# Is there a Misandry bubble?



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2010)

Hi all ASFer's

I came across this intriguing article published on The Futurist.

It's a long read and certainly from an economics point of view
very concerning.

Hope you enjoy the read.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html


----------



## Whiskers (8 February 2010)

Holy smoke Gumby!

Are you sure you want to open this can of worms?

Fwiw, from a quick read of the Summary and a few more paragraphs... there might be some elements of truth in there!


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Holy smoke Gumby!
> 
> Are you sure you want to open this can of worms?
> 
> Fwiw, from a quick read of the Summary and a few more paragraphs... there might be some elements of truth in there!




Certainly.

It's open to discussion/critique by anyone interested.

Overall, I found the authors research quite sound.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Hi all ASFer's
> 
> I came across this intriguing article published on The Futurist.
> 
> ...




Thanks GL.

I wasn't game to bring it up.

A summary.



> Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.  This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.




gg


----------



## drsmith (9 February 2010)

Judging by the table below the future is not all that bright for the urban lefto-'feminist'.


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 March 2010)

Women's Day activists march through city
AAP
March 06, 2010

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rch-through-city/story-fn3dxity-1225837671781

MORE than a thousand women, and a few brave men, have reclaimed the streets of Sydney for women's rights.

Community groups and individuals from around the country and abroad have come together to march ahead of International Women's Day, which takes place on Monday.

This year's local theme is Fair Go for Women, in Australia and Around the World, and the plight of women in Burma and the murder of hundreds of women in Jaurez, Mexico, were highlighted during march.

Closer to home, the issues of Australian women's pay, maternity leave, women in prison and abortion were also raised.

"This is a celebration, it's a protest, it's us women asking why aren't we there yet?" event organiser Anne Barber said.

"This is our 99th year celebrating International Women's Day. Women make up 52 per cent of the population, but we are still treated like a minority group."

But according to Ms Barber, men weren't particularly welcome to participate in the march.

*"It's not that we are anti-male, it's that we are pro-female," Ms Barber said. 

"This is a women's-only march. Guys can march 364 days a year. They might say they are here to support women, but we don't need that support. We're here to do our own thing."*


----------



## bellenuit (6 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> This year's local theme is Fair Go for Women, in Australia and Around the World, and the plight of women in Burma and the murder of hundreds of women in Jaurez, Mexico, were highlighted during march.[/B]




Some noble causes, but I can never understand why there is so much silence on the plight of women in many Islamic countries particularly Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and most Middle East countries.


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 March 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Some noble causes, but I can never understand why there is so much silence on the plight of women in many Islamic countries particularly Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and most Middle East countries.




Yes, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of media coverage.


----------



## kgee (6 March 2010)

The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation + Wile e. Coyote...
Very Funny,...

One comment on Globalisation, 
last year I had 4 friends go asian 2 married and shifted to Indonesia & Phillipines the other 2 are in steady relationships with the view of shifting.

In the words of Johnny Cash "I hear a train a coming"

Apologies if thats to HC


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 March 2010)

kgee said:


> The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation + Wile e. Coyote...
> Very Funny,...
> 
> One comment on Globalisation,
> ...




"The greatest thing you'll ever learn
is just to love and be loved in return"

I prefer Nat King Cole's Nature Boy inspired by poet Eden Abhez. Even though I'm a big Johnny Cash fan.


----------



## awg (6 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> MORE than a thousand women, and a few brave men, have reclaimed the streets of Sydney for women's rights.
> 
> Community groups and individuals from around the country and abroad have come together to march ahead of International Women's Day, which takes place on Monday."[/B]





They should have International Young Blokes Day then, since the vast majority of street assaults happen to young males


----------



## Julia (6 March 2010)

From the article (I admit to not having read all of it)


> 1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization.  Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.



Well, whoop de do.  All this means is that for the first time women were able to enjoy their sexuality in the same way that men have throughout history.
The statement above from the article suggests a different moral code should be applicable for women than has traditionally applied to men.



> 2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part.  Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come.  This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of their behavior onto men and children.



Not just women needed "to prove misconduct" to obtain a divorce:  men were also obliged to do likewise.  The law in those days was stupid for both men and women.  Today's 'no fault divorce' is much more sensible.

There is, however, a good point made about the payments most men are obliged to make to women after divorce.  Especially with government welfare, many women can enjoy a very comfortable existence in the previous marital home while the bloke struggles financially and still has to work full time, usually only seeing the children on a very limited basis, this being largely dictated by the ex-wife.





> 3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce.  These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less.



Oh, please!  The pejorative tone here suggests it was/is women's role to be chained to the house, washing clothes by hand, dusting and sweeping floors.
Then she was urged by the women's magazines to always ensure that by the time her husband came home, she looked pretty, removed her apron, and had a welcome drink waiting for him.  She should also be ready to listen to the woes of his day and not talk about anything that may have gone wrong for her.  Gee whiz, those were the days, huh!

And as I remember those times, when women did enter the workforce, they still carried out all the damn housework, cooking etc as well as working fulltime.  Yes, they were 'allowed' to work, but any thought that the husband might share in the home stuff was but a dream.




> There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers.  However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.



Ignoring the fact that women's incomes were way less than men's (and still are for the most part), isn't that a good thing?   Being financially dependent on a partner is hardly the basis for a good relationship.





> Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended).  Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.



Well, if this were true, wouldn't there be a quota system for the appointment of women?   I don't see it happening.   I'm not saying it doesn't happen as quite possibly in the public service such determined appointment of women regardless of ability could well happen.

And if it were the case, why do we not see women employed in equal ratio to men in the country's top jobs?

I can think of Gail Kelly, Heather Ridout, Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon, plus the female union leaders whose names I can't recall, but the numbers would be a fraction of males in top positions.



> 4) Pro-female social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.



Yep, I strongly agree about this.  This is where the feminist movement lost me.   They wanted equality.  I totally agree.  But they have gone beyond equality in this aspect and are behaving pathetically with respect to so called 'sexual harassment'.
For god's sake, just deal with it, you silly women, as your older sisters have done.  These days a bloke only has to make a vaguely flirtatious remark to a woman, put his hand innocently on her, and she screams sexual harassment.
It's embarrassing.

All up, it's like most social movements.  The movement of the pendulum has in some ways swung too far toward making women a bit precious.  I expect in time a reasonable norm will be reached.

Interesting topic.


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 March 2010)

Julia said:


> From the article (I admit to not having read all of it)
> 
> Well, whoop de do.  All this means is that for the first time women were able to enjoy their sexuality in the same way that men have throughout history.
> The statement above from the article suggests a different moral code should be applicable for women than has traditionally applied to men.
> ...




Excellent post Julia. If you get the chance to read the entire paper he is also quite critical of men too. But great to have some discussion in this thread.


----------



## kgee (7 March 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> "The greatest thing you'll ever learn
> is just to love and be loved in return"
> 
> I prefer Nat King Cole's Nature Boy inspired by poet Eden Abhez. Even though I'm a big Johnny Cash fan.




And here's me thinking you were a cynic


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 March 2010)

*Women's Day an insult: supermodel*
March 9, 2010
THE AGE

Dirie underwent genital mutilation at the age of three together with her two sisters, who did not survive.

Dirie, a special ambassador to the United Nation for the elimination of female genital mutilation, said governments in Africa cared little about the issue.

"Governments do not care about that type of thing," she said. "They do absolutely nothing to help."

That is why, she said, help needed to come from non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

On its website, the Waris Dirie Foundation, estimates that at least 150 million women and girls are affected by the cruel practice which continues to be performed in Africa and elsewhere around the world.
Millions of women around the world are feted on International Women's Day but for Waris Dirie, the Somali nomad turned supermodel, the idea is absurd.

"Every day, women move mountains. It is an insult to have an international women's day," Dirie told Reuters before the premiere of a film based on her life story, coming out in France on Wednesday.

The film, Desert Flower, tells the story of how Dirie used her fame as a model to get the world to care about and fight against female circumcision.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/...ult-supermodel-20100309-ptjv.html?autostart=1

I noticed some debates attached to this story in The Age.

Here are two of them

Maybe models should think about what the industry they work in does to the status and perception of women around the world, rather than criticising International Women's Day. While working to alleviate the cruel practice of circumcision on some women, you're contributing directly to an industry that thinks the role and value of women is to look good and conform to ridiculously narrow standards of beauty. An alarming number of women undergo voluntary genital mutilation - in the form of cosmetic surgery - to conform to what the fashion and beauty industry dictates as an acceptable standard of appearance.
Curtankerous | Flemington - March 09, 2010, 5:23PM 

I'm sorry Curtankerous, so you're saying that she should've been 'noble' and lived the rest of her life out in poverty instead? At least this way she's been able to bring the message foward, and it tends to have a much greater impact coming from someone who has suffered it, than from rich white americans.
I for one agree with her, International Women's Day is a load of garbage. Is doens't do what it's designed to, it's simply taken over by femininazis who refuse to even let men support their cause. Then it gets bogged down in bickering, and maternity leave, and everyone forgets about the women in third world countries who are oppressed and impoverished.
Sarah - March 10, 2010, 9:18AM


----------



## majorca (10 March 2010)

let the girls go , with great power comes great responsibility. This is something any one has to learn to truly rule their own empire. My empire is fortunately run under the watchful eye of my wife who I adore, consequently she runs an empire of her own in the same house . We both have equal responsibility, and divide them to suit our talents. If she is cooking I do some washing open a bottle of wine fold last nights washing and we talk while all this goes on. I work, she works, the things need to be done we do them. We have learnt when our children were younger that it was practical for her to look after them, and now I feel like I missed out on alot by being at work 12 hrs a day. I could not live with a woman that wanted to stay home , I wanted a partener in my life not a puppie. The girls and boys that end up  with the most in life learn early that sometimes you have to lose to win. The money is nice but the success is the families health and happiness.


PS . haven't read the article just love the sound of my own voice, I suppose.


----------



## professor_frink (10 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Not just women needed "to prove misconduct" to obtain a divorce:  men were also obliged to do likewise.  The law in those days was stupid for both men and women.  Today's 'no fault divorce' is much more sensible.
> 
> There is, however, a good point made about the payments most men are obliged to make to women after divorce.  Especially with government welfare, many women can enjoy a very comfortable existence in the previous marital home while the bloke struggles financially and still has to work full time, usually only seeing the children on a very limited basis, this being largely dictated by the ex-wife.




I can't say I agree with this Julia. A no fault divorce can't be even considered anything close to a good thing when the result is so consistently lopsided when the divorce happens. What we have today is a system where if the man leaves the marriage and breaks the "contract", he is punished. Under any other contract entered into in society today, this is a fair outcome. But if a woman decides to break the contract and file for a divorce, the man is still punished. Can't see how this is sensible at all


----------



## awg (10 March 2010)

Apparently, divorce is now initiated by women in over 70% of cases, and this figure is growing.

To my mind, this trend is both indicative of, and led by, the better outcomes that can be achieved by female divorcees.


----------



## Julia (10 March 2010)

professor_frink said:


> I can't say I agree with this Julia. A no fault divorce can't be even considered anything close to a good thing when the result is so consistently lopsided when the divorce happens. What we have today is a system where if the man leaves the marriage and breaks the "contract", he is punished. Under any other contract entered into in society today, this is a fair outcome. But if a woman decides to break the contract and file for a divorce, the man is still punished. Can't see how this is sensible at all






> There is, however, a good point made about the payments most men are obliged to make to women after divorce. Especially with government welfare, many women can enjoy a very comfortable existence in the previous marital home while the bloke struggles financially and still has to work full time, usually only seeing the children on a very limited basis, this being largely dictated by the ex-wife.




I think you're misunderstanding me, Frinky, or I expressed what I meant badly.
Doesn't my comment above pretty much make the same point you're making re women almost always being advantaged over the bloke?

What I was referring to when I said that no fault divorce is more sensible is a comparison with times that you're probably too young to remember.  Back then one party had to be deemed to be "at fault" usually on the basis of adultery.  So private investigators would make like Dick Tracy and follow the so called adulterous partner around until they could acquire incriminating evidence which was then submitted to the court.

Often, if a couple had amicably agreed to part, in the absence of any other grounds than a lengthy three year separation, they agreed to a jacked up adultery case where one of them admitted being unfaithful in order to have the divorce through quickly.

It was all very unsavoury and unnecessarily painful all round.
By comparison, today's no fault divorce is way more civilised.
That is quite distinct from the financial arrangements involved.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 March 2010)

That article is the biggest load of codswallop I have ever read.


----------



## professor_frink (10 March 2010)

Julia said:


> I think you're misunderstanding me, Frinky, or I expressed what I meant badly.
> Doesn't my comment above pretty much make the same point you're making re women almost always being advantaged over the bloke?
> 
> What I was referring to when I said that no fault divorce is more sensible is a comparison with times that you're probably too young to remember.  Back then one party had to be deemed to be "at fault" usually on the basis of adultery.  So private investigators would make like Dick Tracy and follow the so called adulterous partner around until they could acquire incriminating evidence which was then submitted to the court.
> ...




No misunderstanding Julia(at least I hope). I just can't make a distinction between the divorce and the end result for men afterwards. If the end result didn't leave divorced men broke and suicidal, I'd most likely have a different view on the concept of a no fault divorce.


----------



## gooner (10 March 2010)

professor_frink said:


> I can't say I agree with this Julia. A no fault divorce can't be even considered anything close to a good thing when the result is so consistently lopsided when the divorce happens. What we have today is a system where if the man leaves the marriage and breaks the "contract", he is punished. Under any other contract entered into in society today, this is a fair outcome. But if a woman decides to break the contract and file for a divorce, the man is still punished. Can't see how this is sensible at all




Not sure how the man is punished.  If there are children involved, if they stay with the man, the woman has to pay maintenance and vice versa. If no children involved, there may be a division of assets based on mutual support over the period the couple were married, irrespective of who has the most assets (man or woman). Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm male, married 3 kids, but if I ever divorced (v.unlikely), I would quite happily agree to a 50:50 split of assets, even though 90% of them have come my salary rather than my wife's. She has supported by career and brought up our kids. That seems reasonable to me.


----------



## nunthewiser (10 March 2010)

gooner said:


> I'm male, married 3 kids, but if I ever divorced (v.unlikely), I would quite happily agree to a 50:50 split of assets,  .




LOL your dreaming mate ......... A divorce in this situation is more likely to see you with 30% split IF there are children involved and she gets to keep them.


----------



## Julia (10 March 2010)

professor_frink said:


> No misunderstanding Julia(at least I hope). I just can't make a distinction between the divorce and the end result for men afterwards. If the end result didn't leave divorced men broke and suicidal, I'd most likely have a different view on the concept of a no fault divorce.



It's the method of obtaining the divorce that I'm trying to explain, and which was the basis of my comment that getting a divorce these days is much better/fairer/easier than it used to be.

The custodial arrangements and the financial support are independent of the decision to part.  My point was that these days a couple simply has to decide the relationship isn't working, and voila, they can get a divorce.  No one has to be overtly 'at fault'.  

And let's remember that the law is only there for instances where couples can't come to a private agreement.  viz Gooner's contention that in the unlikely event of a split of his family, they would be able to agree on division of assets and custodial arrangements for the children


----------



## gooner (10 March 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> LOL your dreaming mate ......... A divorce in this situation is more likely to see you with 30% split IF there are children involved and she gets to keep them.




NTW. Would have a 50:50 split of the children as well - can't imagine doing anything else.

It is not something I have looked into - just a view that after 16 years, 50:50 is the right thing to do. I can understand the viewpoint of someone who comes into a relationship with lots of assets, but that was not the case for us. I had a bit of cash but not that much. I earnt most of the money that represents our combined assets now. But my wife left work to bring up our children, so IMHO she has made an equal contribution (she would probably argue a bigger one, having gone through childbirth without pain relief, LOL).


----------



## Soft Dough (10 March 2010)

meh, more power to them I say.

Except for 2 things

1. The loss of the LADY.  Women now belch, fart, drink beer by the jug, scratch, swear, lose their temper, punch, demand, dress poorly etc.   This is a shame, I thought that it was something to be proud of to be a woman, I guess they do not see it that way.

2. I have no problem with equal pay if:
a) They work the same hours
b) They get paid the same for the same level of experience, not age ( ie at 40 most men are much more experienced than the same age woman )
c) They perform the same etc.
d) They get no more fringe benefits eg maternity pay.
e) They get no special work concessions.


If they do the same ( and in many cases they do ) then they deserve the same pay..  I don't care if it is a man or woman who I am working with 

IN FACT

I prefer to work with a LADY, as they add an extra dimension... unfortunately they are few and far between.


----------

