Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

Called it a few pages back.I gave sound arguments too, but you ignore everything that doesn't fit your twisted reality.

The best part is that he simply can't see that he's the male counterpart to the radical feminists he hates. He's got so much fervor it's blinding.

It'd be enviable if it weren't so misguided.

I think you are looking at the income aspect of the family and who can care for the children, instead of the actual care of the children.

Mothers' take care of their children far better than men, because of the family responsibilities passed down from generations of social norms. I believe you said this yourself, but men are expected to hunt/work/war/do dangerous and/or intensive/stressful work while the women are expected to actually take care of the house and children. This has been ingrained into our brains since well before we were born.

So, it goes to show that we automatically believe without a doubt or knowing more into each family's situation that the mother can take care of the mental/physical/social development and care of the children more and better than the father can. Guys aren't expected to change their work life to fit the needs of the family, and it's a newer concept that we are doing such things.

Umm you haven't give a single argument, just more emotional tantrums like the previous one.

The truth is that there is virtually no argument present to justify the current system. The laws were designed a long time when women were exempted from most of the work force and have since been abused and twisted by second and third wave feminists to empower themselves. Many new laws have since been created the ensure women have the option to support themselves, there is a plethora of welfare support for women. There is cheap birth control that women can take to ensure they can control when they want to have children. And an entire market has been created that's centered around getting women as much from a divorce as possible.

There is simply no need for many of these laws yet feminists, like yourself, argue that they are needed because some women, in some place at some time might be hurt without them, all the while ignoring all the men who are constantly taken advantage of because of these unfair laws.

Furthermore you claim women suffered and were oppressed while ignoring that men suffered far worse and were far more oppressed. You only focus on the top 1~20% of men who lived lavish privileged lifestyles whilst the remaining 80% were crushed under their heels. Compared to the average men, the average women had it much better. And yet you still demand reparations and more free stuff. You lament on how the average women has a worse lifestyle then the top 20% of men, while ignoring the bottom 80%.

And while it's not my fault your a hypocrite, I refuse to pull punches or be gentle with people's feelings.

I didn't even talk about laws once. You're putting words in my mouth.

No I didn't ignore anything. I countered the fact that people like you claim that everything women suffer is born from "feminist lies" but men are oh so desperate.

Again I never mentioned anything like this.

What age groups are you talking about? The mothers natural instincts only extend up to about age 5~7 which is when the child can survive without her presence. Around that age the male children would start following the tribal men around and learning from them. So I'll concede that women's natural intuition and social intelligence make them far better caregivers to very young children, but once the child, especially male children, are capable of doing things on their own, then it's men who are the better caregiver. And I was referring to the child abuse statistics. Mothers are the #1 abusers of children by a long shot, even when it's controlled for raw percentage. Take 10 single dads and 10 single moms and the single mom's children are more likely to suffer child abuse then the single fathers.

Due to social support structures it's down to pure financial numbers. Which parent has the most money to support the best education and quality of life without needing to steal from the other parent. The single divorced mother will still need to work just like the divorced father, there is no longer any difference between them yet due to feminists pushing primary caregiver policies we have a system that grossly favors the women.

Well, what do you do when you have boneheads who uphold the "Alpha" clap-trap, and diminish men who have nurturing qualities?

Lowered testosterone is biologically systematic of bonding for the benefit of family.

May as well add one out of the US.

I wonder how long Saveal's B-list is now?


<citationneeded.jpeg>

And from a reliable, non-MRA source, please.

This is so laughable. It's not even a humblebrag.

It's just you acting like a hardass when you're anything but.

So, when is Foneware going to start doing a Simpsons dump in here? I will enthusiastically join this time!

They also tend to be the primary caregiver (daily care) before divorce, which makes a large difference in the eyes of the law.

However, I would like to see any stats from those saying that the law defaults to mothers on how often fathers
A) try for sole custody
B) how often they lose
C) how often joint custody occurs (versus visitation) when they try for it

I have personal experience with a few circumstances where fathers didn't even try for custody and still ended up with joint custody (not visition, joint custody). They weren't opposed to said joint custody, they just felt the mother was better able to be a day-to-day caregiver.

Which isn't exactly the doom-and-gloom scenario depicted for men by some here. Anecdotal evidence is tricky, but if you're going to keep citing specific scenarios of crazy outcomes...may as well throw mine in.

Then again, not every divorce is a contentious money-grab either.

With how frequently some have said how terrible marriage is and it's just an excuse for women to grab money from men, they're the same people who wouldn't bat an eye at a company buying out another and laying off every employee there if it meant making more money, yet that would drastically alter so many more lives for the worse; not just the employed, but their entire families.

Their selective bias is astounding.

I don't think anywhere, anyone here has even supported the laws or practices they're worried about. I haven't seen anyone here say "absolutely, women should clean men out".

We're just saying they're playing chicken little over a few isolated cases, the kinds of cases they'd dismiss in another argument as "statistical anomalies".

While I couldn't find stats I did find a good resource that outlines state court decisions.

FYI: I'm not for/against marriage. I would never marry because of my personal experiences with finding my mates, with my last one pretty much destroying what's left of my heart. But that's me.

I don't believe that I would be in the "marriage is bad/horrible" group, but I do want to say that I would love to see from you a company that acquired another company, fired all of that company's employees and hired their own to replace them.

I also like how they don't wanna pay child support and at the same time don't want women to get custody.

So...? Child should suck it up and find a job I guess.

wat?

If they have custody, why should they pay for child support?

Not always replacing, just acquiring and liquidating old staff in some cases. Though replacing happens at times too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did GameStop not do this to EB?

I call BS on this. Fathers are just as capable of taking care of and raising children with love and care. Fathers are just as nurturing and caring as Mothers. This stigma where people think men aren't as capable to raise kids as women do needs to seriously stop.




I also call BS on this. This is so freaking stereotypical. My mom raised me by herself and she did all the things that my father (in such a stereotypical way) would probably do. She didn't need my father's support except when I was infant and she needed the child support but otherwise than that she was working hard and did a lot to take care of me and raised me with care and raising me to become the man I'm today. I didn't need my father, as I grew up to become MY OWN man. At the same time, I know that if things were reversed, my father (if he wasn't such a douchebag) would have done the same.


Society's norms can really burn in he** IMO. They have no real basis in today's world. Maybe that's how it was in the stone age, but not everyone follows these stereotypical norms that people constantly try to repeat.

I'm gay, and one day I will be married to my Mr. Right and if we decide to adopt, we of course will raise our child with love and care. But this whole men do the hunting/dangerous jobs/everything, while women do the childcare/stay at home/clean etc is total BS, especially since that typical line of thinking doesn't apply to everyone. I for one don't like a ton of dangerous work, I like the not so dangerous work, that's just how I'm, so don't group all men into whole "oh men are tough and strong so they should do all the dangerous jobs". Some men, don't like the dangerous jobs, some do, we are all different and not all of us are the same.


Not trying to derail this topic but for example: two men, and two women are just as capable of raising children. The children often times than not grow up to be healthy, respectful and well mannered adults. For example Both men could have jobs and adjust their work styles and still raise kids. Same can be said for women. Some women work in construction, lawyers, and some work those dangerous jobs that society's norms expect men to do. Women are just as capable to work dangerous jobs and still provide for their families. Women can still work and take care of their kids. Same with men.


No one has to follow ancient stereotypes.


Alot of people stereotype women as a gender that is weaker than men and therefor requires more special treatment/less dangerous work. This is also BS. While women don't have the stronger physical build of men, they ARE strong, they are far from weak, and the majority of women don't need/want special treatment because of their gender. They are more than capable of pulling their own weight in tough jobs. Have you forgotten the female police officers/firefighters who put their lives on the line to save lives?


Oh, and fun fact: Not all Men do dangerous work/hunting/etc, some like other professionals, some like working in fashion, hairstyling, culinary arts, teachers, etc. Not all men are the same, we are all different, our personalities are different, and our outlooks on life is different.



Not mine. And definitely not everyone's minds who are smart enough to see how ridiculous this ancient stereotype is. Your sentence has no bearing on everyone, so your sentence has no real meaning.


/rant over. Carry on folks.

He didn't mean you specifically, he meant other "radical feminists".

Acquiring/liquidating old staff in positions that became redundant (aka why would you need 2 full fledged accounting teams when 1 will do? Or why would you need 2 marketing teams when 1 will do?) But for the stores, why would they fire the staff on hand when all they have to do is buy the uniforms (that they will need to do anyway)?

What you are alluding to doesn't make sense businesswise. Mergers do not fire the old staff and replace it with the new, they consolidate the staff together and get rid of the excess baggage. Usually those who are under-performers and cannot deal with the new responsibilities. Which is one of the great things about businesses, and how they are so successful, by being efficient and getting the best people available on the job.

Also, there were no reported layoffs from the merger (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it didn't happen in a major scale, just trimming off dead-weight and redundant positions).

Who said that abnormalities doesn't exist? You gave anecdotal evidence in your case, but I'm talking about broad socialistic norms.

You are fixating on a specific, I'm generalizing the whole. Can you find any fault in my opinions without using anecdotal evidence?

Meh. Not exactly as you're making it sound. Suffice to say what you're calling "trimming excess and redundancies" is, in fact, downsizing staff and making others do more work for no increased pay, and in some cases for reduced pay.

But too far off topic in this already contentious thread, so I'll stop this line of discussion I guess.

The idea that men are incapable of raising kids is a recent thing coinciding with the rise of radical feminists. When I was a kid, my male role models were Indiana Jones, Captian Picard, Arnie, Bill Cosby, and the Fonz etc. Today what do we have? Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson (incompetent & irresponsible), Will & Grace, The Big Bang Theory (effeminate), Bill cosby & any episode of SUV (rapists & sexual deviants).

Taken our discussion to Random P&R because it does need to continue. You need to understand more about businesses instead of projecting your negativeness like you continue to do so.

You understand that these are caricatures, right? Wildly exaggerated images of traits that were witnessed in the first place, with few (though sadly not non-existent) real-world equivelants?

Much like Archie Bunker in his day?

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf

That's a website run by the US Government.

According to that report, and it was merely the first one I found on an official US government website (and not some 'MRA' source), 27.7% of all child neglect/abuse fatalities are the mother acting alone. 12.4% were the father acting alone (so a mother is more than twice as likely to kill their child via abuse than a father is -- and this is just deaths, not total injuries, or sexual abuse), and 24.6% were both parents acting together.

So, to recap: Mothers are a guilty party in 52.3% of all child abuse and neglect that results in a fatality. Fathers are a guilty party in 39% of all child abuse and neglect that results in a fatality. This is only acts that result in a death.

I actually took the time before posting to go find the relationship data. It's rather hard to find. Here is the link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf#page=61

Here is the table in question:



We can see from this that fathers are the sole abuser in 18.7% of cases. Mothers are the sole abuser in 36.6% of cases. So you are twice as likely to be abused by your mother alone than your father alone. Both parents are the abusers in 19.4% of cases. In 0.9% of cases does a father abuse a child with someone not the mother. In 5.9% of cases does a mother abuse a child with someone not the father.

This means that fathers are involved in 39% of parental child abuse. Note that ALL abuse involving fathers is only slightly higher than abuse involving JUST the mother. Mothers are involved in 61.9% of all parental child abuse. So the odds of your father abusing you, alone or with others, are only 6% higher than the chance that your mother will abuse you all by herself. And the chance that your father will be your abuser in any fashion is 63% of the chance that your mother will be your abuser in some fashion.

This is official United States government statistics. Considering that parental abuse is 81.5% of all the abuse, abuse involving just the mother amounts to 29.8% of all abuse of children. A child is more than 11 times more likely to be abused by their mother acting alone than a stranger. Period.

Women commit more child abuse than any other group. The random strangers you pass on the street are less likely to abuse a random child than that child's own mother. This hardly ever gets brought up. The prevailing societal view, pushed by the media and the government, is that men are dangerous pedophile rapists and you can't let them interact with your kids. Some airlines refuse to let a man sit next to a child -- even if the child is their own.

So yeah, there's no demonization of men in our society. Nope. None.

Compare Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin to Andy Griffith on the Andy Griffith Show.

Fathers, nowadays, are treated as bumbling, grunting simpletons (sometimes literally -- Hello, Home Improvement!) who are incapable of functioning without the help of their wise, patient wife.

Exaggerated stereotypes or not, there really is a very common trope of sitcom husbands/dads playing the part of the bumbling idiot that happens to have a down-to-earth wife (often more attractive than him, and often with temper issues). Aside from the ones you mentioned, you also have Everybody Loves Raymond, Modern Family, Malcolm in the Middle, The Munsters, According to Jim, The Flintstones, The Jetsons, and many more.

I piss out in the yard at night, & own two working toilets. sup.

While abuse and neglect are both intolerable (in my mind, at least), they aren't the same. Lumping both categories together is false equivalence (and misleading), even if the end result ends in a fatality.

Does it really matter in this argument?

Does this argument have any relevance? The same people trying to defend a female bias would never dream of using statistics to act upon any other individual assessment. You can't treat blacks as criminals because of crime stats. You can't treat asians as more intelligent because of IQ stats. You shouldn't be able to treat males(or females for that matter) as less worthy because of abuse stats.

Regardless of whether you conclude males or females are more likely to abuse their kids, gender shouldn't be weighed disproportionately in divorce court.