It's just the classic trope of the woman screwing the man's best friend.

What happens if a woman rapes a man which then leads to a child?

This reminds me of people who blame women for being raped with statements like 'if they didn't want to be raped, they shouldn't have had so much to drink' or 'they shouldn't have worn those revealing clothes' continuing with 'that makes both the woman and the man at fault' and ending with 'since they're both at fault, no one should be punished, it's a wash'.
That sounds considerably like the argument you've been making here....with Israel blaming the Palestinians for dressing slutty, asking to be raped.

Kids can love to be teased....

One of my favorite memories is being at a potluck where I didn't know many people. There was a little girl, maybe 4 years old, running around in a big circle throughout the house, who kept running near me as I lounged on a bean bag chair. As she ran past, I would try to grab her. (I was a 30 year old woman, not a man, by the way.) She would shriek and run away from me.

Every time she came by, her shrieks got to be more and more terrified, it seemed to me. That the fun was going out of it. So I thought -- you'd better back off, this isn't fun anymore, you don't know this kid.

So she circles back again, but this time I don't go for her. She stops a few feet away from me. Her eyes are HUGE as she stares at me. I'm getting seriously worried that I have scarred this unknown kid for life. She takes a tiny step forward. I do nothing. She takes another step forward. I do nothing.

She takes one more step forward, her eyes locked on mine with complete focus. In a deep unnatural voice, thrumming with energy, drawn out in anticipation, she intones -- "Scaaaaare me."

That happened 30 years ago and it still tickles the holy heck out of me.

If there were a Perverts with Principles Party, I'm fucking in. Fuck the norm. Fuck sexual idealism. A man and a man and woman and a man and a woman and a man is OK in my book. (As long as every other man dresses up like a woman.)

Man Stroke Woman: Breast Fetish has been added as a related post - related requested by alien_concept.

Health insurance is priced to be profitable taking into account the group that is being covered.

For example:

If an individual (group of 1) woman gets coverage, birth control costs will be in her monthly payment.
She however won't have high risk of prostate cancer factoring into her payment.

If an individual (group of 1) man gets insurance coverage, he won't have birth control costs in his monthly payment.
He will however have the higher risk of prostate cancer factoring into his payment.

If an employer gets coverage, the payments will be the average cost of each individual (aside from a 'group discount')
If there is 1 woman and 1 man, they are splitting the cost of 1x birth control and 1x higher risk of prostate cancer.


This is why businesses like to hire young employees, and don't like to hire older employees.
Younger employees keep the monthly insurance payments lower, older employees make monthly insurance payments higher.
That way a bunch of kids get to subsidize the old farts running the place.

Anyways, point being...

Women getting birth control coverage will NOT mean that an individual man with his own plan will have to pay anything for birth control.

It does mean that if birth control coverage is required, then groups containing women will be required to pay for birth control for the women in that group.

In a group, women already subsidize men's prostate cancer, and men already subsidize women's breast cancer, etc.
Birth control would just be another of many items that are mostly male/female specific that people already pay for when in a group.

It's worth keeping in mind that plans commonly offer 'blue pill' coverage for men, so it's not like women are getting ahead in the sexy-time costs.

-scheherazade

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

Indeed, and half of it will be committed by a woman against a man. There is a presumption in our culture that domestic violence is committed by men against women when, in fact, it is committed by *people* against other people. Lets not perpetuate the myth that men are evil, violent thugs who deserve a pat on the head if they manage to suppress their biological urges and get through the day without beating up their partners, and women are sweet angelic creatures who couldn't possibly hurt another living being.
http://www.batteredmen.com/straus21.htm
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/male_abuse.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@gorillaman, yeah, woman is longer than the word girl.

It is also a conjunction -- wife of man. From the on-line dictionary: late O.E. wimman (pl. wimmen), lit. "woman-man," alteration of wifman (pl. wifmen), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Cf. Du. vrouwmens "wife," lit. "woman-man."

It does kind of get in the way, doesn't it? That extra syllable and that clunky hidden contraction.

I still think it is mostly about power, though, and your example of "grown man" kind of proves it to me. Why couldn't you say "grown boy"? If boy is the same as man, just as girl is the same as woman? A grown boy is indeed a man, yes? It actually is more accurate than "grown man."

Maybe the experiment should be simplified.... instead of doing the woman for girl substitution, simplify it to changing every "man" to "boy." Since the words are interchangeable, right? No particular meaning? Both are one syllable so no big whoop if you change them out. If girl and woman are interchangeable, meaning-wise, doesn't logic dictate that boy and man are interchangeable?

So can we change the experiment? Forget girl and woman, just change the word "man" to "boy." I know the word "man" shows up all the time. So there should be plenty of data.

"I'm a Woman. W. O. M. A. N." There's a song lyric for you. I suggest to you that the meaning would be very different if it were "I'm a Girl. G. I. R. L." Certainly the melodies are wildly different for those two songs!

I love that you call women women, by the way. Even though it takes the extra effort. Some of the women you talk to appreciate it, I'm sure.

Just for a laugh, I did this search: http://videosift.com/search?q=girl&t=v&u=&s[]=s&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

Scanned for how "girl" shows up on videos. On the first page, there were a deeply satisfying number of vids that were truly about girls under age 20. I was pleasantly surprised! There were also quite a few of almost naked women labeled as "girls". Which also proves my point about it being about power -- a naked girl is very different from a naked woman, yes?

<3
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*quality guts (and truly gut-wrenching; also mega trigger potential)

I am glad she did this, I just wish there wouldn't always have to be the "it's an act" reaction. It's understandable that, when faced with something so horrible, we wish it were not true. That being said, it's important to be aware that questioning a woman's (or man's) honesty in the case of sexual abuse can be extremely hurtful to the victim (and other victims of SA who are reading those remarks), who can feel like their trust is being abused once again. I was quite disgusted when looking up this story to find that all of the news outlets stressed the fact that "some commenters questioned the veracity of her claims", as if there is any validity to what some idiot redditors have to say.

As difficult as this must be, I think more people should do it. Everyone (or almost everyone) knows the horrifying statistics of sexual abuse, but they're just numbers. It's testimonies like this that bring the reality of it all home (and, hopefully, the ass-hole perps straight to prison).

*quality guts (and truly gut-wrenching; also mega trigger potential)

I am glad she did this, I just wish there wouldn't always have to be the "it's an act" reaction. It's understandable that, when faced with something so horrible, we wish it were not true. That being said, it's important to be aware that questioning a woman's (or man's) honesty in the case of sexual abuse can be extremely hurtful to the victim (and other victims of SA who are reading those remarks), who can feel like their trust is being abused once again. I was quite disgusted when looking up this story to find that all of the news outlets stressed the fact that "some commenters questioned the veracity of her claims", as if there is any validity to what some idiot redditors have to say.

As difficult as this must be, I think more people should do it. Everyone (or almost everyone) knows the horrifying statistics of sexual abuse, but they're just numbers. It's testimonies like this that bring the reality of it all home (and, hopefully, the ass-hole perps straight to prison).

>> ^Trancecoach:

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

The use of the word if suggests that men being paid more than women might not really be happening. You then ask a question whose obvious answer would be "misogyny," as if this was some sort of refutation of the fact that pay discrimination exists.
>> ^Trancecoach:
I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Rachel says "it is factually true that women get paid less than men for doing equal work." You respond (in part) "the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society"

Let's make this more abstract:

Rachel asserts that A is true, and cites data from studies to back it up.

You assert that perpetuating the falsehood A is harmful to society.

I am asserting that A really is true, and disputing it is harmful to society.
>> ^Trancecoach:
Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

Does he have data that refutes A? Or does he just have some explanation for why A is happening that makes A seem morally acceptable, and that reversing A through legislation would be harmful to society?

Rachel (and I) always thought the anti-pay equality folks believed some form of the latter. Now they (and you) are implying they have the former. Implying that it is now an established fact that A is not true about the world we live in, and people who repeat A are spreading myths and lies either out of ignorance or misandry.

I'm saying that denying the truth of A is both a lie and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of women that amounts to a misogynist act.

And just to be explicit, Proposition A = Women get paid less than men for doing equal work.

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...