The sexodus: Men giving up on women and checking out

[wilbur]

Just another example of men's fear of women in power.... I don't buy it.

Sweden is such a society that was taken over politically by radical feminists, those who want to impose their own morals and way of thinking on the rest (men and 'unenlightened' women). They are obsessed with 'Gender Equality', but in reality, they want to make themselves 'more equal' than men. They are the ones who came up with the notion of partiarchal power structures as the fundamental and underlying concept that explains why all men are inherently violent (according to their dogma), especially towards women. It is this concept that brought us the "Swedish Model'. Listen, I'm not making this stuff up. The difference between Sweden and us is that these women actually have political power over there, and the state policy regarding the quest for gender equality has reached ridiculous proportions, such as banning the colour pink on toys because it reinforces patriarchal power structures in young girls. They have even adopted a new gender neutral pronoun in order to avoid using 'he' or 'she', in order not to stereotype girls and boys.

It's coming this way and is already affecting society. The Ontario Justice ministry has, over time, been taken over by feminist, with the result that family courts are heavily biased against men. Why is it the case that, in Ontario, where there is a complaint of domestic violence, police are under the obligation to arrest the man , but not the woman. Why is it that after it was evident that a complaint, made by a woman that resulted in the man being arrested, was unfounded and used to harass the man (sending him to jail for a night), they are never charged with public mischief? Men are realising this and are increasingly avoiding marriage, and even common law-relationships because of the possibility of financial ruin should the 50% chance of breakup be realised. Your role as a sex-worker in this situation is to provide men with their sexual release, thereby giving an option for men who want to opt out of marriage or relationships lasting more than 2 years. That's why radical feminists object to prostitution. Because it undermines their goal of dominance over men, and their imposition on their version of what is a sexual relationship. Men and women think differently about sex, yet they are going to force men to think like them. We're not like Sweden yet, but slowly getting here. Bill C-36 is a victory by radical feminists in Canada.

This is affecting the birth rate in Canada, as more and more men are avoiding marriage. The resulting demographics force the increase in immigration in order to keep society functioning, and the eventual disappearance of those related to the two European founding nations. Paradoxically, immigrants usually come here with firmer family values, along with marriages that are based on family and business ties, rather than on romantic ideals: that runs counter to feminist ideals.

 

[wangbang]

The Ontario Justice ministry has, over time, been taken over by feminist, with the result that family courts are heavily biased against men.

Just to be clear. I have never had to pay anything so I can present the following story without any bitterness as I have none.

As a family friend, I helped a couple I knew in their 70's to settle their divorce as they wanted to avoid lawyers and courts. The area they lived in was known for having a family court that was considered to be the worst for men. Several lawyers I know told me how awful this court was and they hated that jurisdiction.

Sometime after I happened to meet the Judge, a male, who held the reins on that family court and had a chance for a long talk. I presented my friends situation and asked what he thought was a fair resolution. They had about $4M to split and had the same old age and cpp income. They did a perfect 50/50 split on the assets so now they had identical assets and income. Perfectly equal and, as I pointed out, were in their 70's.

This Justice advised me that a 50/50 split simply wasn't equitable in his eyes. It was his feeling that since the wife had never worked and husband was perfectly capable of working that he had some kind of intrinsic advantage. This male judge felt the husband should have paid a sizable amount of support since, despite being mid-70's, he could go back into business to look after her

That is decidedly moronic in my view. These are the reasons the deal has become a negative deal for men.

 

[cdnsimon]

Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family...Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs...Schools are engineered for women...And while girls are favoured to fulfill quotas, men are slipping into distant second

I think the problem is this perspective and those that hold it.

He reasons he gives for being screwed is that (a) women have given up on monogamy, (b) there's a good chance you child will be fathered by another man, (c) schools are focused on women enrolment, (d) men are put second. The intermediate conclusion he makes is since (a) and (b) women are uninteresting for a serious relationship or family. Of course his final conclusion is 'a generation of men are screwed'.

This fellow has established a number of false equivalences and other logical fallacies. Monogamy in society doesn't rest solely on women's shoulders, nor does fidelity. He raises the points that women have given up on monogamy and if you had a child it probably won't be yours. Who is he suggesting women have given up monogamy for? Other women? If he believes that the fetus she's carrying was from the help of another person, is he suggesting that another woman put it there? I think this kid has ignored the role that men play in those areas. The unstated premise he makes is that men aren't in control of themselves or their actions and should not bear any responsibility. If a woman becomes pregnant through an affair, it was due to the direct involvement of a man.

The merits of a man supporting a child that isn't his should be weighted against the fact that men only contribute sperm, and it is the woman that bring the fetus to term, gives birth, etc. the responsibility between involved people isn't balanced, so the suggestion that equalizing measures are outright wrong is incorrect. What is the alternative? Women receive no support for child? If so, it's likely to assume that many kids would be left in the care of the state.

Schools recruit and admit more women than before, but numerous studies have shown the educating women benefits everyone. There are more positive gains for a community or country that educates it's women relative to only educating men, but most importantly, education is a human right and historically our male centred world has relegated women to an inferior status. This historical line of thinking is seen in his last sentence: "men are slipping into distant second place". The goal was equality, but it seems that after noticing that the male share of the pie has been shrinking toward equality the issues are framed as 'men are doomed'.

It's disappointing.

 

[canada-man]

I think the problem is this perspective and those that hold it.

He reasons he gives for being screwed is that (a) women have given up on monogamy, (b) there's a good chance you child will be fathered by another man, (c) schools are focused on women enrolment, (d) men are put second. The intermediate conclusion he makes is since (a) and (b) women are uninteresting for a serious relationship or family. Of course his final conclusion is 'a generation of men are screwed'.

This fellow has established a number of false equivalences and other logical fallacies. Monogamy in society doesn't rest solely on women's shoulders, nor does fidelity. He raises the points that women have given up on monogamy and if you had a child it probably won't be yours. Who is he suggesting women have given up monogamy for? Other women? If he believes that the fetus she's carrying was from the help of another person, is he suggesting that another woman put it there? I think this kid has ignored the role that men play in those areas. The unstated premise he makes is that men aren't in control of themselves or their actions and should not bear any responsibility. If a woman becomes pregnant through an affair, it was due to the direct involvement of a man.

The merits of a man supporting a child that isn't his should be weighted against the fact that men only contribute sperm, and it is the woman that bring the fetus to term, gives birth, etc. the responsibility between involved people isn't balanced, so the suggestion that equalizing measures are outright wrong is incorrect. What is the alternative? Women receive no support for child? If so, it's likely to assume that many kids would be left in the care of the state.

Schools recruit and admit more women than before, but numerous studies have shown the educating women benefits everyone. There are more positive gains for a community or country that educates it's women relative to only educating men, but most importantly, education is a human right and historically our male centred world has relegated women to an inferior status. This historical line of thinking is seen in his last sentence: "men are slipping into distant second place". The goal was equality, but it seems that after noticing that the male share of the pie has been shrinking toward equality the issues are framed as 'men are doomed'.

It's disappointing.

focusing only one gender is not equality. in colleges the number of male students are decreasing more services and programs are directed at women more than men. and fyi women weren't consider inferior in the past. ancient kingdoms and empires had Queens. from the 18th to the 19th century women and England and the colonies were lobbying against coffee houses, bars, alcohol prostitution and were successful.

 

[cdnsimon]

focusing only one gender is not equality. in colleges the number of male students are decreasing more services and programs are directed at women more than men. and fyi women weren't consider inferior in the past. ancient kingdoms and empires had Queens. from the 18th to the 19th century women and England and the colonies were lobbying against coffee houses, bars, alcohol prostitution and were successful.

The process hasn't changed for men in post secondary institutions. They still have to meet admission cut off averages, grades in school, etc. I think of equality like a pendulum. It was and still is heavily in a man's favour (eg. in the 21st century why would the leader of the most powerful nation in the world need to sign a fair pay act?). If society wasn't already skewed in a man's favour, legislation would not need to have been passed for equal pay for women in the most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet.

Equality in education means ensuring people are admitted to programs based on past education and their experience - not their gender. A female student with a 50% gpa won't be admitted over a male student with a 70% gpa. Accepting students into programs based on their gender is wrong, and everyone should have an equal opportunity to enter whatever program their skills and experience qualifies them for.

Women were held as inferior and in many respects they still are. Yes there were queens but the power they had was not the same as that of a king. Emperors in China had an Empress, but he choose her - she didn't choose him. He also had a group of concubines. Was there ever a sole female ruler with a collection of men? The point needn't be made by using an example so far back either - what year did women get the right to vote in Canada? What year were men given the right to vote?

 

[nobody123]

men who are are single are also shamed. i was asked repeatidly if i had a girlfriend when i was single

Considering your attitudes towards women, maybe it was out of concern for any possible gf rather than as a way to shame you.

 

[cdnsimon]

p.s. The year Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. women were given the right to vote was well after the year Caucasian women were allowed to vote.

 

[asterwald]

p.s. The year Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. women were given the right to vote was well after the year Caucasian women were allowed to vote.

Not sure about Japan, but India and China are masculine cultures with no social safety net. Once divorced in those nations, you are used goods.

 

[asterwald]

Actually, given how you describe yourself, I'd suggest that when it comes to western women and 30plussers, you're sparing the innocent. And I'd hope the same for any prospective 20 year old brides, who, along with any family the two of you start, would serve as little other than shallow emblems of masculinity.

IOW stick with banging escorts once a week.

30 plus women are at higher risk of divorce and they have already been through so many relationships and flings, their baggage and baby rabies makes them a terrible investment for anything long term. I know a guy who married a girl 32 years. She has so many Ex's still messaging her on FB and she keeps running into men who her husband is sure she banged at some pint. He feels like he is the one left holding the hot potato after she was passed around. Hes a sucker and he knows it. Of course im generalizing here, but thats usually the case.

 

[lenny2]

"Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family."

I question the statement that "Women have given up on monogamy."

Such a woman would be MORE interesting to me for a "serious relationship". She would be more likely to allow me the sexual freedom i want.

 

[lenny2]

"Men giving up on women and checking out"

One month and counting. No sex with any ladies or other creatures. Though i am considering the female options in VCR.

Boredom, having done it all, disappointments, lack of motivation, and lack of mojo has lead to this.

 

[canada-man]

Considering your attitudes towards women, maybe it was out of concern for any possible gf rather than as a way to shame you.

why don't you do a google search on "shaming single men" instead of using your feminist white knighting shaming tactics?

 

[asterwald]

I question the statement that "Women have given up on monogamy."

Such a woman would be MORE interesting to me for a "serious relationship". She would be more likely to allow me the sexual freedom i want.

He probably meant lifetime monogamy. There was a time where relationships lasted and so did marriage now Its serial monogamy. More than ever women in their 40s can expect to be back on the dating market.

 

[canada-man]

 

[gibsomstreet]

why don't you do a google search on "shaming single men" instead of using your feminist white knighting shaming tactics?

So, let's fling the quote you're responding to back at you--after all, you're vindicating said quote in your response.

Originally Posted by nobody123
Considering your attitudes towards women, maybe it was out of concern for any possible gf rather than as a way to shame you.

 

[canada-man]

So, let's fling the quote you're responding to back at you--after all, you're vindicating said quote in your response.

me being shamed for being single years ago has nothing to do with my attitude towards women. i was unemployed and living at home at the time. people people including family members still expect me find a girlfriend when i was broke and unemployed. I currently have a cousin in his 60s who is currently single and never married and relatives are now questioning his sexuality.


a video from Sandman

 

[lenny2]

me being shamed for being single years ago has nothing to do with my attitude towards women. i was unemployed and living at home at the time. people people including family members still expect me find a girlfriend when i was broke and unemployed. I currently have a cousin in his 60s who is currently single and never married and relatives are now questioning his sexuality.

Has he seen the "Forty Year Old Virgin"?

 

[canada-man]

Has he seen the "Forty Year Old Virgin"?

dunno

 

[cdnsimon]

Not sure about Japan, but India and China are masculine cultures with no social safety net. Once divorced in those nations, you are used goods.

I was speaking about women of those ethnicities being able to vote in Canada: Japanese Canadian women, Indian Canadian women, Chinese Canadian women, etc.

The difference is if a program uses equal admission policies and say 60%+ of the student body is male than feminists bitch about how it is sexist, demand and get all sorts of groups, scholarships and other programs to get more women in.. When the result is 60%+ female it is not considered a problem by almost anyone and those who think it is an issue are labeled misogynists.
I had an HR prof in an MBA program suggest...

If the prof makes a suggestion, then where is the practical harm in that? Anyone can suggest anything.

An overlooked point is that measures put in place for equality try to work to put more people into the field. This includes making plans to have enough qualified people in those fields and in positions of power. Sure a program can admit 60-40 women/men but if the women who graduate from that program can't ultimately share the reigns of power with their male counterparts there might not be lasting change. At the same time graduates now can hardly find a job in their own field. A university can admit 60-40 women/men in engineering company big wigs aren't women or don't hire women, for whatever reason, the stratification in society will still exist. Admitting more of any group is often designed to do more than educate those groups - it often is also an attempt to break the 'glass ceiling'.

There was a thread recently where one escort was talking down to me when I tried to point out that unless a guy is hard up or in effect a swinger, generally no dude wants a slut if he can avoid it.

The only thing worse than being stuck with the town bicycle after everyone else has taken a ride is being enough of a sucker to raise some other dude's bastard.

BTW if you want some real fun. Tell some single mother how no dude wants to raise somebody else's mistake and watch them derp on about how their mistake isn't a mistake. Well, you got yourself a kid and where is the guy... they can't figure out how that qualifies as a mistake.

These parts speak to the point I was trying to make...

"...generally no dude wants a slut if he can avoid it..."
"...The only thing worse than being stuck with the town bicycle after everyone else has taken a ride..."

Our male centred world is very quick to draw distinctions between men (dude) and women (slut). Everyone has heard it before but perhaps it's worth mentioning again: if a woman sleeps around she is a slut (and what man wants a slut?), but if a man sleeps around with many women what do we call him? A dude? A regular guy? On the other side of the coin, we have the socially constructed idea of a man: someone with many sexual partners or a person with some sexual powress. Our ideas of worth, for genders, are tied to sex in unequal ways. Large sexual experience for a women is negative, while for men it's a positive. That demonstrates the double standards we're in.

"...Tell some single mother how no dude wants to raise somebody else's mistake... you got yourself a kid and where is the guy... they can't figure out how that qualifies as a mistake..."

Further to my previous point, about responsibility being shared. If a man sleeps with a woman ('hit it then quit it') and she gets pregnant (no prophylactic is 100% effective), what then? Should she take the morning after pill? Abortion? The emotional and physical toll isn't shared equally between men and women. We look down on women that are sexually experienced ("slut"; "no dude wants one"), we expect men to be sexually experienced, and if the lady gets pregnant it's the woman's fault. I cannot imagine the toll it would take, physically or emotionally, to terminate the growth of a fetus by pharmaceutical or invasive procedure - and to speculate would just make me a massive ass. However, surely all men can agree that there is some toll felt even if it is passing thoughts about what could have been.

Our world puts a lot of responsibility on a woman, however, that responsibility doesn't always come with effectual power.

 

[asterwald]

I was speaking about women of those ethnicities being able to vote in Canada: Japanese Canadian women, Indian Canadian women, Chinese Canadian women, etc.



If the prof makes a suggestion, then where is the practical harm in that? Anyone can suggest anything.

An overlooked point is that measures put in place for equality try to work to put more people into the field. This includes making plans to have enough qualified people in those fields and in positions of power. Sure a program can admit 60-40 women/men but if the women who graduate from that program can't ultimately share the reigns of power with their male counterparts there might not be lasting change. At the same time graduates now can hardly find a job in their own field. A university can admit 60-40 women/men in engineering company big wigs aren't women or don't hire women, for whatever reason, the stratification in society will still exist. Admitting more of any group is often designed to do more than educate those groups - it often is also an attempt to break the 'glass ceiling'.



These parts speak to the point I was trying to make...

"...generally no dude wants a slut if he can avoid it..."
"...The only thing worse than being stuck with the town bicycle after everyone else has taken a ride..."

Our male centred world is very quick to draw distinctions between men (dude) and women (slut). Everyone has heard it before but perhaps it's worth mentioning again: if a woman sleeps around she is a slut (and what man wants a slut?), but if a man sleeps around with many women what do we call him? A dude? A regular guy? On the other side of the coin, we have the socially constructed idea of a man: someone with many sexual partners or a person with some sexual powress. Our ideas of worth, for genders, are tied to sex in unequal ways. Large sexual experience for a women is negative, while for men it's a positive. That demonstrates the double standards we're in.

"...Tell some single mother how no dude wants to raise somebody else's mistake... you got yourself a kid and where is the guy... they can't figure out how that qualifies as a mistake..."

Further to my previous point, about responsibility being shared. If a man sleeps with a woman ('hit it then quit it') and she gets pregnant (no prophylactic is 100% effective), what then? Should she take the morning after pill? Abortion? The emotional and physical toll isn't shared equally between men and women. We look down on women that are sexually experienced ("slut"; "no dude wants one"), we expect men to be sexually experienced, and if the lady gets pregnant it's the woman's fault. I cannot imagine the toll it would take, physically or emotionally, to terminate the growth of a fetus by pharmaceutical or invasive procedure - and to speculate would just make me a massive ass. However, surely all men can agree that there is some toll felt even if it is passing thoughts about what could have been.

Our world puts a lot of responsibility on a woman, however, that responsibility doesn't always come with effectual power.

Take one woman and one man. both go to various bars to get peoples phone numbers. If the guy and girl both have an equal count by the end of the day, it means the man is a celeb or drove up in a bughatti.

Heres what normally happens:

The day men dont have to go to extreme heights to get on par with an avg woman when it comes to NSA sex. Men will also get called sluts.