Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

NP here. Are you really so obtuse that you can’t understand why men pay more taxes? Has it occurred to you that it’s because women have been discriminated against for millennia and until only very very recently even given access to employment, at all? Much less the high paying jobs? You are a real misogynist and not as smart as you think you are.

Again, just saying the same thing. Even before modern taxation systems, societies have made provisions for the protection and comfort of women because of their intrinsic value. Why is this so hard to comprehend?!?

Took a while for the MiSoGyNy card to come out.

You think that being forced to depend on men for survival and not being permitted independence was for our “comfort?” I just cannot! That’s called indentured servitude. Women have quite obviously fared much much better once we were given freedom. Again, men do not care for or protect women. If you think “providing” for your wifey while she sits home all day cooking for you and spitting out your kids is “protecting her” you’re nuts. I really really hope you’re either a troll or a man. I fear you’re a woman though and that’s terrifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

Okay. Who is “society?” Men?

You want me to define society for you? Go read some Hobbes maybe?

I am not sure that Hobbes cares much about whether or not men were sad or loved unconditionally.
I’m certain he didn’t care about whether or not women were.

But you're sure you don't know what society means. Got it.

I think, in this instance, that “society” refers pretty exclusively to women. I think that my husband is upset that women are caring for themselves and for other women more than they are caring for men.
I don’t think that anyone, including OP’s husband, seriously believes that men are out there worrying about whether or not women are fulfilled and happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

I have plenty of empathy for those men who are victims— wanting rape investigated for women in no way detracts wanting rape investigated for men. However there is no documentary evidence that the police do not believe male rape victims.

We have a progressive tax system in a country in which men make more money than women. So yes, men pay more taxes. That is, again, not on the basis of their sex.

The point is about how they are generally treated by society. Most headlines of statutory rape with teachers raping their male students won't even label it as rape. Many are dismissed or even laughed at. "Oh he wanted it". Stop being disingenuous.

On taxes, you're just describing society taking care of women in more words.

By taxing them equally to men, women are being “taken care of” by society?

In a situation where women were taxed equally but received more benefits— such as in those European countries where maternity leave is federally funded — you might have a point. In the United States we very much don’t redistribute benefits to women via our tax system— that is in fact why men receive more Social Security benefits.

Did you follow the Brock Turner case at all? You really feel like the way we prosecute male perpetrators of rape— even when there are multiple male witnesses— suggests that we value women more?

It is my understanding that most cases of rape against men are also carried out by men. Is that your understanding as well? Shouldn’t society be working holistically to keep men from feeling like rape is acceptable under any circumstance?

Unfortunately, I have to go now. Might address some of this later, but this is starting to get way off topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

NP here. Are you really so obtuse that you can’t understand why men pay more taxes? Has it occurred to you that it’s because women have been discriminated against for millennia and until only very very recently even given access to employment, at all? Much less the high paying jobs? You are a real misogynist and not as smart as you think you are.

Again, just saying the same thing. Even before modern taxation systems, societies have made provisions for the protection and comfort of women because of their intrinsic value. Why is this so hard to comprehend?!?

Took a while for the MiSoGyNy card to come out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

NP here. Are you really so obtuse that you can’t understand why men pay more taxes? Has it occurred to you that it’s because women have been discriminated against for millennia and until only very very recently even given access to employment, at all? Much less the high paying jobs? You are a real misogynist and not as smart as you think you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

I have plenty of empathy for those men who are victims— wanting rape investigated for women in no way detracts wanting rape investigated for men. However there is no documentary evidence that the police do not believe male rape victims.

We have a progressive tax system in a country in which men make more money than women. So yes, men pay more taxes. That is, again, not on the basis of their sex.

The point is about how they are generally treated by society. Most headlines of statutory rape with teachers raping their male students won't even label it as rape. Many are dismissed or even laughed at. "Oh he wanted it". Stop being disingenuous.

On taxes, you're just describing society taking care of women in more words.

By taxing them equally to men, women are being “taken care of” by society?

In a situation where women were taxed equally but received more benefits— such as in those European countries where maternity leave is federally funded — you might have a point. In the United States we very much don’t redistribute benefits to women via our tax system— that is in fact why men receive more Social Security benefits.

Did you follow the Brock Turner case at all? You really feel like the way we prosecute male perpetrators of rape— even when there are multiple male witnesses— suggests that we value women more?

It is my understanding that most cases of rape against men are also carried out by men. Is that your understanding as well? Shouldn’t society be working holistically to keep men from feeling like rape is acceptable under any circumstance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how cano I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

Then why is it that men think that someone should care if they are sad or appreciate them for who they are on the inside, and women don’t expect this?
The idea that anyone outside my immediate family cares if I’m sad is so foreign to me.
If they are so expendable, why do men think that they are intrinsically more special?

Women don't expect this? Hahahah.

Women receive way more sympathy for hardship. The fact that you can't see that is telling...

I don't know that men think they are intrinsically more special. No sure where you get that. A lot of men understand the reality of their expendability and contingent value, but that doesn't mean it's a cake walk to face that reality. But they must, because that's just the way it is.

Dude. I’m telling you that I cannot relate to this thought that people should care if you are sad.
It came up while reading this article, intended for young men:

https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person

It has 25 million views, so it must be speaking to someone. I will tell you who it speaks to…young men. Women don’t relate to this because they know this from girlhood, so it doesn’t make any sense to be told this.
Cinderella doesn’t get the prince because she is is a nice person with a wicked sense of humor. She gets the prince because she doesn’t act sad when faced with horrible circumstances, and she is the hottest girl in the room.
Snow White gets to stay with the dwarves because she doesn’t act sad, and she does all of their housework.

No little girl thinks that society cares who she is on the inside.
The fact that men think that someone out there, other than them, cares about their wives and daughters (so they don’t have to…) is so bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

I have plenty of empathy for those men who are victims— wanting rape investigated for women in no way detracts wanting rape investigated for men. However there is no documentary evidence that the police do not believe male rape victims.

We have a progressive tax system in a country in which men make more money than women. So yes, men pay more taxes. That is, again, not on the basis of their sex.

The point is about how they are generally treated by society. Most headlines of statutory rape with teachers raping their male students won't even label it as rape. Many are dismissed or even laughed at. "Oh he wanted it". Stop being disingenuous.

On taxes, you're just describing society taking care of women in more words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

I have plenty of empathy for those men who are victims— wanting rape investigated for women in no way detracts wanting rape investigated for men. However there is no documentary evidence that the police do not believe male rape victims.

We have a progressive tax system in a country in which men make more money than women. So yes, men pay more taxes. That is, again, not on the basis of their sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

Okay. Who is “society?” Men?

You want me to define society for you? Go read some Hobbes maybe?

I am not sure that Hobbes cares much about whether or not men were sad or loved unconditionally.
I’m certain he didn’t care about whether or not women were.

But you're sure you don't know what society means. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

Okay. Who is “society?” Men?

You want me to define society for you? Go read some Hobbes maybe?

I am not sure that Hobbes cares much about whether or not men were sad or loved unconditionally.
I’m certain he didn’t care about whether or not women were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how cano I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

Then why is it that men think that someone should care if they are sad or appreciate them for who they are on the inside, and women don’t expect this?
The idea that anyone outside my immediate family cares if I’m sad is so foreign to me.
If they are so expendable, why do men think that they are intrinsically more special?

Women don't expect this? Hahahah.

Women receive way more sympathy for hardship. The fact that you can't see that is telling...

I don't know that men think they are intrinsically more special. No sure where you get that. A lot of men understand the reality of their expendability and contingent value, but that doesn't mean it's a cake walk to face that reality. But they must, because that's just the way it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

You think there isn't any residual from these types of attitudes? https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/men-can-be-legally-raped-new-fbi-definition/

You are disingenuous and proving the husband's point. You have no empathy for men.

Are you going to address the tax point or no? There's a cash transfer alright.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.

Social security is part of the social safety net, and in fact constitutes the largest cash transfer element. No drug tests for social security, none of the other hoops to jump through that programs that don’t disproportionately benefit men have attached to them.

And everyone acknowledges men can be raped. That doesn’t in any way absolve police of not believing female victims and releasing rapists to rape again and again.

Sorry the examples don’t support your view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how cano I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

Then why is it that men think that someone should care if they are sad or appreciate them for who they are on the inside, and women don’t expect this?
The idea that anyone outside my immediate family cares if I’m sad is so foreign to me.
If they are so expendable, why do men think that they are intrinsically more special?