Women are choosing to remain single in droves too. What incentive does she have to marry? None.
I think a quick scan of the dating sites will reveal that women aren't choosing to remain single in droves, they are being forced to remain single in droves because for whatever reason (and there are many), men have become highly selective about their mating habits now that the pitfalls of marriage and family are commonly known, and the pool of potential wives has gone from the women in your town to the women of the entire globe.
You have to look at demographics, too, because there is a big split between younger women who choose to remain single (but plan on getting married "someday", after their career takes off and they find "Mr. Right") and older women near the end of their reproductive cycle (usually because they wanted their career to take off) who are just not attractive to the men who are actually seeking a LTR, marriage and kids. Men looking at potential wives and mothers tend to disregard any woman older than 35, and are highly critical of women between 30 and 35.
Of course, a lot of these women "choose" to be single, and then spend every friday night sorting through the new crop of singles on Match.com or whatever, desperately longing for Mr. Right.
Ian, is it possible, just remotely even possible for you to NOT reduce a thread down to porn?
I don't consider it a reduction. I consider it an essential part of the over-all debate. Since porn is a feminist issue as well, I thought it appropriate.
You're not making sense. You are supporting sperm donation and single-motherhood as something that should be encouraged by young women in order to "get around" a man. But your true solution is "parenting together." Mmmmmm. Cake and eat it too.
No, I am not advocating it at all. What I am acknowledging is that their ARE plenty of women who are doing this. That is the reality of it all. I didn't say I was cool with it. I did say that it is their choice, not mine.
Anyone can do a study and make the results favor their own predetermined conclusion.
For example;
The analysis you referenced showed that men were the butt of the joke 70% of the time, but failed to show the difference in male to female leads of the sitcoms they used for their analysis.
See how that changes the outcome? I will give you another one example of people using information to influence thoughts/opinions without including all factors.
Yahoo had an article yesterday titled "The Top 5 Facts About America's Richest 1%". In the article they threw around a lot of percentages regarding wealth distribution and debt distribution. For example; the top 1% owns 40% of the nation’s wealth, the bottom 80% owns 7%. Then they would go on to say; "25 years ago the top 1% owned only 33% of national wealth." Rinse repeat.
Did you see it? They gave the past wealth distribution for one group and omitted the other.
Sorry for the thread jack, just trying to get my point across and that was the freshest example in my mind.
Oh, I agree about the third kind of lie. And I take your point. (you forgot to mention Maude, one of the most pro-feminist shows, ever.). But the fact remains that the institutional perception of husband and father is incompetent, helpless, lazy, and stupid.
Why? Perhaps because sitcom viewers tend to be women, and women make most of the purchasing decisions in the household. Therefore shows that denigrate men in prime time have much higher commercial appeal than shows that celebrate men. (Beer and truck commercials are exempt from this example.)
Less than half. Didn't you teach this lesson to us last week?
Someone was paying attention?!? OMG!
(Thanks for remembering, BTW).
Yes, it's 40%.
That means that if you have girls, you have an 80% chance, per girl, of having a grandchild. If you have a boy, you have a 40% chance.
And that, I think, has a profound effect on the entire male-female issue. When you break it to a man that if he works really hard, busts his a$$, makes himself the best man he can be, and searches for the perfect mother of his children that he still only has a 40% chance, on average, of having kids, is it any wonder that objectification, resentment, and anger at the inequality arise?
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Mary Kay? Avon? The La Leche League? There are tons of women-dominated (though unofficially gender-based) organizations."
These were the best examples you could come up with?
MADD was created by a group of mothers, hence the name. What is your proof that it is "women-dominated", besides the name of course? Oh, and there is also a DADD. Look it up. Mary Kay and Avon sell some male products but mostly make-up. No one is stopping you from getting involved or from being a customer. Also I would like to point out that one of the largest cosmetics companies in the world, Clinique, may be dominated by female customers and workers (the consultants); the founding dermatologist behind the line is a MAN. Now I am moving onto my favorite example, The La Leche League. Can you breast-feed? I know men can with the help of hormone pills, but can you? Do you want to? I joined when I was pregnant with my daughter and my husband was encouraged to go by the leaders of the group. He went to several classes and never felt anything (besides awkward) but welcome. The purpose of the group is to provide support for families that choose to breastfeed and to promote breastfeeding in general.
I am familiar with all of the above organizations on a personal level. My point was that there are plenty of female-dominated organizations. The inclusion of token men, regardless of their position, is about as relevant as the 1% of strip club customers who are straight women. In both cases, the exception proves the rule.
I think a quick scan of the dating sites will reveal that women aren't choosing to remain single in droves, they are being forced to remain single in droves because for whatever reason (and there are many), men have become highly selective about their mating habits now that the pitfalls of marriage and family are commonly known, and the pool of potential wives has gone from the women in your town to the women of the entire globe.
You have to look at demographics, too, because there is a big split between younger women who choose to remain single (but plan on getting married "someday", after their career takes off and they find "Mr. Right") and older women near the end of their reproductive cycle (usually because they wanted their career to take off) who are just not attractive to the men who are actually seeking a LTR, marriage and kids. Men looking at potential wives and mothers tend to disregard any woman older than 35, and are highly critical of women between 30 and 35.
Of course, a lot of these women "choose" to be single, and then spend every friday night sorting through the new crop of singles on Match.com or whatever, desperately longing for Mr. Right.
So your basis is a dating website? Well of course you are going to see people who want relationships there. That's like going to a gambling site and saying "Everybody gambles".
That means that if you have girls, you have an 80% chance, per girl, of having a grandchild. If you have a boy, you have a 40% chance.
And that, I think, has a profound effect on the entire male-female issue. When you break it to a man that if he works really hard, busts his a$$, makes himself the best man he can be, and searches for the perfect mother of his children that he still only has a 40% chance, on average, of having kids, is it any wonder that objectification, resentment, and anger at the inequality arise?
I'm not saying this to be a smarta$$, but if all these women are having kids and barely any men are, who are impregnating all these women? Honest question. It just sounds strange to me.
So your basis is a dating website? Well of course you are going to see people who want relationships there. That's like going to a gambling site and saying "Everybody gambles".
No, my basis was the raw data from one of the lobes of the Great American Sex Survey, which revealed that, of unmarried female respondents, more than 60% were actively seeking a long term relationship (as opposed to a short-term fling or friendship). Of those, a significant portion had been using multiple dating sites and had been using them for 8 months or more.
Unfortunately, since that kind of data doesn't sell sex toys, it doesn't get publicized. But it is useful from a marketing perspective.
That means that if you have girls, you have an 80% chance, per girl, of having a grandchild. If you have a boy, you have a 40% chance.
And that, I think, has a profound effect on the entire male-female issue. When you break it to a man that if he works really hard, busts his a$$, makes himself the best man he can be, and searches for the perfect mother of his children that he still only has a 40% chance, on average, of having kids, is it any wonder that objectification, resentment, and anger at the inequality arise?
I'm not saying this to be a smarta$$, but if all these women are having kids and barely any men are, who are impregnating all these women? Honest question. It just sounds strange to me.
What he is saying is that the 40% that can are impregnating the 80%.
I'm not saying this to be a smarta$$, but if all these women are having kids and barely any men are, who are impregnating all these women? Honest question. It just sounds strange to me.
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, and we're dealing with human averages, not just Western averages. Consider that there are over 30 million more Chinese boys than girls coming of age in China now, thanks to the one-child policy and selective abortion back in the 80s and 90s. 30 million men who have virtually no hope of getting married, and not much hope of even getting laid by a nice Chinese girl without money changing hands. That's one country, one demographic, and one culture, but when you look at human statistics in aggregate, it tends to be about 80% females and 40% males. In other cultures it can be due to warfare (Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East), culturally derived marriage patterns (Middle East, south Asia, Southeast Asia) or boys just giving up on the hope of ever having children because of the social pressures and the financial problems involved (Japan).
But in America, it still hovers around 40%, too. Consider for example the number of men in prison, not to mention the number of socially-retarded social nerds who have almost no sexual value. And now the ease of getting sex-for-hire and internet porn is going to decrease that, perhaps.
Re: Feminism.... 
