Ill just come out and say it-im not for it. But women are finally starting to pay it!!!! now its amusing to see them complain about the hardships and there is a bit of a “hah! Now you know how it feels!” aspect to it. (never had to pay it but I have heard stories and seen the issues with it). However I do not think the woman who went through that excessive hardship should have. No one should man or woman.
Heres my case against alimony: Its to keep the standard of living for the receiver and pay for the work done in the home. The work at home is generally paid for in return for food, shelter, etc-or atleast that would make sense and any divorce is going to change standard of living for everyone theres no avoiding it theres only so much money is going around. My next issue is who gets alimony? Most times women initiate the divorce and then get alimony…no, even if we have alimony you should not be able to receive it if you initiate the divorce, there is something wrong about that. Having a divorce has a cost legally, socially, and financially you should not be able to leave your significant other and get paid afterwards.
If you think you will be fine after divorce good for you, but don’t expect your ex to back you up financially.
Laughing aside, hooray for the gender neutral part, boo for the part that people still have to pay alimony my blog here
One of the main criticism of feminism is that it thrives on "victim power" which is seen in cases like the story here by the false rape society about putting the names of alleged rapists on tshirts and in public leading to the attack
Heres the deal-victim power isnt actually power-its revenge and often called justice
When victim power is justice its through the reasoning and assertion that you have been wronged and you are entitled to get even. Michel Foucaults argument that court systems were a way of legally sanctifying revenge (read interview with a maoist its rather funny actually) makes perfect sense here, because thats exactly whats going on
unfortunately rape isnt in the small claims court category its a serious crime and it cant be about revenge (this is also why it stemmed from petty vengeance to a system for order to serve as a link between the upperclass and the proleletariat)
Revenge is not justice and justice is not revenge. Yes they are often related. If you are financially wronged you are entitled to what you lost that is justice. To then have the person shamed in public it is then revenge.
Now thats not to say one cannot get a feeling of satisfaction similar to revenge through the use of justice. If someone murders your family there will be some comfort knowing he is behind bars for the rest of his life. However you dont go flaunting it around.
We arent in feudal France anymore, the court system evolved for a reason, we dont want it to be about revenge. Thats how we get frivolous lawsuits
more on petty vengeance and the court system here....
and if you arent familiar with michel foucault by the time im done with you, you sure as hell will be
I may very well be beating a dead horse when i write this and i am probably going to get a lot of people calling me a liberal pussy compromiser but im not bending over backwards im trying to make a reasonable solution so if youre going to say that fuck off and go somewhere else
Because of Pansygate there has been a lot of coverage on what is/isn’t allowed in regards to age of consent, the ideas of rape and pedophilia. Iv said it before and ill say it again. Im not taking sides in this. Both Paul and Jay have been a big help in getting my blog up and running and I thank them both for their support.
But at what age should sex be legal. On one hand the age of consent laws do seem to punish men only (as jay has pointed out in his now controversial article). And there seems to be a problem with statutory rape and pedophilia being mixed in with consensual sex and there lies the dilemma
We don’t want creepy guys hitting on 10 year olds, or even half their age when they are in their thirties, but at the same time we don’t want to punish people who are in relationships with people a bit over the age of 18 and we do sexually mature earlier than 18 as well.
Now I would like to also make a statement for “legal purposes” (not that I have enough of a statement for people to get worked up but who knows one day….) I am not advocating sex with minors, rather a way we look at the laws and define minors and don’t believe anyone who cannot handle the consequence of sex (emotional, stds, caring for a child emotionally/financially) should be having sex in the first place. But here is my stance
and what do you all think?
In fact it can be fun! This goes far beyond the typical double standard of “men cant hit women but women can hit men” which im sure every guy has questioned at some point in their lives, and far too many just shrug if off and say “that’s the way it is”. But we see it move into court cases where women get off easier for vicious crimes from hitting someone with a hammer to running a man over with a car over and over again and then only a 20 year sentence…by the way her kids were in the car
Had it been the other way around there probably would have been a life sentence.
It goes deeper than that and find out how here....
I recently saw this commercial for Dove+ for men. Watching it I just couldn’t help but think, “Wow, this is ridiculously accurate” And why is that? Because its exactly what society expects us to do. Excel physically, have a bit of fun when you are younger (and at the same time be a perfect gentleman), get married, and serve your employer and family for the rest of your life. Congratulations…YOU’RE A MAN!!!!!
This sickens me-not only do they wrap up the expectations in a nutshell. They show how its what we should strive for and they take a shot at men as well when they talk about getting lost because you don’t use a map because….YOU’RE A MAN!!!
After the superbowl (when this was apparently first on) they took out that line and edited it a little and came up with this which isn’t much better.
This is the type of thing we need to be wary of. I don’t want this to be the definition of what a “man” is-or atleast the main definition if you want to live that way that’s fine, but I don’t want to be expected to be the breadwinner before I even consider getting married, or finding someone who id want to start a family with. This cant be the only road other than “the lonely road”.
You would never see a commercial where a woman was told: “be born, play nice, go to a dance, go to school, get married, have kids and start cookin’” or “be the old maid”
If this stuff doesn’t bother you the slightest bit, then you should take a hard look at yourself, and think about the commercial.
Standard feminist theory states that chivalry is a double standard, degrading and devaluing women with the expectation of them doing less, forcing them to be mothers, bribed into sex with goods, and not considered equals.
I understand where this is coming from, there were things women were not allowed to do. And I believe they have the right to do them and the social norms should be broken
but the same social rules sent men to their graves, expected men to fight in wars (still no draft or frontlines for women), defending a woman’s honor; even the little things like opening doors and pulling out chairs are all part of chivalry. Lets not forget paying for meals, flowers, chocolates, etc. While you can argue over the little things the first few are enough to state whos at the real disadvantage as far as im concerned. Which is better? I life where you do not have as much of an influence as you would like, or death? Few people would argue death gives you the benefit
As long as one group dies because of social rules they are at more of a disadvantage
My blog: http://riseofthezetamale.blogspot.com/
Recently there has been a lot of infighting on the Spearhead . It all started when a man who goes by the name Jay Hammers wrote an article called Studies Show an Increased Likelihood of MRAs to be Pansies Its an interesting article, about toughening up, and sparks flew all over the place after it was published (it has since then been taken down) The debate was interesting and Paul Elam talked about having “more brains than balls” in one of his posts discussing it, which makes perfect sense.
Recently Paul posted an article called Manhood Academy: Special Ed at Best its another interesting read about a different website, and as a result we have created an angry mob. After looking into it the controversy once again grew based on the validity of its ideology and if personal attacks were the motives of Paul’s writings and some heavy criticism from Jay about Paul and a “tirade of lies” made against him
Everyone needs to take a chill pill
As I bring all of this up, I am not trying to fuel the fire, or moderate the movement, but things that think are problematic are coming up, and it is my right to talk about them, and the fact some of the things that I am seeing can be problematic More here....
If you have ever heard that if women ruled the world things would be far better. Well you can always open with that-ok I wouldn’t its not actually true theres no proof Catherine the Great had sex with a horse…but she was utterly promiscuous, as bad as the republicans of modern day only she didn’t try to hide it
Anyways heres a list of all the terrible women that were leaders of countries Ill give you the summary version they all started wars, genocide, and destroyed public services
And here are a some other famous female leaders
Elizabeth Bathory bathed in the blood of 600 female servants-all in the name of vanity
MEK is a female run terrorist organization
Harriet Harman; the great lilith just reminding everyone women are just as bad as men
Updated 30th-April-2010 at 10:27 PM by zetamale
The answer to both is yes and no
Yes women were oppressed like men stuck into their gender roles, which often had protection over influence (but that was not always true) and it would vary from society to society, but men were just as stuck in their roles, and if you weren’t an alpha male you really couldn’t get much done. So in a way you could argue it is oppression but by the technical definition it does not involve cruel and unusual PUNISHMENT and violence so by dictionary terms it is not. Note-the reason I point out punishment because there are places in china where feet were broken and deformed because small feet were a sign of a good bride and an attractive women-im not ok with that. You could argue there are multiple forms of social oppression and being stuck in a gender role would be one of them, but the same would then apply to men and even if you were to go with the different layers and levels of oppression you would have a tough case to make, as no other group of oppressed people had their masters going off to die in wars to defend them. If you were to argue they were oppressed don’t equate it with slavery or jews in concentration camps, that is an insult to the human race.
Clearly, if you’ve been keeping up with this blog you know what I think, but do some research and think about it for yourself
So why does it matter? It makes us look at history, see what we did wrong (we should have given them more say and less protection from the start) and we see the backlash the future created when traditional roles couldn’t keep up with the times.
Why doesn’t it matter? Its not that way anymore( In the western world), and that’s not what I am here to talk about the advantages or disadvantages of being a women in modern society, and gender based double standards for women, im here to talk about the ones for men, and my point is “We were oppressed for X hundred years” is not a valid argument, and would be similar
The Bible’s Bamboozled Men and Hornswoggling Women By Denise Noe We commonly think of the society depicted in the Old Testament of the Bible as a classically “patriarchal” one. Indeed, it was a culture in which formal power was largely concentrated in male hands. However, certain stories in the Bible display a great deal of real power wielded by women. Perhaps most interesting is the way prominent women outwit men and are in no sense punished for their treachery.
In Genesis 25:28 we are told of the feelings of Isaac and Rebekah toward their twin sons: “And Isaac loved Esau . . . but Rebekah loved Jacob.” Here the Bible is perennially relevant and realistic. Most people would probably say parents of both sexes should love their children equally but parental emotions are often dramatically undemocratic.
As the official head of the family, Isaac has the power to bestow blessings that Rebekah does not. He wants to bestow a blessing on his favorite son Esau. However, he has become blind in his old age so Rebekah comes up with a plan to foil his intentions and grab the blessing for HER favorite son Jacob. She advises Jacob to pretend to be his brother. When he objects that his father might feel him and realize he is not the hairy Esau, she puts goatskins on his hands and neck (Esau must have been hirsute indeed). Isaac is taken in by Rebekah’s subterfuge and blesses Jacob. We do not read of any comeuppance for the cunning Rebekah. Perhaps the moral of this rather sordid tale is that the son favored by his mother is the son “blessed” both literally and metaphorically.
Genesis 31 is about Jacob’s leaving the home of his father-in-law Laban – a double father-in-law since Jacob is married to both his daughters, Leah and Rachel – accompanied by his wives, servants, and children. He does not inform Laban that they are on their way. Verse 19 tells us that,
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.