• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

I think a lot of men are perfectly capable of relating to the panic of an unsought pregnancy, for the record. Call it a hunch.

They may not understand the physical aspect to the degree that women do, but so what? I don't truly understand the physical aspect of urinating out of a penis, either. I could still be a urologist if I wanted, and I could still design a lovely urinal. This analogy is stretched for purposes of humor, of course, but the point remains. Being a woman does not automatically make one more sympathetic to women's issues. Being a man does not automatically make one less sympathetic.
 
isissxn said:
I think a lot of men are perfectly capable of relating to the panic of an unsought pregnancy, for the record. Call it a hunch.
Click to expand...

I already said they are capable above.

I'm capable of benching 250 lbs., with enough practice.
 
isissxn said:
I think a lot of men are perfectly capable of relating to the panic of an unsought pregnancy, for the record. Call it a hunch.

They may not understand the physical aspect to the degree that women do, but so what? I don't truly understand the physical aspect of urinating out of a penis, either. I could still be a urologist if I wanted, and I could still design a lovely urinal. This analogy is stretched for purposes of humor, of course, but the point remains. Being a woman does not automatically make one more sympathetic to women's issues. Being a man does not automatically make one less sympathetic.
Click to expand...

This.

There is a reason men sign over parental rights; well, several, actually, but I'd guess one of the more prevalent ones is that the man in question doesn't particularly WANT to be a father/is not ready to be a father. Not exactly the best reason, to my way of thinking, but no less valid than a woman who's not ready to be pregnant or have a child. I won't get into how the two genders are treated differently in those circumstances though; that's not the subject of this thread.

Personally I think this attempt at forced separation of the two genders based on the idea that one gender cannot understand the issues that solely face the other gender is stupid. So what if a man can't viscerally and personally appreciate what it's like when women get pregnant; doesn't mean he can't educate himself on the problems women face and offer his support for her ultimate decision on the matter. The key word there is "educate"; both genders in the government are fully capable of consulting with multiple experts in the field relating to whatever is the issue and proceeding on the basis of knowledge rather than a knee-jerk reaction, it's just that some don't seem to want to educate themselves, or refuse to speak to anyone that doesn't agree with their own rigid dogma on the matter.
 
d4m10n said:
What made you think anyone has data on how often men attempt to empathise with women's issues?
Click to expand...
I hadn't really given it much thought, until you started making quantitative claims about it.

Earlier, you brought up the 1% empathy rate as if it were a real issue that we should take seriously and perhaps even do something about. Is that not what you had in mind?
 
theprestige said:
I hadn't really given it much thought, until you started making quantitative claims about it.

Earlier, you brought up the 1% empathy rate as if it were a real issue that we should take seriously and perhaps even do something about. Is that not what you had in mind?
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'm fairly sure d4m10n was merely offering an OPINION on the potential statistic, not offering an actual statistic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that though, d4m10n. :)
 
d4m10n said:
I'm capable of benching 250 lbs., with enough practice.
Click to expand...

Right. So if we were selecting candidates for a team of bench-pressers, we'd want to select individuals who do possess that skill. Most people are capable, but only some actually able. We'd want to learn about the skills of the different candidates and base our voting decisions on those criteria.

The current voting system allows for the exact same sort of selection with regard to political candidates. Voters learn about an individual's specific positions and skills, then vote accordingly. The fact that people often make poor choices and vote in bad candidates is just part of the deal. No quota can fix that. All it could do is shake up the entire way we do things in this country, which would lead to insane backlash. And for what? I can't even see how the plan would be effective for the purposes designed.
 
d4m10n said:
I did not say we need parity in representation by sex.

We can (and do) get by with (mostly) patriarchy.
Click to expand...

Women have the right to vote and seem to engage that right at slightly higher rates than men consistently for the last few decades. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

Any gender imbalance in modern politics is supported by women voters. Women vote for anti-feminist positions like anti-abortion with regularity. Women voted for Trump in high numbers, despite his openly misogynistic traits. Instituting a quota would be restricting the choice of women voters, ostensibly for their own benefit. Sounds very paternalistic to me.
 
Sabrina said:
To be fair, I'm fairly sure d4m10n was merely offering an OPINION on the potential statistic, not offering an actual statistic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that though, d4m10n. :)
Click to expand...

Well, it's an opinion that's not based on evidence I don't really think we should be basing policy on it.
 
d4m10n said:
I didn't mention data.
Click to expand...


Okay then.

What experiences have you had that give you this impression. Because my experience is pretty much the opposite. The men are know are able to empathise with ladies over uniquely female problems and vice-versa.

I simply don't recognise the world as you describe it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Women have the right to vote and seem to engage that right at slightly higher rates than men consistently for the last few decades. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

Any gender imbalance in modern politics is supported by women voters. Women vote for anti-feminist positions like anti-abortion with regularity. Women voted for Trump in high numbers, despite his openly misogynistic traits. Instituting a quota would be restricting the choice of women voters, ostensibly for their own benefit. Sounds very paternalistic to me.
Click to expand...

:bigclap

I have nothing to add.
 
isissxn said:
I think a lot of men are perfectly capable of relating to the panic of an unsought pregnancy, for the record. Call it a hunch.

They may not understand the physical aspect to the degree that women do, but so what? I don't truly understand the physical aspect of urinating out of a penis, either. I could still be a urologist if I wanted, and I could still design a lovely urinal. This analogy is stretched for purposes of humor, of course, but the point remains. Being a woman does not automatically make one more sympathetic to women's issues. Being a man does not automatically make one less sympathetic.
Click to expand...

There you go bringing sanity and humour to a hate-filled pity party. Don't expect to be invited again. :thumbsup::)
 
theprestige said:
What is the basis of the opinion?
Click to expand...

Look, what kind of skeptics would we be if we couldn't just make up an empirical claim and refuse to back it up with any kind of evidence?

Instead, why not just accept that if only about 1% of men bother to bench press 250lbs that's probably a ball-park figure for men making the effort to empathize with women having unwanted pregnancies.

It's kind of a law of stuff called the 1% Law. I guess.
 
angrysoba said:
Look, what kind of skeptics would we be if we couldn't just make up an empirical claim and refuse to back it up with any kind of evidence?

Instead, why not just accept that if only about 1% of men bother to bench press 250lbs that's probably a ball-park figure for men making the effort to empathize with women having unwanted pregnancies.

It's kind of a law of stuff called the 1% Law. I guess.
Click to expand...

"Look at my opinion!"

"Why is your opinion important?"

"I never said my opinion was important!"

I would totally read A Field Guide to Motte-and-Bailey.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Any gender imbalance in modern politics is supported by women voters.
Click to expand...

I'm rather skeptical of this. Most ordinary voters are given a choice between two male major party candidates, most of the time.

SuburbanTurkey said:
Women vote for anti-feminist positions like anti-abortion with regularity.
Click to expand...

At the same rate as men?

SuburbanTurkey said:
Women voted for Trump in high numbers, despite his openly misogynistic traits.
Click to expand...

At the same rate as men?
 
angrysoba said:
Look, what kind of skeptics would we be if we couldn't just make up an empirical claim and refuse to back it up with any kind of evidence?
Click to expand...

What kind of skeptics would we be if we saw a subjective statement of personal doubt and then strawmanned it into an empirical claim about the world?

A) I'd be surprised if X is true.

B) X is demonstrably true.

Can you see a difference here?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm rather skeptical of this. Most ordinary voters are given a choice between two male major party candidates, most of the time.
Click to expand...

But those candidates are themselves selected in preliminaries by people, plenty of whom are women. Practically anyone can run for office. You just need to drum up support from your base. Which includes loads of women.



At the same rate as men?
Click to expand...

Dunno that.



At the same rate as men?
Click to expand...

Impossible to say, as voting is private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom