From the Human Development Index we find that with the development of nations the disparity between the average life spans of men and women is becoming wider with men are lagging behind more and more. In Russia the extent is somewhat 14 years. Friends! How do you explain this phenomenon?

regards

Yes, they are.

CP:

Yes, they are.

 

The other evidence comes from WHO. The rate of suicide of males is much higher than the rate of suicide of female. Suicide rate of males is in constantly rising from 1950 whereas female suicide rate is more or less  constant.

regards

Traditionally men have carried all responsibility. Feminism is a measure to make sure this doesn't change. Thus men have ever more burdens and ever fewer rewards as women have ever fewer burdens and ever more rewards.

CP:

Traditionally men have carried all responsibility. Feminism is a measure to make sure this doesn't change. Thus men have ever more burdens and ever fewer rewards as women have ever fewer burdens and ever more rewards.

Dear CP! Will you please elaborate? Is the world becoming more and more atrocious against men?

regards

 

In the Western world, at least, women have never been oppressed. The standardized division of labor was intended to maximize the contributions of both sexes at a time when most work depended on physical strength and there was no really effective contraception. Men's sphere was public life and they were forced to undertake some of it like military service and supporting families; women were allowed to do such things if they wanted but didn't have to and were compensated by lesser if any criminal penalties and few responsibilities.

By the end of the 1800s machinery and then electricity were making strength less necessary. Laws made to protect women (usually at their demand) were repealed since they could do work they formerly couldn't. But compensating changes were not made in men's roles, which remained the same. By 1920 their legal roles were essentially the same except that women could retreat into traditional roles whenever expedient.

The latest crop of feminists realized to their horror that the ability to get away with acting weak and stupid when desired was going to be removed, so they began their campaign of confusing and emoting, making contradictory demands, acting alternately like kids in tantrums and adults. The result has been that they have preserved what are now vast priviledges while men still have all their responsibilities and burdens. Women have few or no problems, lesser criminal penalties, no real responsibilities and the ability to back out of them by bursting into tears, and can still demand support by men and now taxpayers. Men carry the burden of this.

 

Jogeshwar:

From the Human Development Index we find that with the development of nations the disparity between the average life spans of men and women is becoming wider with men are lagging behind more and more. In Russia the extent is somewhat 14 years. Friends! How do you explain this phenomenon?

regards

First, if you look at the post-industrial countries this gap is not really that large, 3 to 5 years on average.

Second, Russia, considering the tumultous economic dislocations of 70 years of communism and then its sudden disintegration, is not a good example to use when considering this gap.

Third, were are your citations? Is there really a phenomenon? I need some data to back up this assertion.

Mr. Farlops:

Jogeshwar:

From the Human Development Index we find that with the development of nations the disparity between the average life spans of men and women is becoming wider with men are lagging behind more and more. In Russia the extent is somewhat 14 years. Friends! How do you explain this phenomenon?

regards

First, if you look at the post-industrial countries this gap is not really that large, 3 to 5 years on average.

Second, Russia, considering the tumultous economic dislocations of 70 years of communism and then its sudden disintegration, is not a good example to use when considering this gap.

Third, were are your citations? Is there really a phenomenon? I need some data to back up this assertion.

 

Betterhumans I think is a serious matter. For age difference please see United Nations Human Development Index reports. For suicide please see WHO figures and graph.

regards

"The latest crop of feminists realized to their horror that the ability to get away with acting weak and stupid when desired was going to be removed, so they began their campaign of confusing and emoting, making contradictory demands, acting alternately like kids in tantrums and adults. The result has been that they have preserved what are now vast priviledges while men still have all their responsibilities and burdens. Women have few or no problems, lesser criminal penalties, no real responsibilities and the ability to back out of them by bursting into tears, and can still demand support by men and now taxpayers. Men carry the burden of this."CP

  Now what will happen to the fabric of the American/western/international human life if Hillary Clinton becomes the President of USA? Will she be gender neutral in her approach?

regards

  "Now what will happen to the fabric of the American/western/international human life if Hillary Clinton becomes the President of USA? Will she be gender neutral in her approach?"

She won't be "gender neutral" for a couple of reasons. One is that it is impossible to be "gender neutral" since the sexes are different. Another is that while she is steeped in radical hate-oriented feminism she is also mainly a socialist and sees feminism as simply a tool toward imposing it. Her version is reducing everyone but a socialist elite to the level of peasants. She is a cold-blooded calculating machine whose sole purpose is to gather power. Consequently, anyone not adhering to her party line or worshipping her will at best get nowhere. She will not help women -- who don't need help in the West -- once she gets power.

Unless resistance is strong and resiliant, she will mark the final deterioration and possible collapse of Western culture, helping it sink into vapid weakness from which it will not recover for generations. Europe will not stand up, leaving parts of the US and Australia to struggle.

 

Feminism does have some valid points from a sociological perspective. Empirically, it can be measured that women are marginalized to some extent, even in everyday conversation. They are interrupted more, and people are less likely to take their opinions seriously. However, things are nowhere near as bad as a radical feminist would have you believe. Furthermore, some of their ideas are just plain ridiculous.

The other day I read an article that argued that since women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, women should only have to pay 77 cents on the dollar for goods and services. Not only is that idea horrible and unfair, it would most likely destroy society and make all people worse off.

Despite CP's tone, he does have a point as well. There are benefits to being a woman. They don't have to worry about being drafted, they fare better in court (from custody battles to murder trials), they pay less money for certain types of insurance, etc.

Some claim that women are "objectified," but men have begun to be objectified as well. Just walk into an Abercrombie and Fitch or Calvin Klein store and you will see what I mean. Same thing with Bowflex ads and so forth. Furthermore, this objectification of both sexes gives those who are objectified power. People who are considered beautiful, typically have higher wages and so forth.

All things considered, women in the developed world have it pretty good. There is an increasing number of women in influential roles in society, so even if that is a woman's goal, it is not so unrealistic anymore.

As for men, we make more money and are less marginalized intellectually (even though the inequality is lessening). We also don't have to go through the pain of birth, and are physically stronger and thus less likely to be sexually abused (once adults).

Obviously there are pros and cons to both sexes, so really there is no need to make such overarching generalizations that men are being victimized or women are being vicitimized. As for specific areas of inequality, one may present valid arguments.

 

It's interesting that this discussion is taking place without any input from women.

We take our own struggles so seriously, but it's always easy to rationalize away the suffering of the "other."

It is false that women only make 77% of what men do. It has been illegal in the US not to pay women the same as men for 30+ years. What happens is that women work at various jobs, quit, go back to work, quit, call in sick as often as they can, and so forth. The reason is that they don't have to work if they've got men supporting them so they take part time jobs that involve little skill whenever they want extra money. (Of course this doesn't give them a very good background if they need a better job, but that is not men's fault.) Feminists don't compare women executives, say, with male executives, but the entire female workforce with male executives to derive the figures. Men, who often have to support women, tend to stick with jobs and try to advance.

Sex roles are somewhat balanced, but they are still unbalanced in women's favor. At least, for example, they are starting to be punished for statutory rape and similar crimes (rather than merely for prostitution, in which they support themselves and probably do a great deal of good for men). Nevertheless, as long as feminists are able to get away with such outrageous lies as the job stats, things will remain unbalanced.

"Feminism" is one of those words that has a false meaning. It is not about helping "both genders" or it would not emphasize only one of them.

 

Sideways:

It's interesting that this discussion is taking place without any input from women.

We take our own struggles so seriously, but it's always easy to rationalize away the suffering of the "other."

 

And who do you consider the "other"?

"Other" is one of those propaganda words like "empower" 

 

CP:

  "Now what will happen to the fabric of the American/western/international human life if Hillary Clinton becomes the President of USA? Will she be gender neutral in her approach?"

She won't be "gender neutral" for a couple of reasons. One is that it is impossible to be "gender neutral" since the sexes are different. Another is that while she is steeped in radical hate-oriented feminism she is also mainly a socialist and sees feminism as simply a tool toward imposing it. Her version is reducing everyone but a socialist elite to the level of peasants. She is a cold-blooded calculating machine whose sole purpose is to gather power. Consequently, anyone not adhering to her party line or worshipping her will at best get nowhere. She will not help women -- who don't need help in the West -- once she gets power.

Unless resistance is strong and resiliant, she will mark the final deterioration and possible collapse of Western culture, helping it sink into vapid weakness from which it will not recover for generations. Europe will not stand up, leaving parts of the US and Australia to struggle.

 

And so we may make following projections for the world if she assumes Presidential office:

1.Gender disparity in life spans will be wider.

2. More and more men will commit suicide.

3. More and more men will suffer from andropause.

4.The world will move in the faster speed to below replacement level of fertility.

Right?

regards