Zaryi wrote:
It'd be a great idea to allow women to sign up for selective service, let's just fix those pay discrepancies and the 'mommy tax' while we're equal. Both sexes face discrimination in someways today, and it's tiring to hear you guys constantly complain about how women are 'pussifying' America or some such bullshit. The patriarchal society is slowly dying out - something western civilization has never experienced, but changing norms are generally ever a bad thing, especially when social rights/equality are concerned.
It's a shame feminism as a denomyn has become so widely associated with the absurd minority (inb4 'ironic from zaryi). We're not all manhating, unshaven hippies, lol. Not even close. The vast majority of feminist merely believe that gender-identity/biological sex should have absolutely no baring on the rights afforded to us by employers or the state (or even other people). It's a pretty humanist philosophy.
Secular humanism ftw.
The Jedi code is also a good substitute.
I'm glad
you feel that way, but it's you in the minority as far as your gender is concerned.
A lot of you like to use the term "social contract." Marriage at one time was an actual social contract. Both parties, husband and wife, were legally accountable to the terms of the marriage contract. When one party violated the contract it became void and the other party could sue for relief. If the two parties agreed to a dissolution and the terms of that dissolution were voluntary, that was an equally acceptable conclusion to the contract.
What shouldn't happen, but does in our 'no-fault' divorce system, is for one party to break the contract for no reason and be rewarded for it by the other party. “Marriage,” as practiced today, fails miserably because of our system of unilateral or 'no fault' divorce. One party (usually the woman since something like 95% of all divorces are initiated by the wife) can divorce their spouse for any or no reason and be rewarded for it with the kids, the house, child support and perhaps even alimony. That spouse can even break the marriage covenant through adulterous conduct and still be rewarded under a 'no fault' system.
The point of the article linked wasn't that women are terrible, evil creatures. It was that men are giving up. Men once acquired wealth and social standing to attract the most desirable mate. At present, there is no reason for a man to acquire wealth other than his desire to acquire wealth. Women, who once traded their partnership during the years they were most attractive were guaranteed that they'd be cared for as their looks faded. Now, women enter into marriage, then quit the partnership yet still expect to be accommodated with the perks of the institution they willing departed: alimony.
The social contract of marriage was an actual quid pro quo, not one of the nebulous "you guys owe us" some of you are thinking of when you (mis-)use the term. The system is now broken, generally because of changes women advocated to "equalize" things. Now you have guys wasting their lives, and women looking at them and asking "where did all the good men go?" I know they're asking that because a) the article stated that as part of its premise and b) my young female friends complain that they want a guy who wants to do more than fuck then go play video games/paintball/whatever. The system women advocated for didn't just fuck men over, it fucked women over, too. No man is going to marry a woman (and whether you would care to admit it or not, that's what a lot of women want) when the possibility that she's not only going to break his heart when she gets bored with him, but also is going to take a huge chunk of everything he's worked for regardless of whether or not she's the initiator of the break-up and/or capable of making her own way unless he's a fucking retard.
It wasn't an arbitrary system that someone just laid down one afternoon for the benefit of the boys. It developed in very similar forms in disparate cultures separated by geography and language. That happened because it worked, not just for the couple involved but for society as a whole. Then, because "changing norms are generally never a bad thing," some asshat got the idea in their head that they were more clever than thousands of years of social/cultural evolution, and now this is where we are. No one is really happy about the current state of affairs, including a lot of women.
The "everyone should be equal" line is just lip service. You never find a feminist on a sinking ship or in a burning building. It's obvious that women as a group want all the perks of "equality" with none of the detriments. If that weren't the case, there'd be a backlash over the inequities our system has created for men to accompany, among other things, the constant wailing about the fallacious "3/4 of the pay" argument. There isn't, and part of that is a petty vindictiveness inherent in feminine thinking. Even if equality were the actual goal (which it isn't) equality wouldn't be enough, because the offending party (men) hadn't been punished.
Your Pal,
Jubber
