(April 12, 2014 at 4:42 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: But, since we're on that, when a teen girl finds herself pregnant, often, the 'fathers' are nowhere to be found. It becomes solely the responsibility of the girl to raise the child, and the teen fathers are not being held accountable.

Why are men given the choice of when to be held accountable for their children?

She could have aborted if she really didn't want it. [edit] Unless she lives in a conservative area where they make abortion difficult to access. [/edit]

It's more an issue of the child having a pappy.

(April 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: I brought this up in the last thread that popped up on the topic of feminism. Men are required to sign up for the selective srrvuce when we turn 18.

As I think it should be. Men are biologically designed to be the protectors and, if need be, we are the more expendable. "Women and children first" is the golden rule that every civilization I'm familiar with has ever followed; a rule that when push comes to shove, is the only one that is kept with all else being dumped. A society that does otherwise is courting extinction.

How about the woman can make her boyfriend subsidize the abortion. That's fair, right?

(April 12, 2014 at 8:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: I brought this up in the last thread that popped up on the topic of feminism. Men are required to sign up for the selective srrvuce when we turn 18.

As I think it should be. Men are biologically designed to be the protectors and, if need be, we are the more expendable. "Women and children first" is the golden rule that every civilization I'm familiar with has ever followed; a rule that when push comes to shove, is the only one that is kept with all else being dumped. A society that does otherwise is courting extinction.

Ugh...dude how little thought did you put into this? Women are also biologically designed to be the birth givers and nurturers too, so lets make it a government law to strap them to the stirrups and put them in the kitchen, right? So they can pop out babies and make me my damn eggs (and they better not be runny bitch!) at the same time. Also "women and children first" is the golden rule that has kept society from crumbling? Really? Just like marriage between a man and a woman only and "Christian values" are important to the survival of civilization as we know it? Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?

(April 12, 2014 at 11:44 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?

I said, "if need be, we are the more expendable". This is true from a reproductive standpoint as well as a psychological one. A society that loses half its male population will recover in a generation. A society that loses half its female population is decimated and will take much longer to recover, if it ever does. We are psychologically also wired to be the protectors of women and children, placing our bodies between them and harm's way. It's what we do.

Societies may vary on some of the other issues you hyperbolically brought up. Some may treat women equally while others regard them as chattel, per your example. But what remains unchanged in every example I know of is "women and children first". It's the golden rule that stays in place when the cities are burning, the land is overrun and all else needs to be dumped in favor of survival. When things really get bad for a civilization, when most of the men are dead, the women will take on a similar role guarding the children, risking their own lives as need be.

Sorry, I know this isn't politically correct to say. I know every time I point this out, the PC cops, white knighters and other idealists spring into action to deny this fundamental aspect of gender dimorphism, acting under the misguided notion that, dammit, equality requires nothing less than total and complete interchangeability!

Luckily, equality doesn't require interchangeability, contrary to the prevailing PC wisdom. Women can be equal and yet different.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 12, 2014 at 11:44 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?

I said, "if need be, we are the more expendable". This is true from a reproductive standpoint as well as a psychological one. A society that loses half its male population will recover in a generation. A society that loses half its female population is decimated and will take much longer to recover, if it ever does. We are psychologically also wired to be the protectors of women and children, placing our bodies between them and harm's way. It's what we do.

Societies may vary on some of the other issues you hyperbolically brought up. Some may treat women equally while others regard them as chattel, per your example. But what remains unchanged in every example I know of is "women and children first". It's the golden rule that stays in place when the cities are burning, the land is overrun and all else needs to be dumped in favor of survival. When things really get bad for a civilization, when most of the men are dead, the women will take on a similar role guarding the children, risking their own lives as need be.

Sorry, I know this isn't politically correct to say. I know every time I point this out, the PC cops, white knighters and other idealists spring into action to deny this fundamental aspect of gender dimorphism, acting under the misguided notion that, dammit, equality requires nothing less than total and complete interchangeability!

Luckily, equality doesn't require interchangeability, contrary to the prevailing PC wisdom. Women can be equal and yet different.

Ugh. That's all I have to say to you. Just ugh

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 12, 2014 at 11:44 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?

I said, "if need be, we are the more expendable". This is true from a reproductive standpoint as well as a psychological one. A society that loses half its male population will recover in a generation. A society that loses half its female population is decimated and will take much longer to recover, if it ever does. We are psychologically also wired to be the protectors of women and children, placing our bodies between them and harm's way. It's what we do.

Societies may vary on some of the other issues you hyperbolically brought up. Some may treat women equally while others regard them as chattel, per your example. But what remains unchanged in every example I know of is "women and children first". It's the golden rule that stays in place when the cities are burning, the land is overrun and all else needs to be dumped in favor of survival. When things really get bad for a civilization, when most of the men are dead, the women will take on a similar role guarding the children, risking their own lives as need be.

Sorry, I know this isn't politically correct to say. I know every time I point this out, the PC cops, white knighters and other idealists spring into action to deny this fundamental aspect of gender dimorphism, acting under the misguided notion that, dammit, equality requires nothing less than total and complete interchangeability!

Luckily, equality doesn't require interchangeability, contrary to the prevailing PC wisdom. Women can be equal and yet different.

I do believe that chivalry isn't dead. lol But, going with what you're saying here, the only problem I see with it, is that it implies that women want their cake and we want to eat it, too.

Can't have it all ways. If I want to be paid equally as a man for doing the same job, then shouldn't I be required to have to be 'as responsible' of a citizen, as a man? Men and women are biologically different, but it becomes worse I think for a society to cherry pick where women wish to be treated as equals, and where we 'draw the line,' so to speak.

Anyway! lol

(April 13, 2014 at 2:31 am)Deidre32 Wrote: the only problem I see with it, is that it implies that women want their cake and we want to eat it, too.

Can't have it all ways. If I want to be paid equally as a man for doing the same job, then shouldn't I be required to have to be 'as responsible' of a citizen, as a man? Men and women are biologically different, but it becomes worse I think for a society to cherry pick where women wish to be treated as equals, and where we 'draw the line,' so to speak.

I don't see it that way because I don't see how one issue relates to the other. I think part of the problem is the prevailing misunderstanding that for the genders to be equal, they must be completely interchangeable and gender must be purely cosmetic.

Perhaps my use of the word "expendable", even when couched with the qualifier "if need be", was too blunt or even rude. Please understand, I'm speaking of the scenarios of when the shit really hits the fan, as in the ship is going down, civil order has collapsed or the country is overrun. I'm sure we all hope the things I'm discussing remain theoretical as our lives are concerned.

I also embrace idealism but only when its grounded in a realistic assessment of what can be changed and what can't. I face reality as it is and not as I wish it were. It is a truism among freethinkers that we choose to face an unpleasant truth rather than retreat into a comforting world of fantasy.

To use my earlier example of how some feminists get upset over images of scantily clad young beautiful women. Sorry ladies, but men like looking at that and that's not changing. We like sex and we are visual, however much some of you may wish we weren't. Now, that said, you can work within that reality to make it better. You can create a culture where men are taught about sexual boundaries. You can create a culture where men do not view women as just sex objects. You can create a culture where women aren't made to feel like they're garbage just because they don't have that perfect body. Like that cliched "serenity prayer", we strive to change what can be and accept (and work around) what can't (just strip the woo out of that 'prayer' and it's good advice).

Back to the topic of women and children first, I will acknowledge that this rule has been used by some societies as an excuse to marginalize women. I just don't see how it necessarily follows. Women can still be CEOs of corporations, scientists or hold highest offices in the land. They can still get equal pay for equal work. None of that relates. The president of the United States is more powerful than the secret service agents. That doesn't mean that when the shit hits the fan, he (or in the future, she) isn't quickly moved to safety while the agents do their job. The fact that these agents play their roles in times of crisis doesn't mean the president is any less powerful or respected.

(April 13, 2014 at 10:47 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: To use my earlier example of how some feminists get upset over images of scantily clad young beautiful women. Sorry ladies, but men like looking at that and that's not changing. We like sex and we are visual, however much some of you may wish we weren't.

You may like sex and are a "visual creature" and sure, most other men are too, but there are a bunch of guys who are not remotely interested. Not to mention the guys who aren't heterosexual.

And hey, believe it or not, lots of women like sex and are visual too (I, I'm sure some other women on here, can attest to that).
The real issue here, I think, is that we don't have enough scantily clad men.

(You might be interested in looking up "gender essentialism", if you don't already know what that is)

Just have to throw that in there, I know too many men who are asexual/ low libido and have to deal with society believing they are sex-crazed. And as a women myself, I get a bit annoyed when people insinuate that my gender isn't "visual" or interested in sex.

(April 13, 2014 at 11:33 am)Sedna Wrote: And as a women myself, I get a bit annoyed when people insinuate that my gender isn't "visual" or interested in sex.

Sorry, that was not my intent. I was reflecting on certain feminists who seem to really get upset about this issue.

Quote:The real issue here, I think, is that we don't have enough scantily clad men.

Markets respond to demand. Perhaps if women get equal pay for equal work and their spending power increases, that'll improve?

Quote:there are a bunch of guys who are not remotely interested. Not to mention the guys who aren't heterosexual.

I can relate to the latter, as cute young males can also grab my attention. Tastes may vary somewhat, moreso than with female models. My wife likes the Fabio body type whereas I'm more into the twinks.

As to the former, I think we'll make progress there too. My wife's cousin is asexual and he's dealing with the issues of acceptance. He says it would actually be easier if he were gay. Homosexuality is gaining acceptance but asexuality has a ways to go.