Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Male inequality, explained by an expert | Richard Reeves" video.
-
39
-
35
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Oh please, my dad worked as much as much as 300 hours a month and then when he was home was just as much of a parent as my mother. He even tried to get away from the hustle and bustle by moving to Ohio (I was born and raised in Connecticut), but then my mom made him move back because she didn't want to live among hicks. Women stayed in the house and watched children while men worked from dawn to dusk doing backbreaking, monotonous work. Women couldn't have even taken these roles because 90% of jobs for 99% of human history were very physically intensive and women constantly had to be pregnant to maintain the population in a world where 2/3 children died before their 4th birthday.
Women are not independent now, you've just married the state. Men still provide for women and children, but its at the point of a gun via the government, with things like welfare, public education, and even Social Security: men die five years earlier and retire later, not to mention men pay about twice as much in taxes over their life time, meaning Social Security leads to a HUGE net transfer of wealth from men to women.
Yes, most men are CEOs. CEOs typically work at least 70 hours a week. Their wife gets to stay home, basking in luxuries their salary bought but they barely get to touch, doing light chores and watching Sesame Street with the kids. Poor, poor oppressed wimmenz.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Traditionally men provided resources while women provided their bodies. For most of human history, the right to one's own body and one's own property were considered equally sacrosanct. If you set up a business, you could run it how you wanted. If you were taxed for anything, it was something you'd be expected to provide your body for as well (like the military). Even the early fire department relied on "civil conscription". However, in the 20th century, we decided the right to property meant nothing. We have no qualms about robbing Peter to pay Paul(a). We have no qualms about telling someone how to run a business they built. So naturally men became victims of a lopsided world. We can't force women to gestate our children, but they can force us to be pay for children they gestate. We can't tell a woman whether or not to use birth control, but we can be forced to pay for it. We can't tell a woman to work for us, but we can be forced to hire her if we set up our own business. Etc.
If women had TRUE independence, TRUE autonomy, which is to say full rights COUPLED WITH FULL RESPONSIBILITIES, they would be much more humble.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For Pete's sake, how do those "unpaid laborers" raising children have access to food, clothing, housing, internet, TV, etc.? Their husband pays them FFS. What is your vision of equality, exactly? Instead of the husband going to work and then putting his earnings in a joint account that both spouses can access and take from, he puts half in the joint account, and the other half goes to her? Then what does she do with it? Put it in the joint account, which puts us back at square 1? Or does she put the money she earned in her own private bank account that only she can access: ie "What's mine is mine what's yours is ours"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Every society in recorded history had women living longer than men, even despite the dangers of child birth, and yet you believe men created societies where women were simply "used for men's needs."
It used to be men had more rights but also more responsibilities. Now women have more rights but men still have more responsibilities. A woman can chose to have an abortion in most states, but men are still held responsible for her "reproductive decisions" via child support, or via a welfare state that men pay drastically more into. Women are free to use birth control, but men are forced to pay for it (while of course there's no law that requires insurance agencies to cover vasectomies). Women are now free to join the military, but only men get conscripted, etc.
By the way, who do you think gave women the right to vote? We did, purely out of the goodness of our hearts and for no benefit to ourselves. Yet you talk like you won a coup.
Oh yeah, and women got the vote over 100 years ago, not 50.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesus Christ...
1) Richard is a leftist so of course he doesn't mention proven grading biases against male students.
2) Women work harder? Every statistic shows the opposite. Women take more sick days and work fewer hours, work less inconvenient shifts, work less dangerous jobs, etc.
3) Unpaid labor in families? Give me a f***ing break. It's a joint account. What would "paid labor" look like exactly? Does a man put half his earnings in the joint account, and then give half to a special bank account just for you? Is that equality?
Yes, men are over-represented at the top of society, but we are also over-represented at the bottom. But society shames us for both facts. When women can't make it to the top, people cry sexism, even if there's no proof of that (for example, women make up only a small minority of politicians, but when they chose to run they are just as likely to win as men). When men wallow at the bottom (homelessness, drug addiction, prisons), we're called losers, even when there's proven sexism against us (like the significantly longer sentences men get for the same crimes).
The playing field is not level. Teachers are biased against boys. All gender specific scholarships are for women. Women have the reproductive rights, and men get raped by the family courts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mhorworshipper7456 95% of domestic abuse is not perpetrated by men. Domestic violence charities just know they can tug on people's heart strings with female victims of male abuse, while the reverse just makes people laugh. Statistics show women are actually more likely to hit their partners, men are do more damage. Your statistics on the witch trials are also way off. Not only was it half that many, but that was over 150 years, not 1 year. The expectation for intercourse with your spouse went both ways. Women weren't allowed to open bank accounts because men were responsible for their debts, and this practice (men being held responsible for their wife's debts) actually lasted longer than women being unable to manage their own money (look up Mark Wilkes, the guy who went to jail for not paying his wife's taxes). Women are more likely to get injured in car crashes because they have weaker bones, and that'll be the case no matter which dummies you use. Also, men don't even have the option of taking birth control because none was made for us, and yet you are saying WOMEN are oppressed because they have the option of taking those risks?
For most of human history labor was very physically intensive, and women had to be constantly pregnant to maintain the population, because infant mortality was so high, and of course you can't do physically intensive labor when you're pregnant.
1
-
1
-
@Bennie_x Christ alive, there is so much wrong with that second sentence. Stop bastardizing the term pedophile. Pedophiles don't care about "power dynamics". Was Jenny in Forest Gump a pedophile? Forest's brain was so underdeveloped his favorite book was Curious George. What about the woman in "The Shape of Water"? That fishman thing never, never spent a day outside capitivty, and may have been no more intelligent than a dog. Yet both movies were considered beautiful lover stories. Second, if pedophilia is about power, than does the reverse apply? If I have the hots for someone who looks like a 7 year old girl, but is actually a 700 year old immortal vampire, am I normal?
Second, that nonsense about power imbalance is just that. When I was in Middle School I had a "friend" who constantly manipulated me and everyone around him for his sick kicks. It messed me up so much I made me averse to friendship in my High School years and I spent all my social life online in generally adult communities. Yet never was I seriously manipulated, or felt like I could have been seriously manipulated, by the other people there simply on basis of them being older.
Parents can't even control their 15 year old daughters any more than their peers can for Christ's sake. What kind of power does a 50 year old have over a 23 year old on basis of an age gap?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If most men never support women, how the hell did women get their rights in the first place? If they had agency to bring it about themselves, that would mean they weren't an oppressed class.
Women's diseases get 2X - 5X more funding than men's diseases while men die five years earlier. 200 girls getting kidnapped by Boko Haram was a global outrage while 10,000 boys kidnapped to become child soldiers for Boko Haram was barely reported, nor were the 100 boys burned alive in their dormitories by Boko Haram not long before that. When a man so much as pushes a woman, every guy in the vicinity mobs him. Women a woman beats up a man, people watch and laugh. When women have to keep it in their pants for the amount of time it takes to save up for a $30 bottle of birth control pills, it's considered a national travesty. But men who don't want to pay child support are just told to keep it in our pants for our entire lives. Conversely when John Andrew Weldon slipped his girlfriend an abortion pill it was called an "unspeakable crime" by a female news reporter, but no one dares even broach the subject of man's right to protect his unborn child. Just watch any "What Would You Do" video where they try an experiment with two different genders: whether its a person collapsing or someone getting their drink spiked, 10X as many people are always there to help the women. We let women fight in the military, but never draft them. In what world do "men almost never support women"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JaneSmith-c3h Oh please. Every society on Earth had a lower life expectancy for men than women, despite the fact that child birth used to be as dangerous as warfare. How does that happen in a world where women suffer for men's benefit? Men had all the power, but also all the responsibility. You got to stay home with the kids while we performed 60+ hours a week of back breaking, monotonous labor. Now women have all the power, but only half the responsibility. For example bringing a child into the world is solely a woman's choice, but her decision will be funded by her partner through child support and/or a state funded by a mostly male tax based. So when a woman makes the unilateral decision to have a child, men will pay for 70% of that child's education. Not to mention programs like Social Security represent a huge net transfer of wealth from men to women, as men pay 70% of taxes but women retire earlier and live five years longer. If women had as much responsibility as they had power, you'd be much more humble.
Second, if men "didn't care" women were suffering, how did women get their rights in the first place? Do you think women won a coup? No, men gave you your rights, and if we chose to we could take them back in a day. We control the military and the police force. But you know we won't, because we're not cruel and heartless like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First off, it's feminists fault the Men's Rights Movement became associated with misogyny and far-right politics. Why? Because no one paid any attention to them until they did. The MRM has been around since the 1970s, but only gained attention when it started using vicious, incendiary rhetoric, courtesy of Paul Elam who was fully aware of his strategy. Second, all people trying to silence the movement have been on the left, even though many if not most prominent MRAs are former feminists. You pushed the MRM away from the left.
"STEM fields have a dearth of female engineers. There are gender gaps in many fields."
There you go, he talks about men's issues and you shift it to women. Lack of women in STEM is already treated like the crisis of the century. Lack of men in HEAL is seen as completely fine.
"In most cases its far worse for women than it is for men, as the average salary for women across the board is lower on average."
The pay gap only applies to married women. First off, it shouldn't matter because if you're married you have a joint account. Second, its about women's choices, unless you think women are somehow forced into the homemaker role, even though women have more power in a marriage since men are more afraid of family courts (as demonstrated by the fact that women initiate 70% of divorce) and its women who select husbands based on their earnings.
"But there's also the possibility that these gender gaps may never completely disappear largely due to cultural norms. Women are still largely considered caregivers. Its not always true but that cultural norm does affect the decisions of many men and women."
There you go. And the same women who cry about these cultural norms refuse to get with a guy who makes less than them.
"Statements like this can be very misleading. It may be that women are just getting more representation in these fields as well. Meaning that that's potentially evidence that the gender gap is in fact closing in those fields."
How is the gender gap closing if these are fields that women already dominate?
"This again is not a bad thing. In fact this statement is purely fear mongering. "
You haven't seen the mountains of research that shows kids do worse in single parent households?
1
-
@whoknows-i8x "Some people would call this karma. I call it entropy. The reason why taking the breaks off women's opportunity produced these results is because women were oppressed for thousands of years. For thousands of years there are stronger selective pressures imposed on women and they had to develop faster in order to survive a world that wouldn't accept them."
Wow, you really want to talk about evo-psych? First off, if we lived in a world that treated women harsher, why did women evolve lesser bone density, weaker muscle mass, smaller stature, all the things you'd expect when you AREN'T forced to deal with the harshness of the world. And why did women outlive and thus outnumber men in every society ever studied in history? Women even evolved a greater ability to cry (yes, you can look that up). Why would women evolve to be criers if the world didn't care about their pain more than men's?
Genetic studies show we are descended from twice as many women as men. That means essentially that men had to impress women to pass down their genes, where as women just needed to exist to pass down theirs.
This also shows why a society, even if its male dominated, would favor women. Men had to gain women's favor to pass on their genes. The opposite is not true, or at least not nearly to the same extent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abstract5249 Dude, colleges had lower thresholds for admitting students based on color. It's not a theory you could get admitted with a lower SAT score if you were Black, it was a fact. Here's a better question, why would you assume the Black applicant is doing better in research, projects, career activity, community involvement, etc? You have no data either way, so by default a rational person would assume he's doing the same, and yet he's being let in with a lesser SAT score.
The fact is research shows boys will get graded 3 points lower for an identical assignment if it has a female name. So if boys GPA is .3 lower than girls on average, we know they are actually performing exactly up to par with the girls.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1