Men's rights can't be separated from economics

PolishKnight wrote:

I don't think women are judged by the human mind more favorably than men
when we look at humanity in a historical and international context. For
example, how favorably are women judged as warriors?

I'm sure they are judged more favorably relative to their
contributions. Many of the things we complain of today date long
before feminism, and how did feminist laws get passed - by men -
in the first place?

Regarding the labor market affecting men more than women: In a society
where there's a very limited or no welfare state, women are generally
more disproportionately affected since men can live on less.

But the effect I mention, that women can more easily be
supported through marriage etc., is at least as strong there.
Even if men can theoretically live on less if they don't have
families, practically that isn't relevant to how traditional
society works.

As most women are now painfully discovering, it's not so easy to avoid
work by marrying a man as they have been taught.

If women find it difficult, that is almost always because they have
unreasonable standards, not because it is inherently hard.

Indeed, it's amusing how feminists have passed IMBRA because foreign
women demonstrate just how lousy American women are at finding decent
men to marry.

That's just changing the subject. The point is not whether
American women _do_ escape work by marrying, but whether they
_could_.

If men are not equal socially, there are some
above and some below, and those below can not be free. A free
man is bound only to those obligations that his fellows also are.

So is Donald Trump not free if he pays more in income taxes than his
colleagues either as an absolute number or percentage?

Silly. Everyone is liable to the obligation of income tax. Rich people
still end up with more after taxes, so they are not less free
financially. Of course there are many other ways to argue against
taxes, but this is not one.

I wasn't arguing against taxes. I was merely illustrating how literal
or creative interpretations of wording can lead to absurd and "silly"
conclusions.

I don't think so. Your example did not demonstrate that, as I
pointed out. I am trying to propose that capitalism is not
compatible with freedom or equality.

The Devil is in the details as they say and when people use terms like
"free" and "equal", they often adjust and tune the definition to the
point where it means the opposite.

Such as conservatives and libertarians do!

Now you're either insulting my intelligence or are in extreme denial.
The most egregious example of doublespeak is the left advocating
discrimination against working class men as "privileged" and preferences
for upper class white women as "oppressed."

Sure, but competing to see who's worse is silly. Again, your
side is also guilty, and as long as you pretend otherwise you
words can have no weight with me.

Andrew, no need to repeat the slogan that socialism is about making life
better for the common man. That's been the slogan since back in the
early 1900's.

And it's still true.

Hahahaha! You really either believe that or you think I'm dumb enough
to not challenge you on it.

It's true by definition. Anyone (knowingly) advocating policies
contrary to that can not be a socialist.

The left hasn't admired working class men's values for the past 50
years.

OK, but you should be careful about the term 'working-class' -
it may connote things that are obsolete, such as the idea that
the man that works in an office is somehow different from he
that works in a factory. Functionally, almost everyone is
working-class.

Just the opposite: they are openly anti-heterosexual,
pro-feminist, anti-manufacturing (since they only favor "green" office
work), etc. They view working class men with contempt as being a bunch
of stupid rubes and that's their standard ad-hominem argument.

Most of everyone is stupid, so that's not surprising!

Trying to sell me that this is a working class mens' party in light of
their current agenda is, again, laughable. But not entirely surprising.

I am not selling that. I admit that neither party seems to be at
all promising.

Well, what do you propose to do about it? We need to get control of
the government in order to enforce more pro-male policies.

Strangely enough, I agree with you. If any politician is running on a
pro-male agenda one way or the other, I'd support them. However, I
doubt the left is going to put sincere candidates up simply because that
would risk alienating their core constituencies which are as bound
tightly together as, say, Radical Islam and the Democratic party. :-)
Which gets me to thinking...

We have to respect women at least for voting according to their
perceived self-interests. You're still trying to sell me commie cool
aid.

The kool-aid is that ticking Republican every other year is
going to ultimately fix everything. I don't see much hope at
all, but I do know it's only possible if enough men are aware of
the problem and what needs to be done.

It would be more credible, based upon the behavior of leftism, to claim
that socialism is about making life better for RICH PEOPLE.

The Republicans are at least as bad in this sense, so while this might
be a good reason for a third party, it can't justify voting
Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...ml?_r=2&pagewa
nted=2&hp
"As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered,
aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President
Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. ‹ a
company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman ‹ was
among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to
avoid paying any taxes."

This is one good thing that happened under Reagan, sure. But it
didn't go far enough, and there are still corporations doing
that. It's a mess. But Reagan's tax policies overall were
certainly not anti-rich people.

However, I'll throw you a bone and a genuine offer of compromise: If the
left ever does it's act together WRT men (highly doubtful), I'll highly
consider jumping ship. I'll consider re-examining socialism after the
Soviet style we have here in the states is defeated or collapses and
feminism is in the dustbin of history.

We don't really have any socialism here. Jewish cultural Marxism
should not be confused with it.

However, in both cases, I'm
highly doubtful that it can work since socialist politicians tend to put
their own self-interests ahead of that of their constituencis making the
claimed noble goal of socialism elusive.

All politicians do that, don't they? What makes you think yours
are superior?

Andrew Usher