Male supremacy is bullshit and i am very much living proof. Im not going to trade my humanity to 'please or keep a man'. I know that women and men should operate as a team and not as one being superior to another. I get shit for it sometimes but i dont give a rats ass. I do what i want when i want to (within reason) and any pud who tries to put stupid restraints on me i will dump like a bad habit. Real men wont want to enslave a woman but will love and respect her as he would his own self.
Men are inherently powerful, controlling, and provider. u'r not living proof of that, u'r living in a motherfucking lie. I'm a REAL man, can u take that from me i'd fucking slit ur throat. play ur role, and u'll see real manhood.
Ever read the book 1984, it sounds chillingly similar to modern life if you ask me. They support women and encourage women to report men. They watch you with their cameras to make sure your doing what they want you to do. They use your children as weapons against you. They tell you one thing when the truth is another. And they brainwash you and make you hate yourself. Feminism is not a rights movement, its an excuse for them to control and looking at you they have said control.
If you ignorantly stand up for feminism, you stand up for female supremacy in sheep's clothing. Who is really oppressed, men or women? Search: youtube the myth of women's oppression. The pay gap is totally bogus, which you sucked up as designed) and a lie and a half: Search: Equality - The Pay Gap
1:53 Not tapping your full human resource? What about all those smart and capable classmates of mine, who were disempowered by feminist teaching in school. What about the ones who never made it? Girls got a leg up by down-treading boys.
Well I dont really think arguseyes missed any points, the basic theme is that men and women are different and as such will make different choices in there life. Legislating sexist policies such as affirmative action or tittle XI is the problem, you cant force equal outcomes for people who are not equal...that was the main flaw of communism.
You'll find that ArgusEyes is consistently dishonest in representing what feminism is and what it stands for. Also, his libertarian bias gets in the way of having a coherent discussion of the subject because he puts an equal sign between Marxism and feminism.
btw, contrary to the title of this video, feminism is not good for men's rights. men have no rights with regard to women or even their own biological children thanks to feminism. there's strong resistance against any attempt at making positive change, again, thanks to feminism.
spacemonkey have you heard of evolutionary psychology? that personality and behavioral traits are genetic and subject to evolutionary forces just like everything else in biology?
to defend arguseyes i would say that women have a built-in biological drive to have children and be mothers. this is what leads them to make the choices which bring with it lower pay. I have more circumstantial evidence that this is probably the real cause than you do with your socialization idea
Do you honestly believe that every woman is hardwired to want children? How do you explain that many women don't want children?? Or do you just ignore them, because they don't fit your theory? Also, what choices do women make to being about lower pay? When the government looks at at the difference in pay between the sexes, they are looking at full time workers. Also, mothers make less money that non-mothers who have equal resumes. How is that due to biology?
no you don't say "every woman" you said "women" Did you mean to say that only certain "women have a built-in biological drive to have children and be mothers"?
You have yet to give me biological reasons for why some women don't want to have children. Oh and thanks for telling me that I am programmed to have children, I wasn't aware.
Just a heads up Jamaican, VBrit is a brainwashed sexist incapable of understanding simple logic, much less the complex nuances of reality. After I pointed out flaws in his arguments he decided to let out his inner first grader and call me names while ignoring every thing I said.
Notice how this guy believes "equality of outcome" is important in cases where women are belieed to be inadequately represented. But, if we shifted the issue toward issues such as Equal Parenting, or, Equal Lifespan, or, equal numbers of male Teachers, or, stopping male bashing in the media. .
What makes you think I don't believe in taking equality seriously in all the areas you mention as well?
Treatment of people as individuals with expectations based on their individual choices and abilities is what I think is important regardless of their sex. There are negative results for both men and women from the socialization prevalent today.
it's equality of outcomes vs equal opportunity, just to clarify it for you. equal opportunity is where every individual from any background, race or sex is free to make a choice to determine their own future. equal outcomes on the other hand is an evil concept which requires government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (usually to satisfy a feminist) so that every position in society is equally represented.
@Spacemonkey2084 - what you fail to understand is the gravity of your words as they relate to the ears upon which they fall. To a feminist you represent a modern enlightened man, while at the same time to a MRA you represnet what is wrong with many men today. So until you can conceptualize that the ethos of your statement is your statement regardless of the words you use, you will forever be running uphill.
@supersumdude "man haters" ?? I love men. Feminism is not about hating men at all, and lots of men are feminists as well. Maybe you should learn about what feminism really is before you throw stereotypes around :)
How about equal pay? Or ending violence against women? Ending victim blaming in rape cases. Putting women in positions of power. Or putting coloured women in positions of power? Freedom and control over our own bodies? Break gender roles that restrict us (and men). Just to name a few things..
wow, that's quite a laundry list of demands. the trouble is that each of these demands is ridiculous in some way or another.
for instance, equal pay is a silly thing to demand when women already have it. it is against federal law to pay women less than men, with severe penalties for violations. more puzzling is why would a company ever hire men if it could get away with paying women less?
good point made. im sure the difference they see in pay is general, like time taken off from pregnant woman and so on. much like mans lower life expectantcy is taken from man who die earlier (war, firman, police ect). technicalities but in reality they are the same individually
both genders feed this problem. ive seen many woman who wont leave abusive situations. man rape but many woman use rape to hide their shame from potentially public embarrasment from sex situations (like the hofstra case i pointed out). woman have control over their bodies in west hemisphere yet porn is billion dollar business and there r many prostitutes and pregnant woman with a grocery list of potential fathers. and gender roles is what built every modern civilization so if it aint broke...
You cite anecdotal life experience to support the conclusion that women who achieve more also feel more oppressed/disadvantaged.
You seem to be arguing that making women feel week, vulnerable, or disadvantaged actually empowers them rather than setting them up for failure.
Is that what you think?
Or could it be that ambitious and successful women have a higher opinion of themselves and thier lifestyle, which they want to promote, and dont understand how other women could think differently.
My experience, is that feminism only focuses on womens rights and no focus to oppression or inequality towards men.
The problem with getting off the proverbial ass, is that opportunity needs to be in place or you will just be struggling for a pipe dream and it will not matter if your smiling.
I find people that have had alot of opportunity,tend to speak with inexperience and have an unrealistic understanding of the world around them.
I agree that I think society would be best served by individuals focusing on the negative aspects of the socialization we're all raised in for both men and women. I think this gives a more complete picture and makes solutions more likely.
I don't think the need for understanding for men makes feminism wrong however. I think it's focus is too narrow but I agree with it's concepts generally.
"I don't think the need for understanding for men makes feminism wrong however. I think it's focus is too narrow but I agree with it's concepts generally."
Agreed to a degree. The root of feminism sure enough started for equality. Yet it also segregates further, and creates segregative thinking(us and them).
We also have to look at the issue of radical feminism, which is indeed wrong and is the problem.
I am all for equal rights, yet that is not what feminism has come to represent.
@LIONOFTHEBRAVE The reason why feminism focuses on women's rights, especially women of color rights, is because men have all gender-specific privileges afforded in our society and most around the world.
I should think that's obvious. There would be no sexism if men and women were discriminated equally.
Also, if you did not notice women diverted the entire stimulus package to themselves. Google "No Country for Burly Men" to see for yourself of what feminists did to the stimulus package. 80% of jobs lost were to men, many of which have ex-wives to support under penalty of prison or exorbitant interest rates if they do not produce money at full capacity. These men can't take lower pay or just any job.
READ the article, and you tell me why women did this???? WHY? THIS IS FEMINISM !!!
Why it is that Harvard donated $50,000,000 to promote women only. Why do we have affirmative action (sanctioned discrimination against men) title IX gender parity policy, women only loans, full scholarships, grants etc. Why do we as a society have to give women extra privileges???
Why do we do this when women acquire 60% of all college degrees and it is men who need help if anything??
Feminism in my experience and in my Women's Studies class is all about victimology and "patriarchy"
Amen, preach it, feminists are all wretched because they support female "rights", they don't support equality. If they were humanists or civil rights activists, it would be different.
... This was very clearly covered in the video. I'm not sure why I'm explaining it again to you but please, try to follow along,
Changing perceptions of women in terms of their capability means more individuals will be likey to pursue careers in areas they have aptitude in. Warped perception of ability leads individuals to choose not to enter some fields.
Some women are very successful. That's good. Now lets ensure that we aren't only getting the ones least effected by damaging socialization.
Calling me sexist names like bitch don't make you right. Be mature and make a point with evidence, not silly rhetoric.
Now, would you like to say that again?
And women have been discriminated and oppressed much more than men in history and still to this day. The constitution still says "all MEN are created equal." last time I checked, I was not a man. Women's breasts are censored as if we are animals, but a man's nipples are not. And sadly, those are just a few.
1. Men get genitally mutilated at birth by some pedophiles hiding behind a medcal degree, molested, tortured and robbed of the most sensitive part of their bodies( the foreskin -> more than 20,000 nerve endings, clitoris only around 8,000), whereas women get complete protection and enjoy complete intact bodies!
2. Men get conscripted, forced to serve in militaries, and die on the front line or go to jail whereas women are free to get on with ther lives.
1 - Women and men are victims in this way equally.
2 - That's true, but the government is overwhelmingly male, and if they wanted to change that draft law, they definitely would have by now. That's also discrimination against women. A lot of women would not mind being drafted.
1) Statistics are not proof of anything. The governments around the world make up the statistics and can easily manipulate the numbers to whatever they want them to be.
So as of now, let us please leave statistics out of this conversation. Thank you.
Like I said before, using sexist words like whore and bitch do NOT make your point nay more correct. In fact it makes you look much less intelligent. If you're going to continue accusing me of false things, I am not going to engage in this argument.
3 - Over 70% of cases when the man testifies to regain custody of his children, he wins. The man is not "thrown on the street," and if he was, who's fault would that be? His, not his wife's.
4 - There are not as many men as women who are captured. And you have no proof that women are not tortured.
5 - Really? Please show proof. Because I highly doubt that.
6 .. "Men also typically endure harsher penaties than women. " is an opinion. It's sad that you can't distinguish between an opinion and a fact. I'll help you out: a fact has evidence to back it up. An opinion is a belief.
You can go to my channel page and watch "The Wages of Spin" it will reference most of the information. If you still have questions I'll be happy to answer them or point you to other resources.
I gave you three stars because you are articulate and appear sincere. It would have been four if you hadn't wandered around several key points and avoided some others.
To start with, your anecdotal experience can't possibly carry much weight in dissecting social trends and attitudes. You should give your requests for stats the integrity of presenting some of your own.
Your Achilles Heel is that you conclude that feminism results in liberation for men.
It has actually resulted, for the most part, simply in more choices for women. And while there are certainly situation where women take the financial burden off men, they are isolated and for the most part the onus on men for financial responsibility for women has not changed.
Another thing I noticed was how you totally glossed over the matter of childbirth and it's effect on women's wages as opposed to discrimination. Whether or not you feel that this should be viewed "differently" than
other factors does not change the fact that childbirth has an impact on availability for work and subsequently a companies bottom line. That is why it affects the alleged wage gap. And when controlling variables are factor weighed in the AAUW study, and all the others, the "wage gap" is not narrowed, but eliminated. So let'e be honest with the terms we use.
I will say that the responsibility for men being trapped in their roles with the relief that feminism promised is largely their fault.
Please, let me know how to find this study showing an elimination of the wage gap.
My anecdotal experience was only in response to Argus' random assertion that women are lazing around whining about their opportunities. Period. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I wasn't saying I was right, I was asking for evidence that I was wrong.
If men are paying women's way then they should stop. I believe in equal partnerships and it's easy to just say no to the alternative.
Thanks for responding. I agree with this - you can reject some manifestations of social power, but others are much harder to reject, specifically those imposed by society. But these benefits, shared by all men, are very important, and the argument that patriarchy hurts men too ignores them. It also devalues your contributions. The fact that (pro)feminist men are, at least in part, working against your own self interest just makes you more awesome.
The idea that patriarchy hurts men too makes no sense. Of course there are going to be some negative aspects for men. But a system can't exist that benefits no one. Who would support it? People certainly have the ability to act against their own interests, but an institution that has existed for many thousands of years must be benefiting someone, and it sure isn't women. It's possible that it benefits only a minority of men, but since it is functionally similar at all strata, it's not likely.
I'll see if I can give a coherent answer in 500 chars.
The problem is the word benefit is a statement with built in value judgments. If a man wants to feel like the head of the household instead of a partner, or wants to be an authority instead of a voice then being the only provider gives him this leverage. If a man values those things he benefits from a society that promotes men as strong providers and women as subservient caretakers
I don't value those things so I do not benefit in this way
There are other benefits that all men share such as commonly being taken more seriously than a woman in intellectual discussions all else being equal. The problem is this disenfranchises a portion of the population making a culture or society weaker despite giving individual men some advantage. I talk some about this phenomenon in my video "boys club."
A point I make in that video is that people do not have to consciously support a social paradigm for it to propagate.
You just posed a logical cause-efect fallacy at 5:24 you are saying that just because most women who are feminists are educated, hard working, independant makes feminism a good thing. I think instead you should look at what laws have been backed and pushed for by feminists and their organizations and the words of their leaders. There is no doubt that feminism has to make someone look bad, and it's men, or else they wouldn't be able to recruit anyone. They have to have a cause which is flawed.
ArgusEyes made the assertion that women use claims of discrimination to justify lower achievement. He presented no evidence and when someone presents a statement without evidence no evidence is needed to dismiss it.
I don't claim cause and effect in these statements, I only dismiss ArgusEye's claim.
I've already explained how socialization makes it possible to want to change society without needing to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Nobody needs to be made to look bad.
You suggest that they have only one way to recruit people... you state that it's making men look bad.. you state that any other means of recruitment is impossible... you state that the cause is flawed.
By defining your opponents argument as something that's flawed you haven't shown feminism is flawed, you've shown that your reasoning is flawed. You haven't refuted feminism, you've refuted some random garbage you made up.
I can present evidence that women use claims of discrimination to justify lower achievement easily. Have you read "Feminists say the Darndest Things"? A girl claimed that she was raped because she missed the final and the professor didn't allow her to retake it. She not only wasn't raped, she still maintained he was wrong and a loser. A more broad example is when a city lowered the weight carry requirement for fire fighters just so that women have a better chance to be a fire fighter.
You are right, we need to get women to change their expectation. We also need to walk on our hands and eat from our bee-hinds. That will get things where YOU want them to be. Mocking aside, tell me why should women accept your version of utopia? As far as I see, women got a whole lot of easy going for them right now.
You think your personal experiences with feminists should count for more, while that of others shouldn't... why?
It seems disingenuous to suggest that having less responsibility combined with less potential power is to have it easy. If this were the case then people would rarely want promotions at work which mean more stress, longer hours, and more responsibility for failure. It is human to make our lives more complicated in the pursuit of success or power.
And I asked for an example of women using feminism as an excuse for their failures. I don't deny it happens but I haven't seen it.
That depends on what and how you measure "potential power". And promotions bring benefits - usually monetary - which is why people desire promotions - its not human nature to make more complicated in the pursuit of success - its a general requirement for success, unless you are born brilliant.
Instead, human nature is to get as much as possible for the least amount of time and effort and that is what housewives also do when they become housewives.
It seems you believe in the concept of patriarchy.
And the reactionary movement - feminism apparently has had all sorts of excess but one. The contra-status quo excess where the female earns the money to feed the family, courts the man, pays for his living and his children while he stays at home and takes care of children. All of this - with the man, the society and the prevailing justice system considering his comfy lifestyle as his right.
As for your examples of women using feminism as an excuse for their failures - Where did you ask that? And how is that related to anything I said?
It seems you are asking for an example of a refutation of "god" from a religious person. Of course women almost never blame feminism as an excuse for failure. If anything, they always got men to blame for all their failures already!
I am happy you recognize the economic power of productivity partnerships of men & women, one of the West's great strengthx And most happy to see you denounce if only by implication the deplorable attitudes to women in the Muslim world where they are treated like chattel. I hope you will specifically condemn Islamic countries for it and oppose the opressiveness of Islam......
Or are you a leftwing multiculturalist and you think its alright if THEY do it? NOW sweeps it under the rug for sure.
I actually made a video addressing the issues in Islamic countries called "Do we give religion too much credit?" The premise is that we are too quick to blame religion for cultural problems.
I do not argue that parts of Islamic law are very restrictive to women, it is my opinion however that it is the culture that must be changed. I don't argue this from a position of moral relativism but rather logic. I absolutly condemn the mistreatment of women by any group, western or otherwise.
Sorry, I should rephrase, I condemn the mistreatment of any person by any group. It just happens that in certain middle eastern countries women are the ones most systematically violated.
gotcha. And I'll check out that other vid. The thing is when I start hearing about honor killings in my own country or even denmark or Sweden, not to mention the islamic countries themselves, but esp my own, I start to get a mite upset. Kinda makes issues like "comparable pay" fade into near insignificance.
And believe me, back in the day, in the service, I saluted an officer whether it wore pants or a skirt. You never even think twice about it. ;
Argus. You and Spacemonkey seem to be working from the same backward premise. That the patriarchy was made for the benefit of men.
The operating premise of western patriarchy is that a woman's life is worth more than a man's and the sooner you and everyone else admit this the sooner we can have a discussion with the hope of real change.
also argus, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article "Why Cant a Woman Be More Like a Man?" specifically about the bridge between women and men in science/engineering and the draconian methods colleges are using to change it.
In a recent survey of faculty attitudes on social issues, sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard and Solon Simmons of George Mason University asked 1,417 professors what accounts for the relative scarcity of female professors in math, science, and engineering. Just 1 percent of respondents attributed the scarcity to womens lack of ability, 24 percent to sexist discrimination, and 74 percent to differences in what characteristically interests men and women.
It's interesting that you talk about "empowerment" because that's what they want to do also. Talking in theory is nice but the reality is that this is what these people have done and this is what these people will do if you let these supremacist bigots into positions of power. You would no sooner let a creationist speak for science than let a feminist speak for men.
Sorry, I am not interested in enforcing my views on what young women should be upon them. I don't know why some busy body types out there feel they need to do this also, your mother was able to choose what she wanted to do with less of this coercion so why can't we let people be?
Feminist for men's rights? Like the NYC people who want all crimes against women to be hate crimes? Or Harman who wants women stuffed summarily into jobs because she wants to change the "macho" culture? (cont)
this. You and I have made videos on evolution and can realise how denialists these people can get, a belief system can taint a very intelligent person's mind and the feminists are similar in this respect.
About your mother, and your comments at the end, you mention a very important issue about how she feels they need to "change expectations" about young women. It is interesting in all our talk about socialisation that the biggest blatant socialising force against women is feminism. (cont)
become the more I am convinced that mere education is not as impressive a trait that I once thought it was. Some of the more intelligent people come out with some of the most stupid crap. A more important facet of intellectual capacity is wisdom, which is the ability to discern what is true in reality, and to act upon it. Also, don't underestimate how an intelligent person can be a serf to dogma. A person may be very intelligent but yet be a creationist, I have known people like (cont)
that she called me an arsehole and acted like a cunt in her own videos. She felt more comfortable invoking sexism because she finds an identity in the fetid pool of victimisation. Because someone claims there is sexism does not mean it is a valid claim. I have to say, we're arguing in an abstract way about the topic and you mention "I don't see what you see" in reference to feminists. I simply don't see the rampant sexism that some feminists say exists.
wage gap completely, then could we really say that this was a realistic measure of women's performance with so much weight being put behind them?
I did take a tangent. It's not completely off topic because I see, in the arguments about sexism, a lot of fantasy weaving to create the patina of sexism where it does not exist. BoundlessEyes gave an excellent, excellent example of this. She claimed our civility to one another was due to a "boys club" a completely irrational claim given (cont)
more degrees in a field like biology then to suggest that studying biology is ingrained is standing on shaky ground. But have you considered the falling performance of boys? THE socialising movement of modern times is feminism and it is interested in empowering women and girls like you mentioned. If we are building one sex up over the other, then how much of the gap closing is due to this. If Harman could pass bureaucratic law after another and she eventually managed to close the (cont)
the anti-woman socialisation is a huge force in western cultures and if it exists at all it is mainly on the individual level. The strongest socialisation that affects women is due to feminism.
As for a list of biological differences that could affect interest in a field such as CompSci (or similar). I don't have one. Sorry. I don't know if anyone could list something "biological" that could affect interest, not that I've heard of. Your point that if women are making up more and (cont)
I thought I was clear as to why, apart from some minor points the premise was a strawman argument. In that you thought my argument was that all differences were biological. I do not and my aim was to point that out. I believe that it is a mix of the two, I reckon that people have a general nature and that is probably the strongest factor but there is probably some socialisation there, I don't think that (cont)
Question: you think it's wrong for a guy to hold a door open for a woman because of her gender but it's ok for the federal government to give her scholarships, networking programs, and other forms of preferential treatment because of her gender.
BENY0HAMA, what's your problem? I can't remember saying boo to you in the past, I comment on the video you posted as a video repsonse and I got complete vicious bile garbage in return. What's the beef?
I've never attacked you, aside from saying you're not all that bright. And you're not. You might be a decent bloke aside from that (creative, kindhearted, funny, whatever) but you're not intelligent. I hardly think that saying you're getting thoroughly intellectually demolished is "complete vicious bile garbage" (which actually makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "vile" rather than "bile"?)
I try to be clear that I'm talking about limited opportunity based on societal expectations. It's not legal right's that I'm talking about in this video, rather I'm addressing how socialization plays a destructive roles in the lives of both men and women.
You just put forth an argument for human rights not feminism- "destructive roles in the lives of both men and women." Feminism promotes marxism. Feminist did not come to the defense of Sarah Palin. If you desire a socialism, think of its failure after failure. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Feminisms roots are in anger and hate. Plus I don't buy the argument the socialization is destructive. There is no proof.
I'm sorry? I know the 500 character restriction hurts but I'm not sure you made any sense there.
I'm not arguing for socialism. I don't see how feminism is being equated with socialism by you. Destructive is clearly defined in this video as being imposing on both men and women and effecting a society's productivity. Defending S. Palin from sexism is not equal to voting for her. Feminism's roots are in fighting for equal legal rights.
I mean it terms of the shots being taken about her cloths or family etc. That had nothing to do with politics. Check out the Herstory (sorry lol) of feminism. It has marxist ideals at its roots. What I am saying is I don't mind change, It is the means in which we get there. If it is by Gov't reg., I am strictly against that. That is what worries me about Feminism. They have a history of foisting Ideas through regulation.
The means by which change should be implemented is different depending on the feminist you talk to. I think there are some very real conversations that should be had about what is and is not appropriate for government to do. To me that is a philosophical issue separate from feminism.
I think that feminists who support government intervention are at the intersection of two sets where one set is feminist and one supports government action. I don't think they are inseparable.
No, he put forward an argument for human rights using feminism, which promotes human rights. Are you actually suggesting feminists should defend Palin's politics....because she is a woman? I don't even know where to start with whats wrong with that. Are you prepared to justify what you say about feminisms roots being in anger & hate, or are you just going to say it with no evidence. You obviously have no concept of the broad spectrum of progressive ideas which constitute feminism.
Now, your comment about feminism and Marxism is also ignorant. Feminism, which is simply seeking equality of the sexes, does not necessarily promote any single ideology, though I am a socialist-feminist myself. And as for socialism, many european countries are based on social democracy- would you call Sweden a failure? Also, Cuba is an example of socialism working, at least to some extent, in the 3rd world. Socialism has only failed where it was misunderstood and misused.
Feminism roots are marxist. Destruction of the Nuclear family was one of the first waves main goals. That is why some people choose to say they are part of the Women's Rights movement instead of feminists. I am an Individualist. If you want a society where either you or I are shut up or jailed for opinions pick Cuba. And why do people choose to skip town?(so to say) That alone makes it a failure. I admit I don't know enough about Sweden to comment.
feminist roots may be marxist, but liberal feminism has long since departed from them. if you want to argue this further, i suggest you argue with one of them, because i dont even agree with them, and thus i dont really want to be advocating for them. cuba does not shut people up by jailing them for opinions, do your research, there are many anti-government activists, artists, musicians, etc. in cuba. i can provide examples. the ones who are in jail are those funded by the US, who advocate....
.... anti-cuban terrorism, which is a very real (look up 'posada' to see), in the same way as we lock up people, such as abu hamza, who preach terrorism. as for immigration making it a failure, mexico alone's immigration dwarfes cubas by over 10x. other countries, including canada, have more illegal immigration to the US than cuba, and this is even with the instant citizenship and benefits given to cubans- while mexicans trying to immigrate often die in the desert, get shot, are trafficked, etc.
plus, you admit that you don't know enough about sweden, well sweden has an almost immaculate record in terms of... well, just about everything. for starters, it is one of the least corrupt (GCI figures) countries, has one of the best healthcare & education systems in the world (much better than the US or UK), and still have a democracy, if thats what you care about most. i think that if you don't know about sweden, you should do some research before criticizing socialism.
I live in a semi-socialist country. I know how It works. It know about grossly high tax rates. I know about the brain drain. I know about red tape, waste and inefficiencies. Medical waiting lists. I know about fraud and failures of gov't. There is no argument you can make that gov't. can do anything better than the private sector. Gov't does not create wealth. They just spend money. The private sector pays for this.
a semi-socialist country. you dont even say where for gods sake, surely that would be a place to start your argument. are you afraid of me doing research, because you know you cant win this argument? i mean, brain drain, are you serious? sounds more like a soviet-russian style communist dictatorship. are you suggesting that semi-socialist countries like sweden all have a max exodus of academics. i mean come on, how illogical can you get.
ahh ok sorry for that. just a lot of idiots come on here and say stuff about their personal experiences with no evidence, which are often complete lies. your videos are great by the way, not often i find other male feminists online.
there are also many arguments which can be made for central planning doing better, especially in terms of social justice, than the free market. it depends on where your priorities are. it sounds to me like you dont want to accept the damage that capitalism does, especially in the 3rd world, all you care about is a few extra pounds or dollars in tax. and i can show you plenty of examples of efficiency in socialist countries in all the problem areas you said. you need evidence, but dont have it
Canadian is correct. First it is not Capitalism that is the source of your problems but the way wealth and money is created. You call me illogical, but defend the Cuban system by saying more Mexicans cross into the U.S. than Cubans. If life in Cuba is so much better, Why doesn't Cuba have a major illegal immigration problem? I am married to a Native Canadian, I know first hand the effects of re-socialization and the welfare state. The gov't intervention ruined a proud peoples way of life.
A social med clinic in my area for example will not prescribe narcotics (Big Sign) This is because of free drugs. People qualifying for this (Not All People, Some) jump from clinic to clinic to get drugs to sell on the street. I am not an anarchist. I think gov't has a role to play. That is what we differ on (gov't role). Can you try to stop using terms like ignorant and idiot. It makes you look like you can't argue without denigrating people. I will not stoop to that level.
no, capitalism is the source of the problems, and the more laissez-faire capitalism is, the worse it is. to say otherwise is simply ahistorical, and yet again i have examples, while you do not. my example of more mexicans than cubans was simply in response to you talking about cubans emigrating. are you seriously suggesting that to prove cuba is a success i have to demonstrate that it has a lot of immigration to it, even though it is a 3rd world country? it should be compared to other 3rd.......
... world countries, any other comparisons are simply unfair. if you want a socialist 1st world country, look at sweden- and yes, sweden does recieve a lot of immigrants. but, if you must know, cuba does recieve medical patients from other countries, and also some immigrants from countries such as jamaica and haiti. however, if people leave their 3rd world country, most choose to go to the rich, lush 'land of riches' which is shown to them as being the USA. they dont know better......
....also, you could look at the immigration from colombia, a country fucked up largely by neo-liberalism (in the form of US foreign policy) in 'america's backyard', and how many, many colombians do immigrate to venezuela, which is socialist, even though venezuela is also a 3rd world country. as for your bullshit about canada, i live in the UK, and the things you are saying are either specific to the canadian system, or completely untrue, because the UK has welfare......
.... socialized medicine, etc, and that stuff most definately doesnt happen here. i mean people jumping clinic to clinic and selling the drugs? surely some sort of filing system is in order? plus, you still do not appear to have done any research on sweden, which i suggest you try to do. and finally, as i said earlier, the damage done by unrestrained capitalism is mainly in the 3rd world, and believe it or not, people living in those countries are worth every bit as much as you or me.
Your hilarious. I gave you examples but you didn't even do a basic search into it. EXAMPLE brain drain which you call a soviet thing. You couldn't even figure out I was Canadian. A simple you You tube profile search. I already know you are in the U.K. , you can speak Spanish.
I can't hold your hand. You have to do your own work. No wonder you like socialism. You assume I don't care about people in other countries for what reason I can't understand. You assume the immigrants to the U.S. don't know better. Are you saying they are stupid? Because I don't agree with that. I was born in Toronto. I know people from all over the world. I have been to the U.K. I think you need to toss that in to try to show a moral superiority.
Do your own research into Toronto if want to understand. British prescription drug abuse is a real problem as well. (Guardian UK). So I guess by definitely you mean there is a problem. Sweden has higher suicide rates then the U.S., Canada and even Cuba. They are 31st. in the world. ( W.H.O.) Neo Liberalism promotes social education, health and infrastructure spending. Is that bad in your eyes?
Now In 1958 Cuba's average annual salary was 8th highest in the world. Cuba was a 1st world nation. Now they are a 3rd world nation. This did not happen until after the revolution. You of course will blame the U.S. for this. But if I ripped you off and called you names would you continue to do business with me. So it is perfectly fair to compare Cuba to the U.S. Cuba made themselves a 3rd world nation. Cuba is a dictatorship like the former U.S.S.R.
Cuba had work to do on it's problem with elected officials lining their pockets. But the country was very, very well off before the revolution. Capitalism is basically about incentive and the movement of money. Finance Capitalism is where the problem is. Surprise, I agree with you if you are talking about this. I don't like big business as much as I don't like big gov't. It is the concentration of to much wealth and power which make up most of the problems.
The instincts of both gov't and business is to grow. But most of the 1st world wealth comes from small to medium size business. If you eat to much cake you get sick. You need to look into how money is created from thin air by banks with gov't consent to properly understand this. This is where growth is necessary. When it grows out of control we have recessions. This resets the balance and the cycle begins again. Many people get hurt by this goofy cycle. And it effects the 3rd world harder
Funny thing about this cycle is we still have the same production facilities we still have demand, And we still have money. It stops moving because we racked up to much debt. We end up paying for debt instead of buying. If changed to a consumption tax we would slow growth naturally. But that give up to much gov't power in social engineering. And give more power to you to help who ever you want. The UK debt is out of control same with the US. Less money to give to Africa (just for you!) :)
Now, I know where you are coming from. But the mistake you are making is you think we need Socialism to fight Finance Capitalism. Take for example the removal of the party system from gov't. If you elected a person in your riding (or whatever you call it in GB) Who was to represent you and not a party that person would be accountable to you not a party. When you vote I guess you vote party not person. So you get represented your PM only, (in the case of a majority gov't.).
Humm, This sort of sounds like a dictatorship. So if your MP represented you and not a party, there would be more accountability you and less to what ever special interest group you don't like. (There is much more I could add but this is already becoming way too long.) I wish I had hours to describe how to deal with other problems but I don't. The point is these two groups (gov't and business want growth, while were are caught in the middle.
A no party system would help bring control to growth sort of like the use of interest rates in finance capitalism. Now if your interests tend to controlling people, social engineering and thought policing pure socialism is the way to go. I don't want your money, I don't want to control you, and I want to live In peace with choice with social responsibility. I don't want your metaphorical jack boot on my neck, smiling, and saying "This is for your best interest"
where exactly did you get this statistic? because i very much doubt its accuracy, seeing as before the revolution: 23.6% of the population over 10 were illiterate (now 3.8%, mainly elderly); there was only 51% employment (now close to 100%); 7% of homes had electricity (now 95.5%); 35.2% had running water (now 95%); and i can give more citable examples. you need to do some serious research on cuba, before 1959 it was run like a traditional dictatorship by fulgencio batista, with US support.....
like i said, i believe that what you say about the prescription drug situation in toronto, but there is, like i said, a simple solution- checks on prescriptions. people may become addicted to prescriptions here, but people most certainly do not stand outside clinics selling drugs. and what the hell has sweden's suicide rate got to do with anything? if you must know, scandinavian countries generally have higher rates, this has been attributed to depression through SAD (due to less daylight)
if you believe that neo-liberalism works, that does mean you dont care about those in the 3rd world. i am saying immigrants to the USA from the third world dont know any better because of socialisation and the cultural emperialism of the USA across the world. so no, i dont think they are 'stupid' as such, just generally poorly educated, mislead and misinformed.
you gave the example of people selling prescription drugs outside stores, and of a 'brain drain' from canada, without any evidence. things can be concievable, and yet still be untrue you know. and like i couldnt work out that you can see where people are from from their profile. i just forgot lol.
I agree that feminism has its own ideals as does masculism, I think it should simply be called human rights.
I believe in some of feminist philosophy such as changing chairman to chairperson. I think it goes to far when they want to change boogeyman to boogeyperson for example.
If it is simply seeking equality why is it called feminism? Why no advocate for men's shelters? Why no advocate for male reproductive rights? Why no advocate for joint custody of children after divorce. Why attack conservative women in politics, when the goal is to get equal male and female representation? Why not respect life style choices of stay at home mothers or men? Check your Feminist history!
This is an important point. Supporting men's reproductive rights and the goal of men's shelters does not equal being an activist for those things. Men should be fighting those battles and feminists should be supporting them.
No feminist should fight against those goals but to be an activist for one cause does not require you to be an activist for all causes that you think are important.
When equality is used a the focal point of your philosophy, these issues should be important to not risk accusations of hypocrisy. It is the social feminist that I have the most problem with. ( I have to insert this) I can't hold back. Your defense of Boundless bothered me. When you read her comments she hates men. She used an exploitive image of a child to prove a point, which was unnecessary at best. This disappoints me. Her negativity does not advance her cause but creates animosity.
I fully support the idea of mens shelters but for some reason society condemns the fact that men need help. When I questioned why there is none I was told that they can fend for themselves....
I absolutely agree that the answer that abused men can 'fend for themselves' is reprehensible. I think it is possible to simultaneously fight for feminist ideals and also fight against that sort of bigotry. The idea that it is virtuous for men to suffer silently is a strong undercurrent in our culture that is damaging to everyone.
Supporting feminism does not mean being against men's rights. There are feminists who are against men's rights but they're not representative.
Joint custody for all I think is an awesome answer, except in cases where one parent chooses to relinquish their part of custody.
Women say it is for the better interest of children and to me its absolutle BS, what is their best interest? As far as Im concerned if a women cannot provide financially, emotionally or physically, then it is not in the childs best interest but her own.
I can even accept some instances where a parents role is restricted, like abuse. And I am fine with changing chairman to chairperson. With a discussion like this I think we could really move forward to better everyones lot in life.
Your New York Times article is completely wrong and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, women have federally funded scholarship and networking programs that it would be illegal for men to have. Not to mention the fact that female teachers outnumber male teachers 10 to 1.
Go watch "Warren Farrell - The Boy Crisis" on youtube and tell me what you think those numbers would look like if the playing field were level.
Also, I like the way feminists pick and choose the male dominated areas they think women should be in.
I don't see any of them complaining about the lack of women janitors, coal miners, construction workers, underwater welders, or Alaskan crab fishers.
Men make up 90% of workplace deaths. If equality of outcome is what you're so concerned with, why not start getting women into the trades until that one evens out?
This has been flagged as spam show
listen to this dumbfuck brainwashed by his mother
Sam10947 2 weeks ago
Male supremacy is bullshit and i am very much living proof. Im not going to trade my humanity to 'please or keep a man'. I know that women and men should operate as a team and not as one being superior to another. I get shit for it sometimes but i dont give a rats ass. I do what i want when i want to (within reason) and any pud who tries to put stupid restraints on me i will dump like a bad habit. Real men wont want to enslave a woman but will love and respect her as he would his own self.
79agp 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@79agp
Men are inherently powerful, controlling, and provider. u'r not living proof of that, u'r living in a motherfucking lie. I'm a REAL man, can u take that from me i'd fucking slit ur throat. play ur role, and u'll see real manhood.
Sam10947 2 weeks ago
Ever read the book 1984, it sounds chillingly similar to modern life if you ask me. They support women and encourage women to report men. They watch you with their cameras to make sure your doing what they want you to do. They use your children as weapons against you. They tell you one thing when the truth is another. And they brainwash you and make you hate yourself. Feminism is not a rights movement, its an excuse for them to control and looking at you they have said control.
TheConnorian 1 year ago
If you ignorantly stand up for feminism, you stand up for female supremacy in sheep's clothing. Who is really oppressed, men or women? Search: youtube the myth of women's oppression. The pay gap is totally bogus, which you sucked up as designed) and a lie and a half: Search: Equality - The Pay Gap
addvoc8 1 year ago
1:53 Not tapping your full human resource? What about all those smart and capable classmates of mine, who were disempowered by feminist teaching in school. What about the ones who never made it? Girls got a leg up by down-treading boys.
TheManWhoSpoke 1 year ago
"It doesn't go with my experience therefore it must be wrong" is such a female argument. Why don't you actually do some research.
College educated does not = intelligent. If often equals indoctrinated.
The vast majority of women are not your mother by the way.
No feminists respect men's rights. Are you on crack?
johnas1011 1 year ago
Well I dont really think arguseyes missed any points, the basic theme is that men and women are different and as such will make different choices in there life. Legislating sexist policies such as affirmative action or tittle XI is the problem, you cant force equal outcomes for people who are not equal...that was the main flaw of communism.
Dobogio 1 year ago 2
Feminism is Communism and a highly deceptive, totalitarian tyranny. Kate Weigands details this in "Red Feminism".
slaakattak 1 year ago 4
You'll find that ArgusEyes is consistently dishonest in representing what feminism is and what it stands for. Also, his libertarian bias gets in the way of having a coherent discussion of the subject because he puts an equal sign between Marxism and feminism.
Good video overall.
binhthanhvo 2 years ago
btw, contrary to the title of this video, feminism is not good for men's rights. men have no rights with regard to women or even their own biological children thanks to feminism. there's strong resistance against any attempt at making positive change, again, thanks to feminism.
vbritsi 2 years ago
spacemonkey have you heard of evolutionary psychology? that personality and behavioral traits are genetic and subject to evolutionary forces just like everything else in biology?
to defend arguseyes i would say that women have a built-in biological drive to have children and be mothers. this is what leads them to make the choices which bring with it lower pay. I have more circumstantial evidence that this is probably the real cause than you do with your socialization idea
vbritsi 2 years ago
Not all women want children.
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
yeah, so what?
the vast majority want children and just because there are a few exceptiions doesn't negate that fact.
vbritsi 2 years ago
Do you honestly believe that every woman is hardwired to want children? How do you explain that many women don't want children?? Or do you just ignore them, because they don't fit your theory? Also, what choices do women make to being about lower pay? When the government looks at at the difference in pay between the sexes, they are looking at full time workers. Also, mothers make less money that non-mothers who have equal resumes. How is that due to biology?
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 2 years ago
i never said "every woman" is hardwired to have children. if you had read more carefully, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
vbritsi 2 years ago
no you don't say "every woman" you said "women" Did you mean to say that only certain "women have a built-in biological drive to have children and be mothers"?
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
no, dumbass. i meant the vast majority of women are programmed from birth to want children. that means most women.
a few women not wanting children does not negate the fact that most do. stop playing silly little "all or nothing" games.
vbritsi 2 years ago
You have yet to give me biological reasons for why some women don't want to have children. Oh and thanks for telling me that I am programmed to have children, I wasn't aware.
and I'm the dumbass....
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
@JamaicanBrownie73
you're apparently not aware of a lot of things.
vbritsi 2 years ago
@JamaicanBrownie73
natural variation in genetics and upbringing. This is not rocket science
johnas1011 1 year ago
Just a heads up Jamaican, VBrit is a brainwashed sexist incapable of understanding simple logic, much less the complex nuances of reality. After I pointed out flaws in his arguments he decided to let out his inner first grader and call me names while ignoring every thing I said.
binhthanhvo 2 years ago
Hahah.. sorry dude to see how much hate comments you get for being a feminist!
merhaba234 2 years ago
Notice how this guy believes "equality of outcome" is important in cases where women are belieed to be inadequately represented. But, if we shifted the issue toward issues such as Equal Parenting, or, Equal Lifespan, or, equal numbers of male Teachers, or, stopping male bashing in the media. .
topgamelord 2 years ago 12
What makes you think I don't believe in taking equality seriously in all the areas you mention as well?
Treatment of people as individuals with expectations based on their individual choices and abilities is what I think is important regardless of their sex. There are negative results for both men and women from the socialization prevalent today.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
@Spacemonkey2084
it's equality of outcomes vs equal opportunity, just to clarify it for you. equal opportunity is where every individual from any background, race or sex is free to make a choice to determine their own future. equal outcomes on the other hand is an evil concept which requires government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (usually to satisfy a feminist) so that every position in society is equally represented.
vbritsi 2 years ago
@Spacemonkey2084 - what you fail to understand is the gravity of your words as they relate to the ears upon which they fall. To a feminist you represent a modern enlightened man, while at the same time to a MRA you represnet what is wrong with many men today. So until you can conceptualize that the ethos of your statement is your statement regardless of the words you use, you will forever be running uphill.
TheGreatToopi 7 months ago
What is that white thing on your head? Is it a bandage to help you recover from a head injury?
proudguy 2 years ago
hahahaha womens rights lol, honestly who would take them seriously? man haters lol, what about the rights of men??
supersumdude 2 years ago
@supersumdude "man haters" ?? I love men. Feminism is not about hating men at all, and lots of men are feminists as well. Maybe you should learn about what feminism really is before you throw stereotypes around :)
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
so what is it that your fighting for? what more can you possibly want in this society?
CrunchyBlck73 2 years ago
How about equal pay? Or ending violence against women? Ending victim blaming in rape cases. Putting women in positions of power. Or putting coloured women in positions of power? Freedom and control over our own bodies? Break gender roles that restrict us (and men). Just to name a few things..
JamaicanBrownie73 2 years ago
jamaica-
wow, that's quite a laundry list of demands. the trouble is that each of these demands is ridiculous in some way or another.
for instance, equal pay is a silly thing to demand when women already have it. it is against federal law to pay women less than men, with severe penalties for violations. more puzzling is why would a company ever hire men if it could get away with paying women less?
vbritsi 2 years ago
good point made. im sure the difference they see in pay is general, like time taken off from pregnant woman and so on. much like mans lower life expectantcy is taken from man who die earlier (war, firman, police ect). technicalities but in reality they are the same individually
CrunchyBlck73 2 years ago
both genders feed this problem. ive seen many woman who wont leave abusive situations. man rape but many woman use rape to hide their shame from potentially public embarrasment from sex situations (like the hofstra case i pointed out). woman have control over their bodies in west hemisphere yet porn is billion dollar business and there r many prostitutes and pregnant woman with a grocery list of potential fathers. and gender roles is what built every modern civilization so if it aint broke...
CrunchyBlck73 2 years ago
You cite anecdotal life experience to support the conclusion that women who achieve more also feel more oppressed/disadvantaged.
You seem to be arguing that making women feel week, vulnerable, or disadvantaged actually empowers them rather than setting them up for failure.
Is that what you think?
Or could it be that ambitious and successful women have a higher opinion of themselves and thier lifestyle, which they want to promote, and dont understand how other women could think differently.
St37One 2 years ago
My experience, is that feminism only focuses on womens rights and no focus to oppression or inequality towards men.
The problem with getting off the proverbial ass, is that opportunity needs to be in place or you will just be struggling for a pipe dream and it will not matter if your smiling.
I find people that have had alot of opportunity,tend to speak with inexperience and have an unrealistic understanding of the world around them.
It is just not that cut and dry.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago 9
I agree that I think society would be best served by individuals focusing on the negative aspects of the socialization we're all raised in for both men and women. I think this gives a more complete picture and makes solutions more likely.
I don't think the need for understanding for men makes feminism wrong however. I think it's focus is too narrow but I agree with it's concepts generally.
I know the issue is anything but cut and dry.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
"I don't think the need for understanding for men makes feminism wrong however. I think it's focus is too narrow but I agree with it's concepts generally."
Agreed to a degree. The root of feminism sure enough started for equality. Yet it also segregates further, and creates segregative thinking(us and them).
We also have to look at the issue of radical feminism, which is indeed wrong and is the problem.
I am all for equal rights, yet that is not what feminism has come to represent.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
@LIONOFTHEBRAVE The reason why feminism focuses on women's rights, especially women of color rights, is because men have all gender-specific privileges afforded in our society and most around the world.
I should think that's obvious. There would be no sexism if men and women were discriminated equally.
WrathoftheGoddess 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, if you did not notice women diverted the entire stimulus package to themselves. Google "No Country for Burly Men" to see for yourself of what feminists did to the stimulus package. 80% of jobs lost were to men, many of which have ex-wives to support under penalty of prison or exorbitant interest rates if they do not produce money at full capacity. These men can't take lower pay or just any job.
READ the article, and you tell me why women did this???? WHY? THIS IS FEMINISM !!!
Red0660 2 years ago
Comment removed
Red0660 2 years ago
Why it is that Harvard donated $50,000,000 to promote women only. Why do we have affirmative action (sanctioned discrimination against men) title IX gender parity policy, women only loans, full scholarships, grants etc. Why do we as a society have to give women extra privileges???
Why do we do this when women acquire 60% of all college degrees and it is men who need help if anything??
Feminism in my experience and in my Women's Studies class is all about victimology and "patriarchy"
Red0660 2 years ago 2
Amen, preach it, feminists are all wretched because they support female "rights", they don't support equality. If they were humanists or civil rights activists, it would be different.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
well if you clearly say at the end of the vid women are succesful have it all then what the fuck are they complianing about?
jimygrey 2 years ago
... This was very clearly covered in the video. I'm not sure why I'm explaining it again to you but please, try to follow along,
Changing perceptions of women in terms of their capability means more individuals will be likey to pursue careers in areas they have aptitude in. Warped perception of ability leads individuals to choose not to enter some fields.
Some women are very successful. That's good. Now lets ensure that we aren't only getting the ones least effected by damaging socialization.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Excellent video.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
Women are where they are because of the oppression. Why would anyone think this is not true?
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
You shut up bitch, because right now men are the ones who are being discriminated not you!
rationalway 2 years ago
Calling me sexist names like bitch don't make you right. Be mature and make a point with evidence, not silly rhetoric.
Now, would you like to say that again?
And women have been discriminated and oppressed much more than men in history and still to this day. The constitution still says "all MEN are created equal." last time I checked, I was not a man. Women's breasts are censored as if we are animals, but a man's nipples are not. And sadly, those are just a few.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
No, men were the ones who were more discriminated and still are to this day!
rationalway 2 years ago
1. Men get genitally mutilated at birth by some pedophiles hiding behind a medcal degree, molested, tortured and robbed of the most sensitive part of their bodies( the foreskin -> more than 20,000 nerve endings, clitoris only around 8,000), whereas women get complete protection and enjoy complete intact bodies!
2. Men get conscripted, forced to serve in militaries, and die on the front line or go to jail whereas women are free to get on with ther lives.
rationalway 2 years ago
1 - Women and men are victims in this way equally.
2 - That's true, but the government is overwhelmingly male, and if they wanted to change that draft law, they definitely would have by now. That's also discrimination against women. A lot of women would not mind being drafted.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
1. No, men are more victims of genital mutilations than women!
2. Are you implying that predominantly male governments obscure the fact that men get forced to serve, die in war or go to jail.
rationalway 2 years ago
1 .. Where is your proof?
2 .. Clearly. I mean you're whining about how men are forced to be drafted and women are not? Tell your that to your own sex!
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
1. Proof, look up genital mutilation status around athe world and lwas.
2. You're such a misandristic whore. Men aren't posessions to be forced into doing something against their own will!
rationalway 2 years ago
1) Statistics are not proof of anything. The governments around the world make up the statistics and can easily manipulate the numbers to whatever they want them to be.
So as of now, let us please leave statistics out of this conversation. Thank you.
Like I said before, using sexist words like whore and bitch do NOT make your point nay more correct. In fact it makes you look much less intelligent. If you're going to continue accusing me of false things, I am not going to engage in this argument.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
any*
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
I think that you went off your meds!
rationalway 2 years ago
Goodbye.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And make sure that you get a clitorectomy!
rationalway 2 years ago
3. During a divorce a woman gets he child and the house whereas the man is thrown out on the street.
4. Men also endure corporal punishment in some nations and women don't!
5. Male homosexuality is illegal in many nations whereas female is legal!
6. Men also typically endure harsher penaties than women.
rationalway 2 years ago
3 - Over 70% of cases when the man testifies to regain custody of his children, he wins. The man is not "thrown on the street," and if he was, who's fault would that be? His, not his wife's.
4 - There are not as many men as women who are captured. And you have no proof that women are not tortured.
5 - Really? Please show proof. Because I highly doubt that.
6 - That's not a fact, just your opinion.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
Bitch, jusging you by your username, Im guessing that your IQ is very low,
3. In 98% percent of cases the women gets the child and the man is forbidden from getting close to the child!
4. No ,laws state that only men are to be punished with canng!
5. Again laws also state that!
6. No, that's a fact not an opinion!
rationalway 2 years ago
3 .. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
4 .. Not everyone is a saint to laws.
5 .. In what countries, then?
6 .. "Men also typically endure harsher penaties than women. " is an opinion. It's sad that you can't distinguish between an opinion and a fact. I'll help you out: a fact has evidence to back it up. An opinion is a belief.
OdeToNecrophilia 2 years ago
Where you making any sense there?
rationalway 2 years ago
You can go to my channel page and watch "The Wages of Spin" it will reference most of the information. If you still have questions I'll be happy to answer them or point you to other resources.
TheHappyMisogynist 2 years ago
I gave you three stars because you are articulate and appear sincere. It would have been four if you hadn't wandered around several key points and avoided some others.
To start with, your anecdotal experience can't possibly carry much weight in dissecting social trends and attitudes. You should give your requests for stats the integrity of presenting some of your own.
Your Achilles Heel is that you conclude that feminism results in liberation for men.
TheHappyMisogynist 2 years ago
It has actually resulted, for the most part, simply in more choices for women. And while there are certainly situation where women take the financial burden off men, they are isolated and for the most part the onus on men for financial responsibility for women has not changed.
Another thing I noticed was how you totally glossed over the matter of childbirth and it's effect on women's wages as opposed to discrimination. Whether or not you feel that this should be viewed "differently" than
TheHappyMisogynist 2 years ago
other factors does not change the fact that childbirth has an impact on availability for work and subsequently a companies bottom line. That is why it affects the alleged wage gap. And when controlling variables are factor weighed in the AAUW study, and all the others, the "wage gap" is not narrowed, but eliminated. So let'e be honest with the terms we use.
I will say that the responsibility for men being trapped in their roles with the relief that feminism promised is largely their fault.
TheHappyMisogynist 2 years ago
Please, let me know how to find this study showing an elimination of the wage gap.
My anecdotal experience was only in response to Argus' random assertion that women are lazing around whining about their opportunities. Period. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I wasn't saying I was right, I was asking for evidence that I was wrong.
If men are paying women's way then they should stop. I believe in equal partnerships and it's easy to just say no to the alternative.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheHappyMisogynist 2 years ago
Thanks for responding. I agree with this - you can reject some manifestations of social power, but others are much harder to reject, specifically those imposed by society. But these benefits, shared by all men, are very important, and the argument that patriarchy hurts men too ignores them. It also devalues your contributions. The fact that (pro)feminist men are, at least in part, working against your own self interest just makes you more awesome.
AntiLoquaxx 2 years ago
The idea that patriarchy hurts men too makes no sense. Of course there are going to be some negative aspects for men. But a system can't exist that benefits no one. Who would support it? People certainly have the ability to act against their own interests, but an institution that has existed for many thousands of years must be benefiting someone, and it sure isn't women. It's possible that it benefits only a minority of men, but since it is functionally similar at all strata, it's not likely.
AntiLoquaxx 2 years ago
Also, CMU women engineers represent!
AntiLoquaxx 2 years ago
I'll see if I can give a coherent answer in 500 chars.
The problem is the word benefit is a statement with built in value judgments. If a man wants to feel like the head of the household instead of a partner, or wants to be an authority instead of a voice then being the only provider gives him this leverage. If a man values those things he benefits from a society that promotes men as strong providers and women as subservient caretakers
I don't value those things so I do not benefit in this way
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
There are other benefits that all men share such as commonly being taken more seriously than a woman in intellectual discussions all else being equal. The problem is this disenfranchises a portion of the population making a culture or society weaker despite giving individual men some advantage. I talk some about this phenomenon in my video "boys club."
A point I make in that video is that people do not have to consciously support a social paradigm for it to propagate.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
You just posed a logical cause-efect fallacy at 5:24 you are saying that just because most women who are feminists are educated, hard working, independant makes feminism a good thing. I think instead you should look at what laws have been backed and pushed for by feminists and their organizations and the words of their leaders. There is no doubt that feminism has to make someone look bad, and it's men, or else they wouldn't be able to recruit anyone. They have to have a cause which is flawed.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
No.
ArgusEyes made the assertion that women use claims of discrimination to justify lower achievement. He presented no evidence and when someone presents a statement without evidence no evidence is needed to dismiss it.
I don't claim cause and effect in these statements, I only dismiss ArgusEye's claim.
I've already explained how socialization makes it possible to want to change society without needing to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Nobody needs to be made to look bad.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
You suggest that they have only one way to recruit people... you state that it's making men look bad.. you state that any other means of recruitment is impossible... you state that the cause is flawed.
By defining your opponents argument as something that's flawed you haven't shown feminism is flawed, you've shown that your reasoning is flawed. You haven't refuted feminism, you've refuted some random garbage you made up.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I can present evidence that women use claims of discrimination to justify lower achievement easily. Have you read "Feminists say the Darndest Things"? A girl claimed that she was raped because she missed the final and the professor didn't allow her to retake it. She not only wasn't raped, she still maintained he was wrong and a loser. A more broad example is when a city lowered the weight carry requirement for fire fighters just so that women have a better chance to be a fire fighter.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
Spacemonkey,
You are right, we need to get women to change their expectation. We also need to walk on our hands and eat from our bee-hinds. That will get things where YOU want them to be. Mocking aside, tell me why should women accept your version of utopia? As far as I see, women got a whole lot of easy going for them right now.
You think your personal experiences with feminists should count for more, while that of others shouldn't... why?
utubehayter 2 years ago
It seems disingenuous to suggest that having less responsibility combined with less potential power is to have it easy. If this were the case then people would rarely want promotions at work which mean more stress, longer hours, and more responsibility for failure. It is human to make our lives more complicated in the pursuit of success or power.
And I asked for an example of women using feminism as an excuse for their failures. I don't deny it happens but I haven't seen it.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
That depends on what and how you measure "potential power". And promotions bring benefits - usually monetary - which is why people desire promotions - its not human nature to make more complicated in the pursuit of success - its a general requirement for success, unless you are born brilliant.
Instead, human nature is to get as much as possible for the least amount of time and effort and that is what housewives also do when they become housewives.
utubehayter 2 years ago
It seems you believe in the concept of patriarchy.
And the reactionary movement - feminism apparently has had all sorts of excess but one. The contra-status quo excess where the female earns the money to feed the family, courts the man, pays for his living and his children while he stays at home and takes care of children. All of this - with the man, the society and the prevailing justice system considering his comfy lifestyle as his right.
There is a very obvious reason for that.
utubehayter 2 years ago
As for your examples of women using feminism as an excuse for their failures - Where did you ask that? And how is that related to anything I said?
It seems you are asking for an example of a refutation of "god" from a religious person. Of course women almost never blame feminism as an excuse for failure. If anything, they always got men to blame for all their failures already!
utubehayter 2 years ago
I am happy you recognize the economic power of productivity partnerships of men & women, one of the West's great strengthx And most happy to see you denounce if only by implication the deplorable attitudes to women in the Muslim world where they are treated like chattel. I hope you will specifically condemn Islamic countries for it and oppose the opressiveness of Islam......
Or are you a leftwing multiculturalist and you think its alright if THEY do it? NOW sweeps it under the rug for sure.
NCOMUSCLE 2 years ago
I actually made a video addressing the issues in Islamic countries called "Do we give religion too much credit?" The premise is that we are too quick to blame religion for cultural problems.
I do not argue that parts of Islamic law are very restrictive to women, it is my opinion however that it is the culture that must be changed. I don't argue this from a position of moral relativism but rather logic. I absolutly condemn the mistreatment of women by any group, western or otherwise.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Sorry, I should rephrase, I condemn the mistreatment of any person by any group. It just happens that in certain middle eastern countries women are the ones most systematically violated.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
gotcha. And I'll check out that other vid. The thing is when I start hearing about honor killings in my own country or even denmark or Sweden, not to mention the islamic countries themselves, but esp my own, I start to get a mite upset. Kinda makes issues like "comparable pay" fade into near insignificance.
And believe me, back in the day, in the service, I saluted an officer whether it wore pants or a skirt. You never even think twice about it. ;
NCOMUSCLE 2 years ago
Argus. You and Spacemonkey seem to be working from the same backward premise. That the patriarchy was made for the benefit of men.
The operating premise of western patriarchy is that a woman's life is worth more than a man's and the sooner you and everyone else admit this the sooner we can have a discussion with the hope of real change.
Orville9999 2 years ago
also argus, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article "Why Cant a Woman Be More Like a Man?" specifically about the bridge between women and men in science/engineering and the draconian methods colleges are using to change it.
Orville9999 2 years ago
an interesting quote:
In a recent survey of faculty attitudes on social issues, sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard and Solon Simmons of George Mason University asked 1,417 professors what accounts for the relative scarcity of female professors in math, science, and engineering. Just 1 percent of respondents attributed the scarcity to womens lack of ability, 24 percent to sexist discrimination, and 74 percent to differences in what characteristically interests men and women.
Orville9999 2 years ago
It's interesting that you talk about "empowerment" because that's what they want to do also. Talking in theory is nice but the reality is that this is what these people have done and this is what these people will do if you let these supremacist bigots into positions of power. You would no sooner let a creationist speak for science than let a feminist speak for men.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Sorry, I am not interested in enforcing my views on what young women should be upon them. I don't know why some busy body types out there feel they need to do this also, your mother was able to choose what she wanted to do with less of this coercion so why can't we let people be?
Feminist for men's rights? Like the NYC people who want all crimes against women to be hate crimes? Or Harman who wants women stuffed summarily into jobs because she wants to change the "macho" culture? (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
this. You and I have made videos on evolution and can realise how denialists these people can get, a belief system can taint a very intelligent person's mind and the feminists are similar in this respect.
About your mother, and your comments at the end, you mention a very important issue about how she feels they need to "change expectations" about young women. It is interesting in all our talk about socialisation that the biggest blatant socialising force against women is feminism. (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
become the more I am convinced that mere education is not as impressive a trait that I once thought it was. Some of the more intelligent people come out with some of the most stupid crap. A more important facet of intellectual capacity is wisdom, which is the ability to discern what is true in reality, and to act upon it. Also, don't underestimate how an intelligent person can be a serf to dogma. A person may be very intelligent but yet be a creationist, I have known people like (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
that she called me an arsehole and acted like a cunt in her own videos. She felt more comfortable invoking sexism because she finds an identity in the fetid pool of victimisation. Because someone claims there is sexism does not mean it is a valid claim. I have to say, we're arguing in an abstract way about the topic and you mention "I don't see what you see" in reference to feminists. I simply don't see the rampant sexism that some feminists say exists.
On feminists: The older I (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
wage gap completely, then could we really say that this was a realistic measure of women's performance with so much weight being put behind them?
I did take a tangent. It's not completely off topic because I see, in the arguments about sexism, a lot of fantasy weaving to create the patina of sexism where it does not exist. BoundlessEyes gave an excellent, excellent example of this. She claimed our civility to one another was due to a "boys club" a completely irrational claim given (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
more degrees in a field like biology then to suggest that studying biology is ingrained is standing on shaky ground. But have you considered the falling performance of boys? THE socialising movement of modern times is feminism and it is interested in empowering women and girls like you mentioned. If we are building one sex up over the other, then how much of the gap closing is due to this. If Harman could pass bureaucratic law after another and she eventually managed to close the (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
the anti-woman socialisation is a huge force in western cultures and if it exists at all it is mainly on the individual level. The strongest socialisation that affects women is due to feminism.
As for a list of biological differences that could affect interest in a field such as CompSci (or similar). I don't have one. Sorry. I don't know if anyone could list something "biological" that could affect interest, not that I've heard of. Your point that if women are making up more and (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Thanks for your response. Here are some thoughts:
0:28 "your reply missed mine"
I thought I was clear as to why, apart from some minor points the premise was a strawman argument. In that you thought my argument was that all differences were biological. I do not and my aim was to point that out. I believe that it is a mix of the two, I reckon that people have a general nature and that is probably the strongest factor but there is probably some socialisation there, I don't think that (cont)
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Question: you think it's wrong for a guy to hold a door open for a woman because of her gender but it's ok for the federal government to give her scholarships, networking programs, and other forms of preferential treatment because of her gender.
Is that irony or hypocrisy?
Orville9999 2 years ago
Great video, really good point about the affects on mens rights!!
princessannikki 2 years ago
I'd just like to say that watching spacemonkey battle arguseyes is like watching Mike Tyson fight a baby. Which, by the way, would be awesome.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Benyohama, I just had to say, this made me laugh way too hard... mostly because of the first 20 seconds of this video: /watch?v=rzfKnpg1bp0
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Ho-ly shitfuck. Mike Tyson is insane, and when he isn't, he's a total bastard. But he's HILARIOUS!
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Holy shitfuck indeed. Christ, what a nut.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
BENY0HAMA, what's your problem? I can't remember saying boo to you in the past, I comment on the video you posted as a video repsonse and I got complete vicious bile garbage in return. What's the beef?
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
Unless you just hate people you disagree with. If that's the case then you're standard human refuse.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago
I've never attacked you, aside from saying you're not all that bright. And you're not. You might be a decent bloke aside from that (creative, kindhearted, funny, whatever) but you're not intelligent. I hardly think that saying you're getting thoroughly intellectually demolished is "complete vicious bile garbage" (which actually makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "vile" rather than "bile"?)
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Please say what rights men have that women don't. The video makes no valid points without that distinction.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
I try to be clear that I'm talking about limited opportunity based on societal expectations. It's not legal right's that I'm talking about in this video, rather I'm addressing how socialization plays a destructive roles in the lives of both men and women.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
You just put forth an argument for human rights not feminism- "destructive roles in the lives of both men and women." Feminism promotes marxism. Feminist did not come to the defense of Sarah Palin. If you desire a socialism, think of its failure after failure. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Feminisms roots are in anger and hate. Plus I don't buy the argument the socialization is destructive. There is no proof.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
I'm sorry? I know the 500 character restriction hurts but I'm not sure you made any sense there.
I'm not arguing for socialism. I don't see how feminism is being equated with socialism by you. Destructive is clearly defined in this video as being imposing on both men and women and effecting a society's productivity. Defending S. Palin from sexism is not equal to voting for her. Feminism's roots are in fighting for equal legal rights.
Did I get all those?
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I mean it terms of the shots being taken about her cloths or family etc. That had nothing to do with politics. Check out the Herstory (sorry lol) of feminism. It has marxist ideals at its roots. What I am saying is I don't mind change, It is the means in which we get there. If it is by Gov't reg., I am strictly against that. That is what worries me about Feminism. They have a history of foisting Ideas through regulation.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
The means by which change should be implemented is different depending on the feminist you talk to. I think there are some very real conversations that should be had about what is and is not appropriate for government to do. To me that is a philosophical issue separate from feminism.
I think that feminists who support government intervention are at the intersection of two sets where one set is feminist and one supports government action. I don't think they are inseparable.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
No, he put forward an argument for human rights using feminism, which promotes human rights. Are you actually suggesting feminists should defend Palin's politics....because she is a woman? I don't even know where to start with whats wrong with that. Are you prepared to justify what you say about feminisms roots being in anger & hate, or are you just going to say it with no evidence. You obviously have no concept of the broad spectrum of progressive ideas which constitute feminism.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago 2
Now, your comment about feminism and Marxism is also ignorant. Feminism, which is simply seeking equality of the sexes, does not necessarily promote any single ideology, though I am a socialist-feminist myself. And as for socialism, many european countries are based on social democracy- would you call Sweden a failure? Also, Cuba is an example of socialism working, at least to some extent, in the 3rd world. Socialism has only failed where it was misunderstood and misused.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Feminism roots are marxist. Destruction of the Nuclear family was one of the first waves main goals. That is why some people choose to say they are part of the Women's Rights movement instead of feminists. I am an Individualist. If you want a society where either you or I are shut up or jailed for opinions pick Cuba. And why do people choose to skip town?(so to say) That alone makes it a failure. I admit I don't know enough about Sweden to comment.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
feminist roots may be marxist, but liberal feminism has long since departed from them. if you want to argue this further, i suggest you argue with one of them, because i dont even agree with them, and thus i dont really want to be advocating for them. cuba does not shut people up by jailing them for opinions, do your research, there are many anti-government activists, artists, musicians, etc. in cuba. i can provide examples. the ones who are in jail are those funded by the US, who advocate....
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
.... anti-cuban terrorism, which is a very real (look up 'posada' to see), in the same way as we lock up people, such as abu hamza, who preach terrorism. as for immigration making it a failure, mexico alone's immigration dwarfes cubas by over 10x. other countries, including canada, have more illegal immigration to the US than cuba, and this is even with the instant citizenship and benefits given to cubans- while mexicans trying to immigrate often die in the desert, get shot, are trafficked, etc.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
plus, you admit that you don't know enough about sweden, well sweden has an almost immaculate record in terms of... well, just about everything. for starters, it is one of the least corrupt (GCI figures) countries, has one of the best healthcare & education systems in the world (much better than the US or UK), and still have a democracy, if thats what you care about most. i think that if you don't know about sweden, you should do some research before criticizing socialism.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
I live in a semi-socialist country. I know how It works. It know about grossly high tax rates. I know about the brain drain. I know about red tape, waste and inefficiencies. Medical waiting lists. I know about fraud and failures of gov't. There is no argument you can make that gov't. can do anything better than the private sector. Gov't does not create wealth. They just spend money. The private sector pays for this.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
a semi-socialist country. you dont even say where for gods sake, surely that would be a place to start your argument. are you afraid of me doing research, because you know you cant win this argument? i mean, brain drain, are you serious? sounds more like a soviet-russian style communist dictatorship. are you suggesting that semi-socialist countries like sweden all have a max exodus of academics. i mean come on, how illogical can you get.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Canuck is something Canadians call themselves so it's likely he assumed you knew he's Canadian ;)
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
ahh ok sorry for that. just a lot of idiots come on here and say stuff about their personal experiences with no evidence, which are often complete lies. your videos are great by the way, not often i find other male feminists online.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
No need to be sorry, I just saw the comment this morning while I was checking my inbox and thought I'd answer. I'm glad you like my videos. :)
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
there are also many arguments which can be made for central planning doing better, especially in terms of social justice, than the free market. it depends on where your priorities are. it sounds to me like you dont want to accept the damage that capitalism does, especially in the 3rd world, all you care about is a few extra pounds or dollars in tax. and i can show you plenty of examples of efficiency in socialist countries in all the problem areas you said. you need evidence, but dont have it
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Canadian is correct. First it is not Capitalism that is the source of your problems but the way wealth and money is created. You call me illogical, but defend the Cuban system by saying more Mexicans cross into the U.S. than Cubans. If life in Cuba is so much better, Why doesn't Cuba have a major illegal immigration problem? I am married to a Native Canadian, I know first hand the effects of re-socialization and the welfare state. The gov't intervention ruined a proud peoples way of life.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
A social med clinic in my area for example will not prescribe narcotics (Big Sign) This is because of free drugs. People qualifying for this (Not All People, Some) jump from clinic to clinic to get drugs to sell on the street. I am not an anarchist. I think gov't has a role to play. That is what we differ on (gov't role). Can you try to stop using terms like ignorant and idiot. It makes you look like you can't argue without denigrating people. I will not stoop to that level.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
no, capitalism is the source of the problems, and the more laissez-faire capitalism is, the worse it is. to say otherwise is simply ahistorical, and yet again i have examples, while you do not. my example of more mexicans than cubans was simply in response to you talking about cubans emigrating. are you seriously suggesting that to prove cuba is a success i have to demonstrate that it has a lot of immigration to it, even though it is a 3rd world country? it should be compared to other 3rd.......
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
... world countries, any other comparisons are simply unfair. if you want a socialist 1st world country, look at sweden- and yes, sweden does recieve a lot of immigrants. but, if you must know, cuba does recieve medical patients from other countries, and also some immigrants from countries such as jamaica and haiti. however, if people leave their 3rd world country, most choose to go to the rich, lush 'land of riches' which is shown to them as being the USA. they dont know better......
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
....also, you could look at the immigration from colombia, a country fucked up largely by neo-liberalism (in the form of US foreign policy) in 'america's backyard', and how many, many colombians do immigrate to venezuela, which is socialist, even though venezuela is also a 3rd world country. as for your bullshit about canada, i live in the UK, and the things you are saying are either specific to the canadian system, or completely untrue, because the UK has welfare......
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
.... socialized medicine, etc, and that stuff most definately doesnt happen here. i mean people jumping clinic to clinic and selling the drugs? surely some sort of filing system is in order? plus, you still do not appear to have done any research on sweden, which i suggest you try to do. and finally, as i said earlier, the damage done by unrestrained capitalism is mainly in the 3rd world, and believe it or not, people living in those countries are worth every bit as much as you or me.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
Your hilarious. I gave you examples but you didn't even do a basic search into it. EXAMPLE brain drain which you call a soviet thing. You couldn't even figure out I was Canadian. A simple you You tube profile search. I already know you are in the U.K. , you can speak Spanish.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
I can't hold your hand. You have to do your own work. No wonder you like socialism. You assume I don't care about people in other countries for what reason I can't understand. You assume the immigrants to the U.S. don't know better. Are you saying they are stupid? Because I don't agree with that. I was born in Toronto. I know people from all over the world. I have been to the U.K. I think you need to toss that in to try to show a moral superiority.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Do your own research into Toronto if want to understand. British prescription drug abuse is a real problem as well. (Guardian UK). So I guess by definitely you mean there is a problem. Sweden has higher suicide rates then the U.S., Canada and even Cuba. They are 31st. in the world. ( W.H.O.) Neo Liberalism promotes social education, health and infrastructure spending. Is that bad in your eyes?
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Now In 1958 Cuba's average annual salary was 8th highest in the world. Cuba was a 1st world nation. Now they are a 3rd world nation. This did not happen until after the revolution. You of course will blame the U.S. for this. But if I ripped you off and called you names would you continue to do business with me. So it is perfectly fair to compare Cuba to the U.S. Cuba made themselves a 3rd world nation. Cuba is a dictatorship like the former U.S.S.R.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Cuba had work to do on it's problem with elected officials lining their pockets. But the country was very, very well off before the revolution. Capitalism is basically about incentive and the movement of money. Finance Capitalism is where the problem is. Surprise, I agree with you if you are talking about this. I don't like big business as much as I don't like big gov't. It is the concentration of to much wealth and power which make up most of the problems.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
The instincts of both gov't and business is to grow. But most of the 1st world wealth comes from small to medium size business. If you eat to much cake you get sick. You need to look into how money is created from thin air by banks with gov't consent to properly understand this. This is where growth is necessary. When it grows out of control we have recessions. This resets the balance and the cycle begins again. Many people get hurt by this goofy cycle. And it effects the 3rd world harder
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Funny thing about this cycle is we still have the same production facilities we still have demand, And we still have money. It stops moving because we racked up to much debt. We end up paying for debt instead of buying. If changed to a consumption tax we would slow growth naturally. But that give up to much gov't power in social engineering. And give more power to you to help who ever you want. The UK debt is out of control same with the US. Less money to give to Africa (just for you!) :)
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Now, I know where you are coming from. But the mistake you are making is you think we need Socialism to fight Finance Capitalism. Take for example the removal of the party system from gov't. If you elected a person in your riding (or whatever you call it in GB) Who was to represent you and not a party that person would be accountable to you not a party. When you vote I guess you vote party not person. So you get represented your PM only, (in the case of a majority gov't.).
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Humm, This sort of sounds like a dictatorship. So if your MP represented you and not a party, there would be more accountability you and less to what ever special interest group you don't like. (There is much more I could add but this is already becoming way too long.) I wish I had hours to describe how to deal with other problems but I don't. The point is these two groups (gov't and business want growth, while were are caught in the middle.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
A no party system would help bring control to growth sort of like the use of interest rates in finance capitalism. Now if your interests tend to controlling people, social engineering and thought policing pure socialism is the way to go. I don't want your money, I don't want to control you, and I want to live In peace with choice with social responsibility. I don't want your metaphorical jack boot on my neck, smiling, and saying "This is for your best interest"
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Well, I have to go floss my tooth tune my banjo and iron my hood and cape. Goodnight!
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
where exactly did you get this statistic? because i very much doubt its accuracy, seeing as before the revolution: 23.6% of the population over 10 were illiterate (now 3.8%, mainly elderly); there was only 51% employment (now close to 100%); 7% of homes had electricity (now 95.5%); 35.2% had running water (now 95%); and i can give more citable examples. you need to do some serious research on cuba, before 1959 it was run like a traditional dictatorship by fulgencio batista, with US support.....
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
like i said, i believe that what you say about the prescription drug situation in toronto, but there is, like i said, a simple solution- checks on prescriptions. people may become addicted to prescriptions here, but people most certainly do not stand outside clinics selling drugs. and what the hell has sweden's suicide rate got to do with anything? if you must know, scandinavian countries generally have higher rates, this has been attributed to depression through SAD (due to less daylight)
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
if you believe that neo-liberalism works, that does mean you dont care about those in the 3rd world. i am saying immigrants to the USA from the third world dont know any better because of socialisation and the cultural emperialism of the USA across the world. so no, i dont think they are 'stupid' as such, just generally poorly educated, mislead and misinformed.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
you gave the example of people selling prescription drugs outside stores, and of a 'brain drain' from canada, without any evidence. things can be concievable, and yet still be untrue you know. and like i couldnt work out that you can see where people are from from their profile. i just forgot lol.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago
I agree that feminism has its own ideals as does masculism, I think it should simply be called human rights.
I believe in some of feminist philosophy such as changing chairman to chairperson. I think it goes to far when they want to change boogeyman to boogeyperson for example.
Brilyantee 2 years ago
If it is simply seeking equality why is it called feminism? Why no advocate for men's shelters? Why no advocate for male reproductive rights? Why no advocate for joint custody of children after divorce. Why attack conservative women in politics, when the goal is to get equal male and female representation? Why not respect life style choices of stay at home mothers or men? Check your Feminist history!
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
This is an important point. Supporting men's reproductive rights and the goal of men's shelters does not equal being an activist for those things. Men should be fighting those battles and feminists should be supporting them.
No feminist should fight against those goals but to be an activist for one cause does not require you to be an activist for all causes that you think are important.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
When equality is used a the focal point of your philosophy, these issues should be important to not risk accusations of hypocrisy. It is the social feminist that I have the most problem with. ( I have to insert this) I can't hold back. Your defense of Boundless bothered me. When you read her comments she hates men. She used an exploitive image of a child to prove a point, which was unnecessary at best. This disappoints me. Her negativity does not advance her cause but creates animosity.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Space monkey....
I fully support the idea of mens shelters but for some reason society condemns the fact that men need help. When I questioned why there is none I was told that they can fend for themselves....
I think altogether we come back to gender roling.
Brilyantee 2 years ago
Brilyantee,
I absolutely agree that the answer that abused men can 'fend for themselves' is reprehensible. I think it is possible to simultaneously fight for feminist ideals and also fight against that sort of bigotry. The idea that it is virtuous for men to suffer silently is a strong undercurrent in our culture that is damaging to everyone.
Supporting feminism does not mean being against men's rights. There are feminists who are against men's rights but they're not representative.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
Captaincanuck~
Joint custody for all I think is an awesome answer, except in cases where one parent chooses to relinquish their part of custody.
Women say it is for the better interest of children and to me its absolutle BS, what is their best interest? As far as Im concerned if a women cannot provide financially, emotionally or physically, then it is not in the childs best interest but her own.
That is only fair.
Brilyantee 2 years ago
I can even accept some instances where a parents role is restricted, like abuse. And I am fine with changing chairman to chairperson. With a discussion like this I think we could really move forward to better everyones lot in life.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
P.S. If I sound rough, I don't mean to. I respect your tone in the vids. I think we will never agree on these issues, but wish you well.
TheCaptianCanuck 2 years ago
Your New York Times article is completely wrong and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, women have federally funded scholarship and networking programs that it would be illegal for men to have. Not to mention the fact that female teachers outnumber male teachers 10 to 1.
Go watch "Warren Farrell - The Boy Crisis" on youtube and tell me what you think those numbers would look like if the playing field were level.
Orville9999 2 years ago
Also, I like the way feminists pick and choose the male dominated areas they think women should be in.
I don't see any of them complaining about the lack of women janitors, coal miners, construction workers, underwater welders, or Alaskan crab fishers.
Men make up 90% of workplace deaths. If equality of outcome is what you're so concerned with, why not start getting women into the trades until that one evens out?
Orville9999 2 years ago