"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

when all possible variables are factored (same positions compared, hours worked, education, experience, etc.), there is still a wage gap that generally can only be explained by gender bias. in the US, i believe it's about 8%.

Your video, Vox - "What people miss about the gender wage gap", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

re: the wage gap

*related http://videosift.com/video/Is-the-Gender-Pay-Gap-Real

Sorry, but the US womens soccer team in no way deserves to be paid the same as the mens soccer team. That's just ridiculous.

They deserve to be paid MORE.

I constantly hear people defending a wage gap between men and women (especially in sports) saying that the men bring in more revenue (even Ronda Rousey said that *related=http://videosift.com/video/Ronda-Rousey-Demolishes-Feminist-Reporters-Pay-Gap-Question).

Ok, boot's on the other foot now. I'm sure all those same people will be clamouring for the women to be paid in line with the revenue they generate.

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

@Babymech
alright!
/claps hands..
now we are getting somewhere!
is it time to make out yet?

on a good note.
we agree more than disagree.
so it appears anyways.we may vary on the particulars but i think it safe to assume we can agree on the bulk i.e:human rights,fairness and justice.

(or it may be because you are just as disgusted by those overly privileged whiners as i am,snapping their fingers and shouting about "safe places")

solidarity!!

anyways...
i used sommers as a reference because she identifies as a feminists.you may dispute if she is in fact a feminist but thats how she identifies.i thought i was being deliciously ironical,but i digress.

here is a far better,and bipartisan source for your consideration from 2011:https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2011/Gender-Wage-Gap-May-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Most-Think

notice everything is sourced and noted.

the key in our discussion is how we comprehend data,and data in raw form can be just as confusing and misleading if the right questions are not asked,which makes it easy for us all to be manipulated (which i think you mentioned as well).

so just for the record:
i am not anti-feminist,but i am anti-bullshit,against weak and facile arguments to create an emotional response in order to promote a political agenda.

because we all lose in the end,and it detracts from the real issues and real grievances.

why certain rabid feminists thought it perfectly ok to threaten this woman with death and violence,and yet,with zero sense of self-aware irony will use the threat of violence to THEM to promote their politics.

all because she disagreed with them.

anyways..thanks for hanging in there mate.
ill be right over for our lil make out session.

Feel free to be specific, and not just coy and vague. Which parts were intended as 'tongue in cheek' - was it linking to right wing activist blogs? I am truthfully and honestly unsure, because we don't know each other - for some people, quoting CHS would be a joke, similar to quoting Anne Coulter, and for others it's a valid source. I still don't know which, if either, opinion you hold.

Trust me, I will happily and heartily chuckle at your wry, irascible tongue in cheek wit, if you can tell me which parts you thought you were being tongue in cheek about, and what your serious arguments are.

As to whether Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist or not, I would guess that it's not as easy as just calling yourself a feminist. I can call myself a conservative, but the evidence is against me: I never vote conservative, I typically espouse progressive views, and I usually criticize flaws in conservative thought and policy, comparing it unfavorably to progressive thought. I think a reasonable person would have to say that I'm either being disingenuous if I call myself a conservative, or that I'm very very bad at it.

I don't get to decide what CHS calls herself, but as a rational person I have to look at her argument and see if it's based in feminism or in something entirely different, and make up my own mind about it regardless of labels.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, again, which parts you say are just straw manning it up and which parts we agree on. I thought we had some disagreements but you might have been tongue in cheek about all of it, for all I know.

For example, I thought we were in agreement on this: "so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message" - so I didn't comment on that part. It makes sense to me, and unless you were being tongue in cheek, we're in agreement.

I thought we came to an agreement (?) on the prevalence of rape and the need to look at the whole picture, but also agreed (?) that there are several other disheartening factors at work in the so-called justice system.

I thought, however, that we disagreed about your entire first point (both about how making discrimination illegal should eliminate the wage gaps, and about how no serious economists cite it). This is where I thought CHS was a poor rebuttal - regardless of her right wing activism, she's certainly not an economist; she's a philosopher by education, and not a particularly credible source on the economy. Again, if you were being tongue in cheek when quoting her I'll just erase that part and assume that we agree.

As for contradictory evidence, I can't swear that I'll be influenced by it, and I certainly won't accept it uncritically - we all have a hard time breaking down our own biases. But I'll happily and gratefully read it, as I assume you will too.

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

Comparing by industry and level of education is not sufficient to really see what is going on, unfortunately. Two people could work in the same industry, in completely different jobs. Two people could have bachelor's degrees, in completely different fields. As it happens these are two of the major contributors to the gap. I've seen it both in my life, and in this study, from just a few years ago. It concludes that the gap is between 5 and 7% for equivalent employees. That means people with similar credentials performing similar jobs. Here is the study http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Here are the reasons for the discrepancies, as they see them, in no particular order:
- More men than women tend to get educations in fields that pay more (ie. engineering vs teaching).
- More women work at part time jobs, which tend to have lower wages.
- More women tend to take parental leave.
- Women tend to place more value in the non-monetary dimension of a job than men (benefits, location, etc).

Sure, people shouldn't be punished for their gender. On the surface everyone would obviously agree with that statement I believe. If you dig a bit deeper though it's not so clear. Imagine it from the side of the employer. You have two candidates for a job, one that is statistically more likely to leave work for one or more extended periods. Each time that happens, it will cost you X$ to fill the void left. Divide that cost over the average term of employment, and you have a pretty strong case for a wage gap. Now, imagine that the decision was made for the company to ignore this cost, and simply swallow it. Assuming that they don't just increase their payroll budget to float it, we'll see wages for other people, completely unrelated to the issue cut so as to make room for it. Is that injustice more to your taste? It's worth mentioning that it would provide a clear quantifiable justification for hiring men over women.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

If you had watched the video, you would know that it had clearly not been edited.

But again, you didn't, so you don't.

Anyway, here we go.

First of all, all that wage gap bullshit? Yeah, read this: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Oh, and that violence-against-women bullshit? I'm going to need a citation on that.

Also, I'm sorry about your mother, but one anecdote does not mean that feminism suddenly makes sense. I've been physically and mentally abused by more female teachers than I can count on one hand, but I'm not going to use that to claim that women are somehow evil.

That's your argument, you say that it's oppressive to you as a rational person and then you present no evidence to that. Your argument isn't standing on anything whatsoever. You've basically pointed to "because this is how I feel about it." That's not convincing at all.

Haven't you ever had to make an argument where you've had to give evidence? I'm genuinely curious how "Feminism" as an idea can be oppressive. Especially when there is still a wage gap, and an underrepresentation of women in high offices.

I honestly don't understand this video or any of these arguments because you have not made your case at all.

This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.