually feel oppressed by womens liberation. But succeeding generations of boys growing to manhood will be educatated to prefer partnership over any patriarchal attitudes, hopefully. Thus, as such married partnerships and social cooperation spread throughout the World, peace and balance may prevail.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by albannet

Women definitely do NOT have "more legal, economic and political rights than men throughout the Westernised countries". Battered wives and children are daily reported in the news and .....

How many references, studies, and reports do you want to see before you realise that domestic violence is a two way street? That women are just as violent as men, that men are actually more likely to be the victim of violence than women?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 12

Or Erin Prizzey who set up the first women's shelter:
"In the refuge I opened in 1971, for example, of the first 100 women through the door, 62 admitted that they had also perpetrated violence against their partners. "
Plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are 'an affront to morality' | Mail Online

Or more from her here:
Why I, as an ardent anti-feminist, feel sorry for women


A recent survey from Canada found women were 5 times more likely to report a DV incident than men were. A more representative gauge of the number of DV incidents (both reported and unreported) can be gleaned Home Office Study 191. From a large cross section of the population of England and Wales, this showed that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men reported they had been physically assaulted by their current or former partner in the last year". When "frightening threats" are included the figures rises only marginally to 4.9% of men and 5.9% of women.

An Alberta Study found that women initiated domestic violence in 67% of instances. This finding is echoed in other large studies. Studies showing the contrary, i.e. that only men initiate domestic violence, are usually found to be small sample numbers and/or based on the responses of women in refuges.
And:
The Battered Statistic Syndrome

"Because many feminist activists and researchers have so great a stake in exaggerating the problem and so little compunction about doing so, objective information on battery is very hard to come by," writes Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women (Simon & Schuster, 1994). But Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available--the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS).

Their Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 84% of American families are not violent. In the 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority of that violence takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in "severe" violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon.

Moreover, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that 44% of "severe violence" to wives did not cause any injury, and 31% caused only a slight bruise. Still, Straus and Gelles estimate that about 188,000 women are injured severely enough to require medical attention. That's a horrifying number of victims, but it's a far cry from 4 million, or 18 million, or 60 million.

Another commonly accepted "truth" about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Family Violence Survey--as well as numerous other studies--have found that men are just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women. But aren't these women just defending themselves against their more violent partners? Straus and Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the woman in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. They were also the same when only the woman's version of the events was considered.

Or here:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
University of Florida News - Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

And yet in the US they have the Violence Against Women Act which requires police to arrest someone (nearly always the man) if they are called to a domestic. Its name alone should ring alarm bells given what I've just shown.

The subject of DV is a complex issue, and saying that men are the main perpetrators is not only simplistic, but wrong and sexist. In the long run, this attitude has formed a society that has produced hundreds of women's shelters and a handful of resources for men.

Its also bad for children, and mothers are statistically the most likely to abuse a child.

And they don't do so well when it comes to child murders either:


But in the last 3-4 decades we've had funding nearly exclusively geared towards helping women. The people behind this approach treat women as victims even when they're not. Its bad for men, its bad for children, and its infantilising for women. Result = everyone suffers.

There are many more sources for DV studies out there that support what I've just said. This is just a taster.

wage and salary descrimination continues because so many husbands and male employers regard themselves as innately superior and get angry if they're not always directing events for higher rewards.

Please read my earlier posts, and you'll find this doesn't reflect reality at all. I'm loathe to repeating them in the same thread, but I can if you want.

They actually feel oppressed by womens liberation. But succeeding generations of boys growing to manhood will be educatated to prefer partnership over any patriarchal attitudes, hopefully.

Its difficult to know where to begin here.
First, men do not feel oppressed by women's liberation. If any men feel oppressed it could be the misandric nonesense that mainstream media spue out on a regular basis, or the laws that are geared towards women, and against men. Or maybe its the fact that family courts can (and often do) remove them from their homes at the mothers wim.

You seem down on patriachy. Why are you against fatherhood? Because that's what you're against by definition.

Thus, as such married partnerships and social cooperation spread throughout the World, peace and balance may prevail.

Balance? Peace? When men have less rights, women have a whole range of government departments to look out for them (and none for men), when men are excluded from the role of father on a mother's wim?

I don't see how that is going to work when disenfranchisement spreads.

[albannet]

One of the tragedies of our human species is that the pendulum of history tends to swing from one extreme to another. Psychopathic feminists at war with psychopathic male supremists ruin any children they might have, and the madness goes on and on. The solution is a sensitive education from early childhood onward to graduation plus psychoanalytic and family counseling when needed, so they are not lost in ignorance and twisted by whatever violence may be happening to them in their homes.

However, my original point stands, that women deserve the right to decide if and when to birth their children, presupposing both men and women must be decently educated to behave with respect for each other. The human race will do this, or social chaos will destroy everything we cherish.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by albannet

One of the tragedies of our human species is that the pendulum of history tends to swing from one extreme to another.

Indeed. The short reply to that would "some people suck", but of course its never that simple in reality.

However, my original point stands, that women deserve the right to decide if and when to birth their children, presupposing both men and women must be decently educated to behave with respect for each other. The human race will do this, or social chaos will destroy everything we cherish.

Women already have such power. They have a whole range of contraception options, and even a turkey baster. They have options even after child birth of what to do with said child.

It is men who do not, and that is one of the issues behind social decay.

I must admit to feeling unconfortable with your idea of "decently educated". Could be another pendulum that could swing either way.

[albannet]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Indeed. The short reply to that would "some people suck", but of course its never that simple in reality.



Women already have such power. They have a whole range of contraception options, and even a turkey baster. They have options even after child birth of what to do with said child.

It is men who do not, and that is one of the issues behind social decay.

I must admit to feeling unconfortable with your idea of "decently educated". Could be another pendulum that could swing either way.

The women of Europe and parts of the USA have such power to choose, but not in most of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The resulting uncontrolled growth of population complicates all the other problems and traps millions of people in lives of poverty and ignorance. Some people think that's the way it should be, but I sure don't. I know that pendulum of history is incredibly difficult to deal with, and I'm not sure humanity will ever succeed in making life fair for everyone, but we must continue to try. Otherwise, fascism, communism, or some other horror show will rule the World to extinction.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by albannet

The women of Europe and parts of the USA have such power to choose, but not in most of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The resulting uncontrolled growth of population complicates all the other problems and traps millions of people in lives of poverty and ignorance. Some people think that's the way it should be, but I sure don't. I know that pendulum of history is incredibly difficult to deal with, and I'm not sure humanity will ever succeed in making life fair for everyone, but we must continue to try. Otherwise, fascism, communism, or some other horror show will rule the World to extinction.

I knew you would jump from talking about the developed world to the developing/ poorer nations.

Its also a huge sweeping statement to say such a thing.

I agree though that we should continue to try to treat people fairly. Its difficult to agree where such a concept is a lot of the time, but to not look at such issues would seem a greater risk.