Deference. These days people are not so fast to automatically defer to a person just because he is a male. Like that asshat who says he will wait for your husband to discuss the new car because... well...

T.B.S.S.! (Too Bad So Sad)

Just as we defer to the rich solely because they are rich, we used to do this just because men expected it and it was considered 'proper'. I am glad this is dying out. It is overdue.

The work she’s been doing at home is still there. If she lives with people now she has to look around and see how her old jobs will be divided up. But oops they like it just the way it is now!! That turns out to be a pain in the Butt.

I had pneumonia and was sick in bed and he came home and demanded I cook him dinner. I got up and was so dizzy and sick. My mother came to check on me the next day and made me come to my family home for 3 days. My father who was a kind of imposing told him I needed to get better and needed help. The ex never checked in on me those three days. But being young and dumb and thinking because I was catholic I couldn’t get a divorce I stayed until I felt my life was in danger plus I was worn down. I was so happy after I left him.

And a year and half later I met my husband now of 35 years who cooks and cleans.

So glad you have found happiness with your current husband. There are definitely good ones out there.

He has spinal stenosis, unfortunately, but we're both old and I'm arthritic. So we have to make do as best we can.

Stuck with him!

Years later after I married my now husband I got a letter at my parents home from the ex requesting I sign annulment papers because I wasn’t supposed to use birth control as a catholic. I threw those papers in the garbage!

There's the lack of relationships (both romantic and otherwise) where we can express feelings, there's the financial shift that has meant men without a college degree have limited prospects financially, there's the male suicide rate, there's a shift in what it means to "be a man" in that we were socially supposed to be providers etc, and that's just not accessible to many of us, and how that sets us up to see ourselves as failures, but the only acceptable emotion for many men is anger so it gets reflected in violent actions.

I'm not saying that men don't have a lot of change to make to make our society better, but it's not nearly so simple as saying it's about deference. Yes, men have historically had that and it runs through other things, but pretending it's so easily dismissed isn't going to solve the problem.

... "deference" was but one issue among myriad others, but it is one particularly obvious problem that is the root of so many others.

For the record, I am a married white male in my late seventies, and Edmond, me bucko, I have seen some shit. I learned long ago that only weak men expect and demand such deference. And it is just such a brood of undeservedly proud BOYS, literally Trump's real enemies from within, that are about to take control of this country and go to afterburners to strip those they fear – starting with women because they're easy targets – of rights they've fought bravely for. The same rights that men have enjoyed for eons, but begrudge any and everyone else. I have ZERO respect for these malevolent meat socks with Y chromosomes, and even less sympathy.
REAL men stand beside, and fight for, the women of this country, and, indeed, the world. That is the only way to Make America Great Again.

What's preferable, ignoring them and losing, or acknowledging them and maybe winning some of them over?

Inclusion doesn't have to mean excluding those who traditionally have had power. But that's harder and less popular than just saying screw em.

... that would be handing them the keys to the narrative, and I ain't about to let that happen. And their limited intellectual capacity to engage in any dialogue that involves critical thinking has, on more than one occasion, devolved into physicality on their part. Not wise.
The room-temperature IQs in red hats that stoop to threatening a 77-year-old for not bending the knee before Lord Trump Almighty are not the sort you can ever "win over". They are malicious thugs beyond any hope of redemption, who'd carve their own eyes out with a rusty spoon before they'd ever admit they were wrong, and who contribute nothing of value to the gene pool.

Macho doesn't cut it, any more - the traditional male roles don't function well in these times, but the old guard is desperately trying to hang on to the old ways. And this doesn't work, either. Look at entertainment - movies that are escapism, essentially comic books, or movies about a "Hero" that conquers the bad guys. Simplistic, geared for 7th graders.. So some guy sees that and thinks he will be "the one", and whoops. reality sets in. Look at some music lyrics and how women are talked abut like they are objects. Republicanism is all about rules, who sets the rules and who has to obey the rules. And women must obey, because they are considered to be "less" than men.
Some men will not adapt, some will fight for the old ways, some will see the reality.

I said it was changing and I was glad of it. Maybe I should have specified that I was pointing out one aspect of the issue, not that I was offering an entire description of the issue.

And much lower cost education.

That being said, I am worried to death about my niece going way down south for graduate school, Kentucky is bad enough, but Lexington is a pretty good city and she is only a half-hour from home and has many good friends at UK, and did from the start since she was from a town down the road. I just see some MAGA hat young man attacking her in my mind.

Too bad for them because the very jackasses they voted for want to stop porn, because...they are busybodies with nothing better to do.

Porn will still be there. At most it will be monitored and used to shut up anyone who seems to be getting out of line.

The more women who are baby trapped young, the less competition for spots in good schools, jobs and careers. Which of course is the whole point.

So what are they worried about? Everything’s going their way.

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2024, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Many are filthy and have zero interesting to even try and start a conversation. Even guys in the 70th and 80th percentile of looks are having it tough as women are finally getting very choosy and not just dating the first guy to ask them out. Then these men get caught up by hucksters telling them BS about how to be a "player" and other predatory dating theories, which are all but useless towards getting a good mate. These twirps have no clue about socialization or anything cultural and their only information about dating is TV, Cinema and Pornography, with a heavy influence from the porn.

Then they turn around minutes later and say they were “just kidding” or they aren’t that much into Trump.

because they can go on out and earn their own livings, and lead much more interesting lives than they would tied to some toad.

So what is a poor toad to do?

Well he has two choices. He can get an education or learn a trade. He can read books. He can travel. He can meet a nice woman in a cute little hotel in Guadalajara and they can talk about where they’re from and where they’ve been. He can volunteer at an animal shelter. He can try to become an interesting person.

Or he can sit in his room staring at a screen and blaming the women who are out having lives for not settling for him. Which seems to be the popular choice.

But nobody gave those women their lives. They worked damned hard, often against terrible odds, for them.

No reason the toads can’t do the same.

That doesn't seem to coincide with what I see in the real world. Lotta really scuzzy dudes seem to do just fine in terms of dating women, even having ltr with them.

Now.. dudes have trouble finding the submissive supermodel chaste pornstar homemaker financial provider of their fantasy's, sure.

But being unable to date seems unlikely to me. Not in a world where 54% of white women voted for trump.

That may be what they believe, but I think they will be disappointed. Here's the thing: let's stipulate that the billionaires and other wealthy capitalists bought and paid for the GOP and spent quite a bit of cash to win this election. They are not cretins: they know that the larger the labor pool, the less value labor has, and hence the less they have to pay for it. I really don't think that these monied interests are terribly worried about the amour-propre of the bros they propagandized into voting the way they wanted them to. Mind you, I am of the opinion that everything the GOP says is a lie designed to manipulate vulnerable target groups. But the expansion of the labor pool which gained momentum in the 1970's with women's rights and equal rights for minorities made labor dirt cheap, and thus led to major profits for the consumers of labor. They would not want to lose that advantage, especially as labor costs are pretty significant to the bottom line.

That said, we need to consider that the corporations don't use as much American labor as they once did, preferring to farm it out to countries where it is even cheaper than here. So if a few women or minorities fall through the cracks, it's no skin off their nose. But I believe that a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of the promises made by the GOP candidate will be unfulfilled, because their masters the moneymen do not want them to be. They were just bullshit to get people to vote for them.

-- Mal

(ACTUALLY - OOPS, I thought that said "what about MEEEE" - missed the N - but this song could still apply I guess)

Biden won women 57-42 in 2020.

Harris won them 53-45.

She did worse than Hillary too.

So, maybe the same problems that led to a shift among male voters also led to that shift among women voters. Might not be smart to just outright dismiss everything you don't like.

Who will throw other women underneath the bus just to get crumbs from men because they are too lazy or incompetent to do it on their own or they were raised to worship men. These are male identified type of women and they are toxic.

Because I promise you, Democrats will never win another presidential election winning the women vote by eight-points nationally.

In the end, they want someone on the same level as them and who might challenge them. The men who are “less than” can’t compete and give up.

I think it is BS>

What we know is that Harris finished with the lowest popular vote margin of any Democratic candidate since Kerry in 2004.

There’s the Electoral College, which it is evidently easy to game. There’s the popular vote, which apparently is virtually meaningless.

Then there’s Trump’s yuuuuge landslide — which gets smaller and smaller as the days go by. But hey, he announced he won by a landslide within hours of the polls closing, that’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

And Kamala conceded. So here we are.

The popular vote isn't virtually meaningless as Trump will win it along with the electoral college.

As of right now, Harris has the lowest vote total for a Democratic candidate since Clinton in 1992. We'll see if she's able to beat out Kerry. But she absolutely did lose votes among women voters. That's a fact. She wouldn't have lost the popular vote if she won by the same margins as Biden and Clinton in 2020 and 2016 respectively.

Considering she probably did better than Joe Biden would have had he stuck around.

Just because you don't agree with a point, doesn't make it appropriate to insult other posters.

I've noticed this tendency of some recently new posters here. Just a suggestion, perhaps stop and think before hitting the Post button - is your post really worded in the way intended? Or perhaps the antagonism is by design?

You don't think it's antagonistic to say the only reason she lost was because racists voted for Trump?

Trust me: Harris did about 7 points better than Biden would have done. If Harris lost because of racism and sexism, why was Biden on track to lose? He was a white man.

It's lazy to say it because it doesn't get to the root problem. You're not going to solve the issue that led to Harris' defeat if you claim the only reason she lost was because she was a woman of color. That isn't the only reason - or the main reason - she lost.

She did worse than Biden across the board. THAT has to be figured out or I promise you, the next Democrat will lose too - even if they are a white male.

...you shouldn't be surprised when someone assumes that's their thought.

Go re-read the posts, friend.

I didn't mention racism at all in my post the person replied to citing racism. If they don't want me to assume that they're claiming racism is the only reason Harris lost, they shouldn't mention it - or if they do, not mention just racism in a discussion where I said nothing about racism in the first place.

I mentioned racism solely because that's the ONLY thing the person responding to me claimed cost Harris the election (in response to a post of mine where I said dick about racism).

I'm sorry you are struggling to comprehend that.

Biden was white and was going to lose. QED being a white man is not a factor.

Biden was a white man who was under attack by both the opposition and the press for being on the feather edge of institutionalization. That may have had something to do with how poorly he was doing. As for how poorly he would have done in the general, well, you're asserting as fact something that is, at best, informed opinion.

It's pretty lazy to claim that no white man would have won, because there's really no way to know.

Harris did worse among black women than Hillary in 2016.

She did worse among Hispanic women than Biden and Hillary.

She did worse among Black men than Biden and Hillary.

She did way worse among Hispanic men than Biden and Hillary.

Fine. You're right. Black men are racist. Hispanic women are racist.

That's a helluva argument to win voters over. Good fucking luck with that.

In your previous posts in this thread, you were rightly emphasizing the importance of facts. I suggest it were best to stay with them.

-- Mal

Take Slotkin and Baldwin. They won and Harris lost in their states. Both of them were as associated to the administration as anyone. Both are white.

…but I’ve had enough sparkling wine that I don’t really give a shit….the motherfucker cheated and Leon helped him. Thank you.

Even though other female demographics voted overwhelmingly for Harris, that number is meaningless since it is an insignificant number of the total. Lots of misplaced anger in the op. I am still baffled by how many people voted against their own best interest.

https://www.statista.com/chart/33408/female-male-us-voters-exit-polls/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/election-trump-harris-women-voters

Trump won white women handily in 2020 too.

He won white women 55-44 over Biden.

In fact, Harris did *BETTER* among white women than Biden did. Trump won this group 53-46. That means he went from +11 in 2020 to only +6 in 2024.

So, how did she do worse among women overall than Biden in 2020?

Well Biden won Hispanic women 69-30 in 2020 and Harris won them 58-39. That's basically a ten-point swing.

She lost ground on 'other' women too (likely Asian and other races). In 2020, Biden won this group 58-38. Harris, though? 49-47. Yet another non-white group shifting to Trump.

And Harris did worse among Black women than Hillary in 2016. Hillary won Black women 94-4. Harris won them 92-7. That's not a huge difference but the margins hurt.

The fact is, the electorate overall shifted to the right. Black men voted more for Trump than four years ago (19% for Trump in 2020 and 21% in 2024), Hispanic men shifted significantly (Harris lost the vote 54-44 after Biden won it 59-36 in 2020) and it is important to ask WHY those voters shifted.

Maybe some of it was racism and sexism but we know Black men overwhelmingly supported Hillary. She won this group 82-13. In three election cycles, Black men went from 13% support for Trump to 21%.

The margins? Hillary won Black men by 69% in 2016. In 2024? Harris' margin was 56%.

That's a difference of 13 points.

Not HUGE but it kinda is because Democrats only win when the margins with minorities is sky high.

Did Black men become more sexist since 2016? No. We saw the movement four years ago. Biden did worse among Black men than Hillary.

THIS IS a legitimate concern and we need to figure it out. I do agree with your claim about the OP being misguided, tho.

Just look at Pennsylvania.

In 2020, Biden won Black voters 92-7.

In 2024, Harris won Black voters 89-10.

The Democrats went from a +85 margin in 2020 to +79 margin.

I don't find a six-point swing miniscule. That's pretty significant and probably why Harris lost Pennsylvania.

Harris did six-points worse than both Hillary and Biden among Black voters in Pennsylvania.

On top of that, Black voters were 11% of the voting population in Pennsylvania in 2020. Four years later? 7%.

So, not only was there a decrease in margins, Blacks made up four-points fewer of the overall vote than four years ago.

You couple that together and it's not miniscule. It's devastating and likely a direct reason she lost that state - including the significant shift among Hispanic voters.

In fact, Harris did BETTER in the margins vs white voters than Biden in 2020.

Trump won white PA voters 56-44 vs Harris. Against Biden? 57-42.

Trump went from +15 to +12 in four years.

Literally the reason Harris lost PA was because minority voters shifted to Trump. Had she won Black and Hispanic voters at the level Hillary did in 2016, she would have won Pennsylvania.

I pointed out Pennsylvania to show that you were wrong. It wasn't just one like you claimed.

Now we're at two.

Let's do Michigan next!

In 2020, Biden won the Black vote in Michigan 92-7. Harris? 87-11. So, we see a very similar shift like in PA. Biden was +85 and Harris +76. This time, though, the margin was bigger than a six-point swing. In overall margin, Harris did nine-points worse than Biden among Black voters there.

That's pretty significant.

Black turnout was also down, albeit not as much as in Pennsylvania. In 2020, they made up 12% of the Michigan electorate. In 2024? 11%.

Similarly, Harris actually improved among white voters compared to Biden. In 2020, Trump won white voters in Michigan 55-44. In 2024? 54-44. So, from +11 to +10. Not a significant difference but again, likely a state Harris wins if she equals Biden's total with Black voters from 2020.

That's now three states where there was a decent enough shift ... and lo and behold, that's the election right there. Harris wins all three and she wins the presidency.

In the three must-win states for the Harris campaign, they did worse among Black voters than Biden.

That's the story of the election. If Harris had done as well as Biden did among Black and Hispanic voters, she would have won the presidency.

I see this a lot. I suggest that if people appear to be voting "against their best interests," they might just see those interests differently from what you do. And voted accordingly.

-- Mal

Can you just imagine the unbelievable arrogance, the total lack of self-awareness for someone to appear on national television and actually say THAT - "Millions of women who didn't vote the way I wanted them to are just morons who need proper guidance from their intellectual betters like ME".

I’ve seen this movie before. I know how it ends. I’m continually baffled at how easily human beings can be manipulated. Some things aren’t a matter of opinion, they are facts. But yeah, dogs will eat poisoned hamburger not knowing it’s against their own self interest. The fact that it will kill them isn’t up for debate. That’s kinda where I’m coming from.

any small edge that an individual black person might get for being black, say a desire for a prestigious university to have a diverse culture so when faced with two excellent candidates they will take the person who had to overcome racism. Poor widdle wite boi who didn't get accepted to Harvard! Waaah!

I think the current griping about men's "issues" is at least a little like that.

As with blacks, but in different ways, women have always been oppressed in this country. As soon as the oppressed get a little bit of equity in a few spaces, the oppressors are gonna b*tch about their loss of privilege. Of course they won't frame it that way; they don't recognize their privilege for what it is in the first place.

Guess they'll have to work hard and earn their place, just like women and minorities have had to do. It's debatable of course if this country is a meritocracy (RFK, Jr surely took some qualified student's place at Harvard for just one example).

The colleges from using affirmative action. It wasn’t the Caucasians.

I bet that'd be news to him!

Destroyed by the insane results of the 2016 election as well.

And the right’s war on women continues.

So yeah.

... are not enjoying the same white privileges that their feckless fathers did.

Young men fall into 2 camps; those very comfortable outside gender norms and stereotypes and those who are deeply resistant to changing gender roles and norms.

Men used to have to conform to being the breadwinner and being uninvolved in family life. They were taught to not show emotion, never ever cry. Everyone had a very clear part to play. They weren’t authentically themselves. They built a veneer….wore a mask.

Some young men somehow knew of how things used to be (not sure if it was TV, parents or other social conditioning). They would much prefer the veneer. Everything would be so clear for them if they could wear the mask and be an inauthentic character, where they knew who to be (even if it meant keeping women as second class citizens). Why?

Because at least then they wouldn’t be judged on their most authentic version of themselves. To be vulnerable, show their emotions, being very honest with the people in their lives….all that is terrifying. Women might reject who they REALLY are. And that scares them.

When young men are fearful of being authentic, it means that they don’t love themselves deep down inside. If they loved themselves, they’d be secure. They wouldn’t fear that judgement. They could be vulnerable and handle any rejection because they know they’re great and many people will love them for who they are (just not everyone).

Little do men know that being authentic is what most women want. Most of us find it endearing. ❤️. That’s what intimacy is built on.

It’s really tempting to judge these young Gen Z-ers from our own sense of victimization. But, I’ve giving up being a victim of anything. We will figure it out as a group.

If there’s one way to describe MAGA, young or old, it’s as a group that has a lot of self loathing. They turn it outward on everyone else. I’m choosing compassion instead. That doesn’t mean we ought not try to make the world a better place, but fundamentally, if we want more love in the world, we need to be more loving to others.

I know many of you will find this impossible though. No judgements.

In the spirit of your argument, women also fall into two camps, which we may call the traditional and modern, for the nonce. And what the modern women have difficulty grasping is that a whole lot of women like the traditional roles. "Women" are no more monolithic than "men." I can't help feeling that one reason so many were surprised by the most recent vote was because they thought that "women" would act as a bloc to oppose the (truly dreadful) principles of the Right.

I'd also modify the description of the "traditional" men somewhat. Using the Incels as the most glaring example of the most misogynistic of men, I've tried to figure out where their anger comes from. And what I've come up with is that they resent women who don't play by the "rules." The Incel believes that if he follows the script, conducts himself as the Rules say he should, that the woman he desires should automatically swoon and give him what he wants. They pride themselves on their adherence to the code, to the Rules they probably have been brought up to believe are right and just. A woman who perversely refuses to adhere to expectations is thus not simply expressing her right to her own life and choices, but is wrongfully depriving them of the just reward for all their hard work. Yes, that's ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it isn't what they believe. At any rate, this willful perversity, this unfair denial, is a betrayal of all that is good and true, and arouses great anger, even to the point of deadly violence (for which the other incels applaud them). Unfortunately for the incels (and other "traditional" men), there are fewer women who adhere to their code of conduct than there once were, and a growing percentage who not only do not adhere to the code, but mock it. There may not be enough "traditional" women to go around anymore, or it may be that the men find themselves operating in circles outside of their cozy expectations, and thus having to deal with women who don't subscribe to their crap. Hell, just attending a major university (as opposed to one of those little "Christian" colleges where the traditions are maintained) is going to rock their worlds: an educated and intelligent woman is unlikely to even know the Rules anymore, nevermind adhere to them. But to adapt and recognize that the rules they cherish are obsolete (and fairly ridiculous) is beyond them; even suggesting that they so adapt is an affront and offense, because the Rules are the Rules, they are the way things are supposed to be. I think this accounts for a lot of the anger (and violence against women) we're seeing. It is more than just pathetic insecurity, it is outraged convention.

-- Mal

Certainly not for any length of time because they KNOW to do so makes them extremely vulnerable financially. Few families can afford it. The economy can't afford it.

Besides, it isn't "traditional" for women to stay home and not be in the labor force in some capacity. The 1950s were a complete aberration, brought about because of the desire to give jobs back to the returning servicemen from World War II. They freed up jobs by kicking women out. There was nothing "traditional" about it. Women by the millions were completely miserable being stuck at home with a horde of screaming kids and their brains turning to mush.

Women have always brought in money and have done so for millennia.

I think it is pretty clear that there is a perception of accepted roles for women that does not include individuality or personal security. It's not universally accepted now, and that is causing friction, because there are areas in which it is still the perceived norm. I'm also pretty well convinced that women who have escaped the shackles of this convention do not quite believe that there are other women who like it just fine.

-- Mal

worked all her life and made all her own decisions. To rely on a man is unthinkable to me. I won’t bore you with why.

I can certainly believe that there are plenty of women who would choose otherwise. I don’t know many, because as a full time working woman I tend to meet women like me, but a friend of mine has a few young relatives who think like this.

They will tell you they are not liberated and just want a man to take care of them. They are in their early twenties. They are Trump voters. Of course my friend is worried for them, which is why I know about it. But there is nothing she can do. That is their choice, and we both hope it works out for them.

While knowing deep down where they are headed. Because while there may be lots of men who want the same, there are few who can afford it. Especially when kids come.

So she will ask them “What is your backup plan? What if that doesn’t happen?” Blank stares.

And these are young women with educational opportunities. I can certainly see why a young girl in rural Arkansas would dream of a knight in shining armor rather than a job in a chicken processing plant.

And if the knight turns out to be an abusive drunk who bathes once a month whether he needs it or not - well at least she’s got a man.

It’s not until she’s older that she figures out you get to go home from the plant, but the wrong man is wrong 24/7.

The reverse is a fact. You are not just a "caregiver" for kids--you are a caregiver for a man baby.

The fact is staying home and raising kids are not "traditional roles." It is aberrant and always was.

I think a person has to live through the era of the fifties and sixties to know this is true.

They see this, and don’t want it for themselves. Then they go online and see “stay-at-home-girlfriends”, and believe what they see - that it’s all about going to the gym and getting your makeup on before your guy gets home.

To them, a man is a ticket out of the workplace.

They have no idea what financial dependence really means, and will have to learn for themselves.

It also carries with it a faint stigma of disapproval or even arrogance.

There are whole communities and institutions that teach 24/7 that the fantasy 50s of little homemaker and man-provider are not just "traditional," but normal, and that any aberration therefrom is abhorrent and possibly an abomination before God. It does not matter one percent that these perceptions have no basis in reality. It is inculcated throughout their communities and families, and it is self-perpetuating as long as these people have control of education (via school boards) and of the narrative.

If you want to call it "brainwashing," then you have to call whatever is taught elsewhere brainwashing, too. But just as the right accuses liberal educators of conditioning their students with librul ideas, so they equally condition their children with their own ideas.

-- Mal

The truth of the matter is the 1950s "roles" for women were an aberration because there was a desire by companies and by government to 1) free jobs up for men when they returned from WWII, and 2) to get the birthrate up. The federal government tinkering with the income tax to give preference to married people (which shouldn't be) and the GI bill were just two examples of how this forcing women back into the home worked and was encouraged. There was also wholesale firing of women in manufacturing jobs. This were not "traditional" but social engineering.

Despite the era being crappy for women (to say nothing of minorities and gay/lesbian people), it still has some bizarre hold on the public.

I am talking about the U.S. here and the West in general, but even in agricultural societies, women didn't sit around and not contribute to bringing in money for the household.

I suggest people read The Feminine Mystique (1963) by Betty Friedan to get an understanding of how absolutely shitty the 1950s were. Those of us who lived through the fifties and the majority of the 1960s know how shitty they were.

That which is considered "traditional" or "accepted" by some segments of the population is based on complete fantasy, but it nevertheless it is considered "traditional" or "accepted" among them, and they will react as though tradition has been violated if people do not act in accordance with their fantasies.

-- Mal

is they have an entire political party pimping for them

was #metoo when they were being held to account and then it snowballed after that.

I consider it the "Ken" syndrome.

... generating a lot of press (and rightfully so) about women's rights to healthcare, bodily autonomy and economic equality might not have filtered through their personal "algorithms" to seem especially relevant to them. "Yeah, okay, but what's in it for me?" By that point, especially as low information, low attention voters, they wouldn't have bothered sifting through to find the economic messages, etc. I think a lot of men probably don't see themselves affected by what they may simply regard as "women's problems," which is woefully inaccurate and short-sighted -- but that's what we get for having a society that doesn't sufficiently value critical thinking skills and empathy.

=================

that child support goes on for 18 years. Unplanned pregnancies DO affect the man unless he’s at the very bottom of the economic ladder and able to disappear. But if he has anything like a regular W-2 job, the courts will come for him. If the mother can find him, he will be made to pay. Eventually. One way or another. Not always. But usually.

So what the heck do they think they are signing up for? Yes, single mothers pay the highest price in money and time, but dad doesn’t get off scott free. Do they consider themselves so unlikely to have actual sex with a real woman ever in their lives that becoming a dad unexpectedly just isn’t in the realm of possibility?

THANK YOU!

Watch some YouTube shorts videos. The women create videos with humor, no mean streak in the videos, just pure humor, or they post uplighting shorts.


The young men....they often post stupid memes poking fun of women, or criticizing some woman about cheating when they are the ones who cheat. They love villifying women when we are not even thinking about their insecure selves, just going on about our business. They are just pissed today's women don't worship the ground they walk on. Many young men are fragile entitled insecure creatures full of ego, they think they deserve the world when they have done absolutely nothing to warrant such admiration.

animals, recipes, or movies and tv shows. But I see enough in the comments on political topics to see some of what you are describing. Very disturbing.

... and I wish the YT algorithm were better at screening out the crap from my feed. Same with Facebook. It's like their algorithm thinks "oh, you're a guy, therefore you must like softcore porn pictures of women with big butts."

-- Mal

... they are fewer than the men, but in a way more offensive, since there is a whiff of treason about their attitudes. Mind you, that scent comes from thinking that "women" are a single bloc, which is untrue; nevertheless it is hard to control the instinctive revulsion. Anita Bryant may have single-handedly killed the ERA back in the late 70s, although that's arguably too simplistic.

-- Mal

The male identified ones with special snowflake syndrome "I'm not like the other girls" types? Oh yeah, they are definitely there.

it (and creepy male role models like Tate) tell these young boys how they ought to be as men and it's completely the opposite of what women want

No the hell we don't, at least not us grown women. We love a man with an edge but also has some compassion.

I’ve heard the same thing from many women in my generation (baby boomers). Don’t know if that’s still a thing. Many men who were “nice guys” would also complain about it.

The men who claim to be "nice guys" are weirdos, lames, or passive aggressive and that repels women.

Truly nice guys don't have to scream from the rooftops that they are nice guys.

With are pretty liberal. A lot used to be Republican but have changed. So they might be the last batch of real “nice guys.” Most of the guys currently in their 20’s and 30’s - I think most are “far gone.”

we need to beat down the patriarchy. Patriarchy hurts men in many ways (not as much as it hurts women, of course). So if men want improvement in their lives, they should support women’s rights!

Hopefully families will begin teaching young boys the values of liberated equality.

for all the women and girls they rape, molest, who no longer have access to human rights or medical care.

Wonder if they thought that through?

true.

It's disgusting. Infuriating. And the worst part is how many women still seem to buy into it.

-- Mal

I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had an inappropriate interaction with some dude especially on-line. Not one.

You ask if there are there serious issues for young men in this country?

I would say that there are there serious issues about young men in this country. We need to address the issue of young men being whipped into a frenzy of paramilitary violence not because they are at risk but rather because we are.

Every school year, I read at least one news article about a Catholic or right-wing elementary school sending out dress code warnings to parents. Girls are not allowed to wear certain types of clothing because “it will excite the boys.”
Little boys are indoctrinated to believe that girls are to blame for the excited behavior of boys. This is why those dirty, old, white men in red state legislatures are writing the antiabortion laws.
Here is more context: 21st Century dirty, old, white guy Sam Alito, in his majority opinion, quoted a 17th Century dirty, old, white guy, Mathew Hale. Hale also wrote: If women are accorded bodily autonomy, it will limit the freedom of men (paraphrase).
I take all this antiabortion talk and legislation very personally. As a young mother, I had emergency surgery to remove a dead fetus because of an ectopic pregnancy. I, and other women like me who have had crisis pregnancies, are now labeled murderers and threatened with prison and execution.
One of those dirty, old, white men in a red state legislature stood up before his colleagues and stated that the children involved in ectopic pregnancies should not be killed because the pregnancy can be placed back in the womb. Idiot! He could not pass a 3rd Grade science test!
As a non-Catholic, I married a guy who claimed to be a nonpracticing Catholic. This was a plausible claim because, years earlier, his two older siblings had left the church. However, he continues to practice his Catholic indoctrination. This past summer while shopping in Walmart, he motioned to a woman walking in front of us, and said, “Those shorts are inappropriate.” What!! I walked behind the woman for several feet, trying to figure out what was inappropriate. They were plain, ordinary denim shorts with stitched decorations on the back pockets! Nothing inappropriate!
Anyone who has taken a junior high science course knows that there are two partners in a pregnancy: a man and a woman. These stupid, old, mostly white men writing the antiabortion laws turn science on its head and blame just the woman for abortion.
Little boys must be taught that they, and only they, are responsible for their “excited” behavior and the consequences of such.