Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
This is just a poor, distorted, grossly generalized and decontextualized attempt to rationalize a preconceived ideological bias through biological determinism while ignoring the role of centuries of sociological factors.
Men lean toward attractiveness in who we want to fukk. So do many women. Most men do take into account secure resources and safety when it comes to a long-term pairing. Most men who are highly productive are not going to marry a bum ass uneducated high school dropout just because she looks good.
You're just speaking in generalities, failing to accurately define this supposed "biological imperative," or explain how it translates into the male-run state inexplicably oppressing men.
Women had essentially no rights for most of this nation's history. And women weren't secured the right to vote until 87 years. That's a fact. You cannot argue against that.
Most of the first women brought over here from Britain were literally servants and sex slaves. They couldn't vote. They got charged with crimes if they got pregnant out of wedlock, many of these pregnancies caused by rape. And that's just white women.
Even after the Revolution, New Jersey was the only state that granted women the right to vote and they rescinded that.
They were often denied education. Only 40% of women were literate in 1750.
Womens' role defined in society were to pious, cheerful, compliant, submissive, obedient, uneducated, sexually pure, and servile.
Feminism was a response to that. If you do not like some of the forms feminism is taking today you can make that case, but denouncing feminism as a whole, you are putting yourself in the untenable position of essentially defending everything I stated above and more. Or is that just how it should be based on some abstraction of biology?
No, it's not. What you're saying doesn't make any sense because you're acting like men are not half the population not to mention at most levers of power in society.
That example you used about kids is not the dominant narrative in society. That's just what some extremists of feminist persuasion might say and you're pretending as if that's what the whole of society thinks.
No it is not. You're wrong. Again, we're talking about the U. S., again please provide a more unbiased source than "www.avoiceformen.com"
Women are by far more victims of domestic violence, and more likely to be seriously injured by it for obvious biological reasons: they tend to be physically weaker. So are you going to ignore biological differences of the much more concrete, empirical variety now?
Women are abused domestically more, and far more likely to be hospitalized and killed from domestic violence.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm
Yeah, the male dominated state in which laws are created by men mostly are actively working against men for some reason.
That's just as absurd as when white racists claim that the the predominantly white government is oppressing white people because of affirmative action and civil rights legislation. The government makes attempts to try and iron out inherent inequalities in society. If there are overreaches and poorly designed policy with drawbacks, that doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy to destroy the dominant class, inexplicably implemented by the dominant class.
More effective lobbying and media campaigning for breast cancer.
Again, you nitpick anecdotal inequalities in order to create some grand conspiracy of tyranny that doesn't exist.It should be the way. There's that pesky biology again. Women have way more medical issues and preventative care unique to their gender they have to deal with then men.
You're wrong, first of all. No one is stopping women from pursuing fields of study and getting hired, but once they're in the door he glass ceiling is real. Women generally do not move up to the highest levels of society. How many female CEOs and executive at large corporations are female? How many Senators? Or the most obvious example, we've had 44 presidents and not one of them is a woman. Is that because in 2 and a quarter centuries there was never a woman who qualified or desired to be president but didn't have those opportunities granted, or are women just not competent enough to be president?
But the point was it's absolute absurdity to claim that the men who are at the levers of power in legislation, academia, private business, and lobbying are actively conspiring against their own sex.
