This is a thought that occurred to me today, and if it has already been discussed, I apologize. I also don't know exactly where to put it, so I'll start here and the admins can move it as needed.
There was a time when marriage made sense for a man. He ruled his home, and the marriage contract generally insured that his children would be his own and he could generally control his own family. The laws and social mores were in his favor, and religious authority backed him up. It was a man's world.
This state of affairs no longer exists in the West, and eventually, unless Islam truly dominates the world, it will no longer exist anywhere. Now, marriage is becoming less of an attractive investment for a man, and certainly makes less sense as a survival strategy. In the USA, for example, about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. If a man marries and has children, and then someone files for divorce (it's usually the female), the man is at a distinct disadvantage. The woman is likely to get custody of the children, and when she remarries another idiot male, that male will raise the first male's children. The female will also come out ahead financially, as she will be more likely to get more of the property, as well as child support and alimony. So a male making a purely rational decision (which we never do when sex is involved) would probably opt out of marriage.
If a male opts out of marriage, he will still probably make some female pregnant down the line (assuming he is hetero). Since there is no marriage, the female has 100% control over the pregnancy and child-rearing decisions. As technology advances, females will be capable of determining the gender of their child. With females in 100% control of this decision, there will be more females born than males (most females would rather have a girl than a boy, IMHO). Initially the difference will be slight, but eventually it will be significant. Eventually, as technology advances, women will be able to have children without any male involvement at all, and males will be toast. They won't even need to keep us around for breeding purposes, and they will all get used to strap-ons for sexual gratification. The world will be inhabited only by females.
Just a thought. Contrary opinions are welcome. Obviously, I would prefer that males continued to exist. Think of Super Bowl MCC with only female players. Ugh.
Governments are putting so much defacto protection laws in place that legally there seems to be no reason to actually tie the legal knot.
I would imagine that for gay people this may be a little disappointing since they are only just beginning to win the battle for equality and the right to a normal marriage under the law (rather than a civil union), but the meaning of marriage these days is almost degraded to a non event, so they are almost too late to the party.
My wife and myself, we don't wear our wedding rings anymore, when we were getting married we put much thought into whether we would buy them or not, we aren't much into jewelry nor symbolism. We did like the idea of proclaiming our love and commitment for each other in front of our friends and family though
However, I can see in the future that the concept of formal marriage becomes a thing of the past, especially given the government's stance on defacto relationships.
With regards to woman claiming the children when a relationship breaks up, I am confused as to why the woman gets precedence. But with your stated stance of the man being the ruler of the home, I would say that if this is your position then you don't love your wife as much as I love mine. I see my wife as my equal, my partner in crime, I would never want to rule her.
I think that women will eventually greatly outnumber men, at least in the richest countries, but men disappearing? That seems unlikely at least for now (there are biological evidences to suggest that the Y chromosome is disappearing on its own, without technological intervention). There's even a species of lizard where this happened, and now only females exist...but anyways, not going into that now.
QuoteJust a thought. Contrary opinions are welcome. Obviously, I would prefer that males continued to exist. Think of Super Bowl MCC with only female players. Ugh.
Boring game regardless of if it's females or males playing, but if you prefer, you can think of big men bashing eachother up...
;)
(which is perfectly alright IMO, that line just popped out at me in that way because I don't think it's what you meant to say)
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over? :D
Is the Super Bowl baseball or American football? I know it's not ice-hockey, because that's quite interesting.
Whie I despise most of them bleeding-heart feminists, I partly disagree with your statement. You see, I don't care at all about marriages and divorses and "family values", whatever the hell that means. What I do care about, however, are legal rights. And, although men and women are equals in the eyes of the law in most countries, you would be hard pressed to find ten large corporations where the majority of the board of directors is female. In healthcare, nursing is, in most countries for which I have the statistics, female-dominated while MDs are, sometimes marginally, more male.
In many areas of life, it's still pretty much a man's world. In a few, it now seems to be a woman's world. Me, I like those areas where the world belongs to the first opportunist to claim it, regardless of sex, skin color or whatever other separator you may want to find except perhaps intelligence. :P
@ the OP
An interesting question. While it could be feasible for males to die out in a society where women had full reproductive control, which included selecting the gender of the offspring, why would women only choose to have female offspring? There would be no males for their daughters to have any children with?
If cloning technology were refined it would be available to both genders. And by definition the clone of a male will be a male.
It has always intrigued me why Bill Gates ever married in the conventional sense. He was rich enough to pay any suitable willing women $1,000,000 dollars to have a baby by him (through artificial insemination) and then pay another $2,000,000 to see the child well brought up and all the way through college. He really missed the reproductive boat IMO.
Rarity always has value. So if society became significantly lop sided gender wise I suspect that novelty alone would keep society from flipping completely one way or the other.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
As technology advances, females will be capable of determining the gender of their child. With females in 100% control of this decision, there will be more females born than males (most females would rather have a girl than a boy, IMHO).
Bruce, IMHO this is simply a wrong assumption/opinion. Why do you think we would we rather have a girl than a boy?
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Bruce, IMHO this is simply a wrong assumption/opinion. Why do you think we would we rather have a girl than a boy?
Cheap TV show thing..? Where the pregnant wife wants a daughter and her good for nothing husband wants a son..?
Hmm. Strange indeed. The US seems to have declared war on women. It's all about "personhood" you see. First corporation became persons and thus were given the Freedom of Speech (strains of God Bless Amurica sound in the background). They are thus free to spend
our I mean their hard earned money to buy politicians with. Now personhood has resurfaced. This time foetuses have made the grade.
Quoteon Wednesday, Irin Carmon wrote about a controversial possible new Mississippi law that would redefine "personhood" as something that begins at conception. As she detailed in the piece, its passage could result in bans on commonly used forms of birth control, while also opening the door to criminal investigations on women who suffer miscarriages.
And now Mitt Romney that "liberal socialist" has hopped on the bandwagon.
QuoteRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says that he would support the 'personhood' amendment to the US federal constitution
Here's more about how woman are taking over (this from the Guardian):
QuoteMississippi is the latest state to support a "personhood" amendment – a law that defines life as beginning at conception and giving full legal rights to a fertilised egg. On a recent political talk show, Mitt Romney affirmed that he would "absolutely" support such an amendment to the federal constitution. Such a conservative law would have far-reaching consequences, rendering many forms of birth control, the morning-after pill and aspects of in-vitro fertilisation illegal, as well as eliminating abortion as an option even when deemed medically necessary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/27/romney-anti-abortion-kill-me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/27/romney-anti-abortion-kill-me)
And you worry about Islam taking over the world?
When it comes to divorce/child rearing, I agree that women still have most of the legal say in what happens (sometimes unfairly), but I would definitely disagree that divorced women tend to come out financially ahead.
There are still a lot of women who chose to stay home with their kids and if/when divorce happens, they are left with very little employable skills. I, personally, know at least a half dozen women that I went to highschool with who fit this description. The women may get the kids in a divorce in the majority of the cases, but they are very rarely "set for life".
It may not be as much of a "man's world", but it is a far cry from being a "woman's world" just yet.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietIt may not be as much of a "man's world", but it is a far cry from being a "woman's world" just yet.
What I posted above your post certainly supports what you're saying.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over? :D
Is the Super Bowl baseball or American football? I know it's not ice-hockey, because that's quite interesting.
Wow, that's a high figure, and frankly I'm surprised. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on October 31, 2011, 10:48:13 AM
Me, I like those areas where the world belongs to the first opportunist to claim it, regardless of sex, skin color or whatever other separator you may want to find except perhaps intelligence. :P
This^ ;D
Ideally, there should be no social barriers, though of course there are physical ones in some cases.
Quoteon Wednesday, Irin Carmon wrote about a controversial possible new Mississippi law that would redefine "personhood" as something that begins at conception. As she detailed in the piece, its passage could result in bans on commonly used forms of birth control, while also opening the door to criminal investigations on women who suffer miscarriages.
That is just so odd...talk about slippery slopes!
And who are they to question why their god would perfom a natural abortion anyways?
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
As technology advances, females will be capable of determining the gender of their child. With females in 100% control of this decision, there will be more females born than males (most females would rather have a girl than a boy, IMHO).
Bruce, IMHO this is simply a wrong assumption/opinion. Why do you think we would we rather have a girl than a boy?
I read a recent article in which the choice of girls was on the rise because girls are generally doing better in the modern world than boys (more college degrees, less time in prison, etc.). While I think the trend may render slight results at first, over time it would be significant. Of course, I hadn't thought about Tank's idea of the value of a rare commodity. That might keep us around for a while - even if as a curiosity.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over?
Family lawyers I know here in Texas will tell you a similar story - that divorce filings go up right after Christmas. I think your latter explanation is the correct one. The 70% figure doesn't surprise me. For a man to file for divorce, he has to be prepared to lose primary custody of his children. That's usually a pretty hard decision. The woman simply doesn't have as much to lose by dumping him.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
As technology advances, females will be capable of determining the gender of their child. With females in 100% control of this decision, there will be more females born than males (most females would rather have a girl than a boy, IMHO).
Bruce, IMHO this is simply a wrong assumption/opinion. Why do you think we would we rather have a girl than a boy?
I read a recent article in which the choice of girls was on the rise because girls are generally doing better in the modern world than boys (more college degrees, less time in prison, etc.). While I think the trend may render slight results at first, over time it would be significant. Of course, I hadn't thought about Tank's idea of the value of a rare commodity. That might keep us around for a while - even if as a curiosity.
A perfect situation. The excess girls can be matched with the excess boys in China. The balance is restored.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:03:51 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over?
Family lawyers I know here in Texas will tell you a similar story - that divorce filings go up right after Christmas. I think your latter explanation is the correct one. The 70% figure doesn't surprise me. For a man to file for divorce, he has to be prepared to lose primary custody of his children. That's usually a pretty hard decision. The woman simply doesn't have as much to lose by dumping him.
Or, women tend to get the poopier ends of the stick in marriage.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:03:51 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over?
Family lawyers I know here in Texas will tell you a similar story - that divorce filings go up right after Christmas. I think your latter explanation is the correct one. The 70% figure doesn't surprise me. For a man to file for divorce, he has to be prepared to lose primary custody of his children. That's usually a pretty hard decision. The woman simply doesn't have as much to lose by dumping him.
Now I've gotten insanely curious, any reasons as to why most filings occur after the holidays? Any anecdotal evidence?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 31, 2011, 05:34:20 PM
Or, women tend to get the poopier ends of the stick in marriage.
Ha! When the twins were born we started using towel nappies to save money. One day I was transfering the soiled nappies from the nappy bucket into the washing machine and accidentally flicked a chunk of poo into my mouth, which caused me to vomit into the nappy bucket. Needless to say we started using disposable nappies the next day.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:03:51 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over?
Family lawyers I know here in Texas will tell you a similar story - that divorce filings go up right after Christmas. I think your latter explanation is the correct one. The 70% figure doesn't surprise me. For a man to file for divorce, he has to be prepared to lose primary custody of his children. That's usually a pretty hard decision. The woman simply doesn't have as much to lose by dumping him.
Now I've gotten insanely curious, any reasons as to why most filings occur after the holidays? Any anecdotal evidence?
Like Ildiko suggested, it's to get the kids past Christmas. Get through the holidays, then break up the family in January so they will have almost a whole year to recover before it's time to get presents again.
Quote from: Tank on October 31, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 31, 2011, 05:34:20 PM
Or, women tend to get the poopier ends of the stick in marriage.
Ha! When the twins were born we started using towel nappies to save money. One day I was transfering the soiled nappies from the nappy bucket into the washing machine and accidentally flicked a chunk of poo into my mouth, which caused me to vomit into the nappy bucket. Needless to say we started using disposable nappies the next day.
LOL, too much information man.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:03:51 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 08:26:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 05:23:25 AM
Most divorces are filed by the females? ??? Really?
I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK, the last figures I saw were that something like 70% of divorces are now instigated by women, and a quite extraordinary proportion of them take the first steps on or around 7th January. It's as though Christmas is just too much! Or perhaps they are just holding it together until after the holiday is over?
Family lawyers I know here in Texas will tell you a similar story - that divorce filings go up right after Christmas. I think your latter explanation is the correct one. The 70% figure doesn't surprise me. For a man to file for divorce, he has to be prepared to lose primary custody of his children. That's usually a pretty hard decision. The woman simply doesn't have as much to lose by dumping him.
Now I've gotten insanely curious, any reasons as to why most filings occur after the holidays? Any anecdotal evidence?
Like Ildiko suggested, it's to get the kids past Christmas. Get through the holidays, then break up the family in January so they will have almost a whole year to recover before it's time to get presents again.
Well at least those cases are coolly and calmly planned then. I was thinking something more like:
Christmas was the last straw, I'm filing for a divorce! kind of scenario. :P
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 31, 2011, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 31, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 31, 2011, 05:34:20 PM
Or, women tend to get the poopier ends of the stick in marriage.
Ha! When the twins were born we started using towel nappies to save money. One day I was transfering the soiled nappies from the nappy bucket into the washing machine and accidentally flicked a chunk of poo into my mouth, which caused me to vomit into the nappy bucket. Needless to say we started using disposable nappies the next day.
LOL, too much information man.
Wait until you have rug rats!
Quote from: Tank on October 31, 2011, 06:24:25 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 31, 2011, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 31, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 31, 2011, 05:34:20 PM
Or, women tend to get the poopier ends of the stick in marriage.
Ha! When the twins were born we started using towel nappies to save money. One day I was transfering the soiled nappies from the nappy bucket into the washing machine and accidentally flicked a chunk of poo into my mouth, which caused me to vomit into the nappy bucket. Needless to say we started using disposable nappies the next day.
LOL, too much information man.
Wait until you have rug rats!
I've got kids and managed to get through the nappy stages without getting poo my mouth :D Hey if anybody ever called you potty mouth or gobshite you could think "if only you knew!"
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 06:11:15 PM
Like Ildiko suggested, it's to get the kids past Christmas. Get through the holidays, then break up the family in January so they will have almost a whole year to recover before it's time to get presents again.
I don't think I mentioned kids. I have no idea how many of these female-instigated divorces in the UK involve kids at all. I wonder how many people still wait for the children to grow up, or perhaps just find when the children have left home that they have no real marriage left? How many of these 70% of divorces are instigated by women over 45, say, women with their own jobs? I expect there are statistics, but I'm not curious enough to look for them at the moment.
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 06:11:15 PM
Like Ildiko suggested, it's to get the kids past Christmas. Get through the holidays, then break up the family in January so they will have almost a whole year to recover before it's time to get presents again.
I don't think I mentioned kids. I have no idea how many of these female-instigated divorces in the UK involve kids at all. I wonder how many people still wait for the children to grow up, or perhaps just find when the children have left home that they have no real marriage left? How many of these 70% of divorces are instigated by women over 45, say, women with their own jobs? I expect there are statistics, but I'm not curious enough to look for them at the moment.
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
This^
The idea of women with children breaking up a family just seems a little odd - women generally are more family oriented - though I'm not saying that I don't accept it because I think it's impossible. I just find it odd that Bruce makes it sound like they have nothing to loose (even if by extension), contrary to the father who does.
Women's expectations from marriage and their husbands are higher now we have sexual equality, and the man can't just tell his wife to like it or lump it.
Higher expectations = more disappointment = more divorces.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
There is such a thing as joint custody, but women more often than not, even in joint custody, get to determine where the child lives, so dad gets some weekends, etc. Yes, women earn their own money. But when dividing up property owned by the couple, the wife will more often than not come out ahead. Furthermore, it will usually be the man paying child support to the woman.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 06:52:04 PM
The idea of women with children breaking up a family just seems a little odd - women generally are more family oriented - though I'm not saying that I don't accept it because I think it's impossible. I just find it odd that Bruce makes it sound like they have nothing to loose (even if by extension), contrary to the father who does.
I probably didn't do a good job of explaining myself. Nobody is going to want to break up a good marriage/happy family. But when it all goes bad, it seems like the female is going to have more motivation to break it up. She is more likely to end up with the kids, and would not be paying child support.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 07:23:30 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
There is such a thing as joint custody, but women more often than not, even in joint custody, get to determine where the child lives, so dad gets some weekends, etc. Yes, women earn their own money. But when dividing up property owned by the couple, the wife will more often than not come out ahead. Furthermore, it will usually be the man paying child support to the woman.
I guess things work differently in Texas. I had joint custody of my two sons and the way it worked was 3 months her - 3 months me and if something came up each of us was there for the other. Expenses worked where we paid into a joint account in function of our respective incomes. If you summed our two incomes and then took the percentages of each and put them into the "kids-expense" fund . That's how it worked. Seemed logical at the time.
Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 07:23:30 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
There is such a thing as joint custody, but women more often than not, even in joint custody, get to determine where the child lives, so dad gets some weekends, etc. Yes, women earn their own money. But when dividing up property owned by the couple, the wife will more often than not come out ahead. Furthermore, it will usually be the man paying child support to the woman.
I guess things work differently in Texas. I had joint custody of my two sons and the way it worked was 3 months her - 3 months me and if something came up each of us was there for the other. Expenses worked where we paid into a joint account in function of our respective incomes. If you summed our two incomes and then took the percentages of each and put them into the "kids-expense" fund . That's how it worked. Seemed logical at the time.
That would break up the school year. Generally, mom gets the kids during school, then dad gets some weekends and some extra time in the summer. Mom usually has to be a drug-addicted prostitute or worse not to get the primary custodial right. Then dad usually has to pay support. That's how we do it here, even though it's sometimes referred to as "joint" custody.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
(most females would rather have a girl than a boy, IMHO).
While I do prefer girls (you can dress them up in cute things) I've had more females tell me they'd rather have boys because it's easier to deal with hyper youngins than emotional trainwreck teenagers.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
I guess things work differently in Texas. I had joint custody of my two sons and the way it worked was 3 months her - 3 months me and if something came up each of us was there for the other. Expenses worked where we paid into a joint account in function of our respective incomes. If you summed our two incomes and then took the percentages of each and put them into the "kids-expense" fund . That's how it worked. Seemed logical at the time.
That would break up the school year. Generally, mom gets the kids during school, then dad gets some weekends and some extra time in the summer. Mom usually has to be a drug-addicted prostitute or worse not to get the primary custodial right. Then dad usually has to pay support. That's how we do it here, even though it's sometimes referred to as "joint" custody.
So it looks as though how you do it there (in Texas?) has serious room for improvement. Please understand that I'm not on the attack here, Bruce. But if this is the "usual" situation then obviously it needs fixing.
Re shared "custody" (horrible word), breaking up the school year is only a problem if the two parents move far apart. If they stay in the same town, city, whatever, then that particular problem goes away. And in my experience, many divorced parents do their very best to cooperate about this.
The whole premise of this thread seems to be that women are out to wipe you out. Honestly, Bruce, we're not!
Quote from: Whitney on October 31, 2011, 09:20:45 PM
While I do prefer girls (you can dress them up in cute things) I've had more females tell me they'd rather have boys because it's easier to deal with hyper youngins than emotional trainwreck teenagers.
I have no preference at all, but looking back at myself as a teenager I know exactly what you mean! :D
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 09:35:26 PM
The whole premise of this thread seems to be that women are out to wipe you out. Honestly, Bruce, we're not!
No, I'm not suggesting any evil intent. I'm just thinking about the long term effects of subtle choices. If things start tending like I'm suggesting, males will certainly be in the minority, and except for Tank's idea about rare things having value, there would theoretically be nothing to stop the complete demise of the unfair sex.
I still think the idea that women who get divorced are financially better off than the women who stay married is a bit silly.
I'd like to see some stats on the average income for single moms vs. single dads, I think those would be pretty telling.
It would actually be a good thing if one gender were a minority...population control! But we naturally tend to run about even and I don't see that changing; especially when you look worldwide.
Speaking from experience here, as my oldest is not my wife's biological child, the system is (at least in the US) heavily biased toward the woman. During the custody battle, I was told by my lawyer that unless I had a picture of my ex smoking crack or murdering someone, I could forget ever getting custody. My child support payments were established to just shy of half my net pay, and I was not allowed to see my child but 2 days every two weeks. I am not a bad father, nor was I a bad companion. She found someone else and left me, and yet she held (and for two and a half more years still does) all the cards. To make matters worse, my daughter wants to live with me, and in the state she lives in will take that into consideration, but she is not allowed to choose which parent she wants to live with, even though she is 15 yrs old.
She has since married a man who makes twice what I make, lives very well and what I have to pay remains the same despite the fact I live in poverty. So there is definatly a fairness issue when it comes to breakups in this country.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on November 01, 2011, 12:26:05 AM
Speaking from experience here, as my oldest is not my wife's biological child, the system is (at least in the US) heavily biased toward the woman. During the custody battle, I was told by my lawyer that unless I had a picture of my ex smoking crack or murdering someone, I could forget ever getting custody. My child support payments were established to just shy of half my net pay, and I was not allowed to see my child but 2 days every two weeks. I am not a bad father, nor was I a bad companion. She found someone else and left me, and yet she held (and for two and a half more years still does) all the cards. To make matters worse, my daughter wants to live with me, and in the state she lives in will take that into consideration, but she is not allowed to choose which parent she wants to live with, even though she is 15 yrs old.
She has since married a man who makes twice what I make, lives very well and what I have to pay remains the same despite the fact I live in poverty. So there is definatly a fairness issue when it comes to breakups in this country.
This is not an uncommon story in the US. As an attorney, I've seen a hundred stories like this. Again, my premise is that marriage is not a rational choice for men any longer, and as a result, women will eventually gain full control over the reproductive process, and this will eventually lead to more females being born than males, and over time, will result in male extinction. It's a stretch, I know, but I did a poll of all the women in my office today, and a clear majority said if they had a chance to only have one child, it would be a female. Eventually, with population heading toward over 10 billion by the end of the century, curbs on child birth such as exist in China will become more prominent. Advantage - female.
It is easier for women to get custody of the child...even if the father is an obvious better fit to the people who actually know both parents. But that kind of favoritism to the mother does vary by state and seems to be more predominate in southern areas who's conservative values make them lean that way.
But to think that women just go around divorcing their husbands because it is easy is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that most women would go around aborting all their boys just waiting to have a girl....even in places where abortion is forced they want boys not girls (and that's probably because placing women in a role where they are forced to have medical procedures performed on them makes them less of a person than men leading to their being less valued).
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 02:15:24 AM
Quote from: Xjeepguy on November 01, 2011, 12:26:05 AM
Speaking from experience here, as my oldest is not my wife's biological child, the system is (at least in the US) heavily biased toward the woman. During the custody battle, I was told by my lawyer that unless I had a picture of my ex smoking crack or murdering someone, I could forget ever getting custody. My child support payments were established to just shy of half my net pay, and I was not allowed to see my child but 2 days every two weeks. I am not a bad father, nor was I a bad companion. She found someone else and left me, and yet she held (and for two and a half more years still does) all the cards. To make matters worse, my daughter wants to live with me, and in the state she lives in will take that into consideration, but she is not allowed to choose which parent she wants to live with, even though she is 15 yrs old.
She has since married a man who makes twice what I make, lives very well and what I have to pay remains the same despite the fact I live in poverty. So there is definatly a fairness issue when it comes to breakups in this country.
This is not an uncommon story in the US. As an attorney, I've seen a hundred stories like this. Again, my premise is that marriage is not a rational choice for men any longer, and as a result, women will eventually gain full control over the reproductive process, and this will eventually lead to more females being born than males, and over time, will result in male extinction. It's a stretch, I know, but I did a poll of all the women in my office today, and a clear majority said if they had a chance to only have one child, it would be a female. Eventually, with population heading toward over 10 billion by the end of the century, curbs on child birth such as exist in China will become more prominent. Advantage - female.
I think a lot more would have to change in the world for the world population to lean much more towards females. You're basing this on what women in developed countries think, because there isn't the heavy social pressure to have male children (so that they can in turn look after their parents) that exists in places such as Asia and Africa.
Quote from: Whitney on November 01, 2011, 02:38:04 AM
It is easier for women to get custody of the child...even if the father is an obvious better fit to the people who actually know both parents. But that kind of favoritism to the mother does vary by state and seems to be more predominate in southern areas who's conservative values make them lean that way.
But to think that women just go around divorcing their husbands because it is easy is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to think that most women would go around aborting all their boys just waiting to have a girl....even in places where abortion is forced they want boys not girls (and that's probably because placing women in a role where they are forced to have medical procedures performed on them makes them less of a person than men leading to their being less valued).
I'm not really ascribing any evil intent to women. I think it's just more of a natural process - women will gain more and more control over the reproductive process, and will, gradually, have more female children than male children - even if the reason is because they like to dress them up in frilly clothes. Over time, this slight advantage will be significant.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 02:41:04 AM
I think a lot more would have to change in the world for the world population to lean much more towards females. You're basing this on what women in developed countries think, because there isn't the heavy social pressure to have male children (so that they can in turn look after their parents) that exists in places such as Asia and Africa.
This is a valid observation, and this fact will probably work to delay the ultimate domination of women for a hundred years or so. But eventually, the sort of conditions that now exist in the West will predominate, and women will be in control of reproduction worldwide. Advantage - female.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 07:23:30 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
This system where the wife gets all the money and custody of the kids is alien to my experience. Do they not have joint custody where you are? And don't women earn their own money?
There is such a thing as joint custody, but women more often than not, even in joint custody, get to determine where the child lives, so dad gets some weekends, etc. Yes, women earn their own money. But when dividing up property owned by the couple, the wife will more often than not come out ahead. Furthermore, it will usually be the man paying child support to the woman.
I guess things work differently in Texas. I had joint custody of my two sons and the way it worked was 3 months her - 3 months me and if something came up each of us was there for the other. Expenses worked where we paid into a joint account in function of our respective incomes. If you summed our two incomes and then took the percentages of each and put them into the "kids-expense" fund . That's how it worked. Seemed logical at the time.
That would break up the school year. Generally, mom gets the kids during school, then dad gets some weekends and some extra time in the summer. Mom usually has to be a drug-addicted prostitute or worse not to get the primary custodial right. Then dad usually has to pay support. That's how we do it here, even though it's sometimes referred to as "joint" custody.
We lived in the same city (Montréal) and it took about 2-3 hours tops to get them settled after a move. No break up of the school year. But maybe schooling is different in Texas. My ex and I worked out the terms of our divorce together (the city provided a free legal clinic to help couples in non-contested divorces). Joint custody was a no-brainer and very typical for the area. Texas sounds like I living hell.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 01, 2011, 12:10:13 AM
I still think the idea that women who get divorced are financially better off than the women who stay married is a bit silly.
I'd like to see some stats on the average income for single moms vs. single dads, I think those would be pretty telling.
Financially sometimes woman are better off divorcing. My dad gives my mum an allowance, I also have a friend of mine that does that to his wife.
FFS people, if you are married you are a team, regardless of whom earns the most. If you decide to split, the law will divide it up straight down the middle, unless of course there is a prenup'
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 02:15:24 AM
Quote from: Xjeepguy on November 01, 2011, 12:26:05 AM
Speaking from experience here, as my oldest is not my wife's biological child, the system is (at least in the US) heavily biased toward the woman. During the custody battle, I was told by my lawyer that unless I had a picture of my ex smoking crack or murdering someone, I could forget ever getting custody. My child support payments were established to just shy of half my net pay, and I was not allowed to see my child but 2 days every two weeks. I am not a bad father, nor was I a bad companion. She found someone else and left me, and yet she held (and for two and a half more years still does) all the cards. To make matters worse, my daughter wants to live with me, and in the state she lives in will take that into consideration, but she is not allowed to choose which parent she wants to live with, even though she is 15 yrs old.
She has since married a man who makes twice what I make, lives very well and what I have to pay remains the same despite the fact I live in poverty. So there is definatly a fairness issue when it comes to breakups in this country.
This is not an uncommon story in the US. As an attorney, I've seen a hundred stories like this. Again, my premise is that marriage is not a rational choice for men any longer, and as a result, women will eventually gain full control over the reproductive process, and this will eventually lead to more females being born than males, and over time, will result in male extinction. It's a stretch, I know, but I did a poll of all the women in my office today, and a clear majority said if they had a chance to only have one child, it would be a female. Eventually, with population heading toward over 10 billion by the end of the century, curbs on child birth such as exist in China will become more prominent. Advantage - female.
Sorry but have you not noticed that there are 50 million excess males in China because of their one child policy. Have you not noticed a little country called India that will become the most populous country before to long and the value the mother's place on having a son. Have you not noticed Islam and it's male biased attitude and rate of growth. Bruce you really are taking a parochial American view of this. Yes the American male may be an endangered species but males in general? I doubt it.
Having said that can you imagine a world populated just by women? There probably wouldn't be any wars, it would be very neat and tidy, but can you imagine the bitching and the waste of resources on shoes and handbags!
Quote from: Tank on November 01, 2011, 08:53:29 AM
Having said that can you imagine a world populated just by women?
Many a dream of mine starts off this way
Quote from: Stevil on November 01, 2011, 09:59:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on November 01, 2011, 08:53:29 AM
Having said that can you imagine a world populated just by women?
Many a dream of mine starts off this way
LOL
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 11:31:55 PM
No, I'm not suggesting any evil intent. I'm just thinking about the long term effects of subtle choices. If things start tending like I'm suggesting, males will certainly be in the minority, and except for Tank's idea about rare things having value, there would theoretically be nothing to stop the complete demise of the unfair sex.
I don't know, it seems then we'd have to rely entirely on technology for reproduction and genetic variety, and I think biology is just a safer bet. But as far as a restructuring of marriage goes, I've sometimes thought that marriage between or among women makes more sense. Women seem more invested in marriage for stability and well-being while, at least according to you, men are invested in marriage only for control and possession. I know which priority I'd prefer in a partner, with or without sex. And I really can't see going back to the days when women needed to get or stay with a man, no matter what, because we lacked better options. So how about this -- marriage as an official financial and domestic arrangement between two, or more, women for the benefit of themselves and their kids, with men unofficially available for stud service?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 03:09:11 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 02:41:04 AM
I think a lot more would have to change in the world for the world population to lean much more towards females. You're basing this on what women in developed countries think, because there isn't the heavy social pressure to have male children (so that they can in turn look after their parents) that exists in places such as Asia and Africa.
This is a valid observation, and this fact will probably work to delay the ultimate domination of women for a hundred years or so. But eventually, the sort of conditions that now exist in the West will predominate, and women will be in control of reproduction worldwide. Advantage - female.
Yeah...I don't know. Speculating way into the future is out of my comfort zone. A lot can happen ;D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:57:03 AM
They won't even need to keep us around for breeding purposes, and they will all get used to strap-ons for sexual gratification.
Just as a note, while strap-ons are fun every now and then, they're more of a novelty item than a necessity when it come to sex without men.
This is all reminding me of an episode of Sliders.
So, in order for men to go extinct:
All women have to abort their male babies.
When using artificial means all women have to use genetic methods to have female babies.
All women have to become lesbians (so they won't get ideas about it being good to have some males in the population).
Science has to figure out a way for women to produce without men to harvest sperm from.
Other than the last one...none of this sounds like it's going to happen in the distant future.
Well, you've all given a lot of good reasons why I don't have to worry about my gender disappearing. But all of your comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears to me that the flow of history, the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, is all in favor of the female. Even patriarchal societies such as those found in Islamic countries will eventually have to move toward equality for women. With the dominance of social media, women have a voice throughout the world, and it will be hard for any country to keep them oppressed for long. And once they gain equality, they immediately have superiority, because they control sex and they control reproduction. Eventually, that will certainly mean that the vast majority of people will be female, as women will see fewer and fewer reasons to put up with men. They will choose to have female children in great majorities, and men will become like drones in a beehive. Women will realize that most wars, violence, oppression and other evils in their lives are usually caused by men. It may take awhile, but that's my prediction.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 01:35:08 AM
Eventually, that will certainly mean that the vast majority of people will be female, as women will see fewer and fewer reasons to put up with men.
One would think men would take this as a word to the wise.
I somehow get the feeling that Bruce is going through a bad patch. Cheer up, man, you still have your youth. :)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 01:35:08 AM
Well, you've all given a lot of good reasons why I don't have to worry about my gender disappearing. But all of your comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears to me that the flow of history, the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, is all in favor of the female. Even patriarchal societies such as those found in Islamic countries will eventually have to move toward equality for women. With the dominance of social media, women have a voice throughout the world, and it will be hard for any country to keep them oppressed for long. And once they gain equality, they immediately have superiority, because they control sex and they control reproduction. Eventually, that will certainly mean that the vast majority of people will be female, as women will see fewer and fewer reasons to put up with men. They will choose to have female children in great majorities, and men will become like drones in a beehive. Women will realize that most wars, violence, oppression and other evils in their lives are usually caused by men. It may take awhile, but that's my prediction.
I don't think I've ever read such an unmitigated pile of crap in all my life :D
1) What would be the problem if men died out (as long as viable fetuses were not aborted simple because they were male).
2) Equality means equality, not superiority.
3) Natural selection will come into play and males that don't respect females as equals will die out.
4) Males who respect females as people, not mobile reproduction units, will get to reproduce. Thus the nature of the male will change.
5) "Women will realize that most wars, violence, oppression and other evils in their lives are usually caused by men. It may take a while, but that's my prediction." and this isn't blindingly obvious to men and women already?
My wife is highly intelligent and (as far as I know) 100% heterosexual. We have three kids, a girl and then boy/girl twins. At no point were either of us worried about what gender our kids were, just that they were fully functional and grew up into good people. We were lucky on both counts.
Women have generally been oppressed by men until pretty much the last 100 years. It's not surprising that if one half of the population is oppressed that when that oppression is removed there will be a backlash, but then there will be a backlash to the backlash, but it won't go as far. Thus the system will settle to a new point of dynamic balance because that is the point of least effort. Having kids without interference is the norm. Actively selecting the gender of a child takes time, effort and resources. Only a minority of people will want to expend that time, effort and resource. So while the ratio of males to females may oscillate I very, very much doubt it will ever swing 100% to one gender or the other.
But first we have to divorce you and steal all your money.
<Memo to self: need to get married first.>According to a 2004 paper by Jennifer A. Marshall Graves (another bloody woman, eh?) at ANU Canberra:
QuoteThe human Y chromosome is running out of time. In the last 300 million years, it has lost 1393 of its original 1438 genes, and at this rate it will lose the last 45 in a mere 10 million years.
So calm down, you only had another 10 million years to go anyway.
Quote from: Ildiko on November 02, 2011, 11:39:19 AM
But first we have to divorce you and steal all your money. <Memo to self: need to get married first.>
According to a 2004 paper by Jennifer A. Marshall Graves (another bloody woman, eh?) at ANU Canberra:
QuoteThe human Y chromosome is running out of time. In the last 300 million years, it has lost 1393 of its original 1438 genes, and at this rate it will lose the last 45 in a mere 10 million years.
So calm down, you only had another 10 million years to go anyway.
Men dominated women for the first 90% of humankind's existance, don't worry, once we're your masters, I'm sure we'll be kind overlords.
I suspect that female supremacy can only last in an artificial, politicised society. Next week, when Greece collapses and sends us all back to the Stone Age, normal conditions will return and the biggest and strongest will dominate.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 04:01:18 PM
Speculating way into the future is out of my comfort zone
Didn't they just behead somebody in Saudi Arabia or some such for pretty much exactly that sort of activity..?
Quote from: Asmodean on November 02, 2011, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 04:01:18 PM
Speculating way into the future is out of my comfort zone
Didn't they just behead somebody in Saudi Arabia or some such for pretty much exactly that sort of activity..?
I guess the amount of people they've beheaded in those countries has already crossed over from tragedy to statistics.
QuoteWomen will realize that most wars, violence, oppression and other evils in their lives are usually caused by men. It may take awhile, but that's my prediction.
There's probably an easier way to solve this, just vote only women into power, no need to cause the extinction of men before humankind itself becomes extinct. ;) I find it kind of humourous to speculate on what an all-woman government would behave like...
(and you guys might want to heavily invest in biotechnology, because the thing that makes you men is disappearing)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
There's probably an easier way to solve this, just vote only women into power, no need to cause the extinction of men before humankind itself becomes extinct. ;) I find it kind of humourous to speculate on what an all-woman government would behave like...
You heard of Margret Thatcher?
Quote from: Crow on November 02, 2011, 03:04:01 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
There's probably an easier way to solve this, just vote only women into power, no need to cause the extinction of men before humankind itself becomes extinct. ;) I find it kind of humourous to speculate on what an all-woman government would behave like...
You heard of Margret Thatcher?
The name, yes. The details, I've never really bothered with. What's the worst?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
the thing that makes you men is disappearing
Yes, it does shrink with age.
One way or the other, we're toast.
Quote from: Crow on November 02, 2011, 03:04:01 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
There's probably an easier way to solve this, just vote only women into power, no need to cause the extinction of men before humankind itself becomes extinct. ;) I find it kind of humourous to speculate on what an all-woman government would behave like...
You heard of Margret Thatcher?
Yes, the best man the Conservative party ever had!
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:05:47 PM
The name, yes. The details, I've never really bothered with. What's the worst?
Honestly wouldn't even know where to start but she is a good example that women in government wouldn't necessarily make a positive impact.
Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 03:16:45 PM
Yes, the best man the Conservative party ever had!
Rotfl.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
the thing that makes you men is disappearing
Yes, it does shrink with age.
One way or the other, we're toast.
Calm down, man. We're a species that has taken some of our own evolution into our own hands, so even if the Y chromosome is naturally disappearing, doesn't mean it will. And as for women to eventually choose men out of existence, I don't know. It seems far fetched. There are too many things that could happen that could sway these things in one direction or another.
Quote from: Crow on November 02, 2011, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 03:05:47 PM
The name, yes. The details, I've never really bothered with. What's the worst?
Honestly wouldn't even know where to start but she is a good example that women in government wouldn't necessarily make a positive impact.
Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 03:16:45 PM
Yes, the best man the Conservative party ever had!
Rotfl.
Must be because she's a Conservative, then! :P
(I actually think that diversity - men, women, old, young, left and centre left - is better than too much of sameness, so don't take my comment on an all women government too seriously ;) )
Proponents of Queer Theory would argue that the dichotomy of male/female itself is antiquated and, in the future, we won't have the definitions of "male" and "female" the same way we do now. There are also some feminists who argue that women's "reproductive power" is a curse, rather than an advantage. There's a good possibility that we could move away from biological reproduction altogether - babies will be supported artificially until they are viable.
So, in theory, there could be no "male" or "female" and all babies could be reared in vats. Does that make you feel better?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 02, 2011, 04:26:11 PM
Proponents of Queer Theory would argue that the dichotomy of male/female itself is antiquated and, in the future, we won't have the definitions of "male" and "female" the same way we do now. There are also some feminists who argue that women's "reproductive power" is a curse, rather than an advantage. There's a good possibility that we could move away from biological reproduction altogether - babies will be supported artificially until they are viable.
So, in theory, there could be no "male" or "female" and all babies could be reared in vats. Does that make you feel better?
What a weird future. Looks perfectly plausible.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 04:20:18 PM
Must be because she's a Conservative, then! :P
;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 04:20:18 PM
(I actually think that diversity - men, women, old, young, left and centre left - is better than too much of sameness, so don't take my comment on an all women government too seriously ;) )
I totally agree.
Quote from: Crow on November 02, 2011, 03:04:01 PM
You heard of Margret Thatcher?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ironmaidencommentary.com%2Fpictures%2Fpictures01_ironmaiden%2Fsingle02_sanctuary_a_small.jpg&hash=4e17e822788b723b15d485f1b6c3cbb6cea7c21a)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 01:35:08 AM
Well, you've all given a lot of good reasons why I don't have to worry about my gender disappearing. But all of your comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears to me that the flow of history, the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, is all in favor of the female. Even patriarchal societies such as those found in Islamic countries will eventually have to move toward equality for women. With the dominance of social media, women have a voice throughout the world, and it will be hard for any country to keep them oppressed for long. And once they gain equality, they immediately have superiority, because they control sex and they control reproduction. Eventually, that will certainly mean that the vast majority of people will be female, as women will see fewer and fewer reasons to put up with men. They will choose to have female children in great majorities, and men will become like drones in a beehive. Women will realize that most wars, violence, oppression and other evils in their lives are usually caused by men. It may take awhile, but that's my prediction.
You'll be telling us that there's an invisible fairy in the sky next.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 02, 2011, 04:26:11 PM
So, in theory, there could be no "male" or "female" and all babies could be reared in vats. Does that make you feel better?
Oh, YEAH! :D I want to see that world before I die.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 02, 2011, 04:26:11 PM
So, in theory, there could be no "male" or "female" and all babies could be reared in vats. Does that make you feel better?
All very 'Brave New World'!
Personally I can't see the end of the male (or female). Both sexes bring something to the table and offer different things to society, I would think any society that tried to do without either sex would be weaker as a result, and less likely to survive long term (reproduction aside).
Plus this also assumes that all heterosexual women are going to stop fancying men, and that all women get from men now is somenone to father their babies. I think there's far more to it than that. A lot of people are attracted to the opposite sex and enjoy sex, and being in a relationship and in love with someone. I can't see any of that going away.
And Maggie Thatcher shows that it's not just men who like going to war! I also think it's wrong to say that women would be better off without men because 'most wars, violence, oppression and other evils are usually caused by men', they're caused by certain men. Personally I don't feel I have anything in common with such men other than my gender, to lump all men together is sexism.