DDN: "Women have a greater need for a sense of "security" and hence are more concerned about things like where their next meal is coming from and how soft their next bed will be. Since money is the primary means for attaining and securing these ameneties, women have their own unique brand of lust for amassing it, and yes, that instinct in conjunction with various other abarrant sociological factors spawns a vast amount feminine greed. I'm not saying that men aren't greedy; I'm just highlighting the fact that women are often more susceptible to it than men are for biological reasons if nothing else. But I can see how this observation would piss you off since its so unpopular these days to say anything negative about women."Anything to back up these assertions? The women I know are not any more like this than the men I know. Those differences we see in the TYPES of security we "need" are likely products of our socialization, not our biology.
Kevin: "….and when you consider that most of the wealth is in the hands of men,…"
DDN: "I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not in the US. First of all, since women generally outlive their stressed out husbands, there's a vast population of elderly widows that are sitting on the savings and benefits their husbands left behind. Secondly, in this country, for the most part, when two people get hitched they own almost everything jointly - at least that's how divorce court judges see it...."
Please provide evidence to support this. You know damn well that the money in this country is primarily in the hands of men. Look at average salaries. Look at the top ten wealthiest humans (always termed "top ten wealthiest men")... Pick any stat and prove me wrong...
DDN: "But no one dare ask WHY some men are possesive and jealous."
Goddamnit, DDN, men AND women are possessive and jealous. Women don't kill men because of it. Don't you see a problem here?
DDN: "F_ck the mothers. F_ck them! What the hell is this bullsh_t? Some women got killed by a man and now some sick media hungry psychos want to turn it into a world wide smear campaign against the entire male gender. What kind of lame bullsh_t is that?"
Read the stats again. It's an actual problem, not imagined.
DDN: "Huh? Why not? Why not just leave before they have a chance to kill you? And you think you have complete control over what your eat? 80% of everything on our grocery store shelves..."
About 8 years ago a woman I knew was killed in Ottawa by her ex-partner (emphasis on "ex"... meaning she had left him) in the street as she tried to get into her car. The number of times such "stalking" incidents happen each year is frightening. And what of those women raised in abusive households who often feel trapped and unable to leave? It is all fine and well for you to say just get up and leave, but if you are dependent on that person, or if you have children with that man, and you are routinely abused, and you have no one to turn to, leaving may not be as simple as it might seem.
DDN: "Jesus, do you have some kind of rapist phobia? That was the furthest thing from my mind. My concern would be that they would be deprived and horny enough to "flirt" with her and perhaps eventually spark her interest and make a move on her. If that's akin to rape?"
No, but I thought I'd hazard a guess as to what you were suggesting. Apparently I was wrong. Apparently instead you seem to think your partner might CHOOSE to have sex with another individual. You know what? That's just too bad for you, if it bothers you. It's her choice, plain and simple.
DDN: "Learning what? How to be the powerless, dickless, little doggie jumping through hoops. How to be a pathetic doe-faced, pouting little mommy's boy that never farts, burps, or drinks and is scared to death to open doors for women and being labeled a sexist pig? No thanks."
You're just being a jerk... no comment beyond that.
DDN: "As a man you are not even capable of beginning to perceive the depth and mastery of manipulation that women have achieved and implement as a matter of routine."
Are they connected with the secret masonic order, the knights of the templar, and the rosicrucians as well? You are absolutely ridiculous in your assertions. To point out the blatantly obvious, you'd think by now there'd have been a leek from within the fold, and we would have learned of their plan. Even the CIA has infiltrators... but not the order of females, eh?
DDN: "Who is Marc Lepine?"
He was a mysogynist, like you in many ways, unlike you in many other ways.
DDN: "Well that only leaves the house then, and I challenge you on this - I believe women end up with house much more often than men. And what about the heart attack? You didn't address that at all. You lost points on this round as far as I can tell."
Well, my main news source is Canadian, but I imagine there are similarities in this issue. Most single parents are women, and they are among the poorest members of society. I'll look for stats if you do...
DDN: "From the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada:
"290,000 males are sexually assaulted behind bars every year. By comparison, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that there are 135,000 rapes of women a year nationwide, though many groups believe the number is higher."
1) I tried that link and got an error, so I couldn't check for more details on the survey/study.
2) Rape is one form of sexual assault, and not necessarily the most common. Reread what your quote says carefully... In the US, at least 20% of adult women today have experienced some form of sexual assault. That's got to be at least 15 million Americans as near as I can guess.
3) Men are perpetrators in both of these cases. Both set of stats are tragic, and the agency in both cases lies with men. Furthermore, if women were in prison with men, I imagine most rapes would have female victims.
4) The average American or Canadian male is not in danger of going to prison, and therefore not in danger of being raped. The average Canadian or American woman has about a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted in her life. Some estimates are higher.
DDN: "Speak for yourself. I'm not represented worth a DAMN in my government. I'd be put to death by BOTH parties for my views if I had any power."
I'm not speaking of your personal politics. Neither yours nor mine are represented very well I imagine. But, MEN dominate the government, and women are underrepresented by population. Similarly, most visible minorities are underrepresented. For example, let us assume that (from memory) 12% of Americans are African-Americans. It seems safe to assume that African-Americans do not comprise 12% of the government. Are 50%+ of American politicians women? I think not.
DDN: "(Shoot the messenger). False? You think men are more sexually and emotionally manipulative than women? Damn! Where do you live? I'm moving there tomorrow!"
No, I think both groups can be equally manipulative, but that men, because of their access to power have, generally, a better time of it, meaning they are less isolated and trapped by their manipulative partners.
DDN: "Yeah, so? Are you comparing me to Frued?"
Freud's initial theories blamed his young female patients' disturbing dreams on the fact that their fathers abused them. When he presented his findings to his peers, he was dismissed as a loony. The problem was some of the young women's fathers were his peers. He changed his theory, even though he knew it was right, so that the blame was on these girls and their mothers. I liken you to him insofar as the evidence is there and you deny it.
None.
