|
|
|
|
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:02:33 AM |
For all you men on the marriage strike I do have one question though. Are you happy ? Just how is it working out for you?
I'm a happy guy. I have a nice house with a great view, my sailboat, my friends and I have my space without a woman telling me what I should be doing rather than kicking back and enjoying.
I get my kids on alternating weeks. Life is good. I'd like to have more money, but I'm not starving.
Do most of the women you date agree with you?
I gave up dating. It just got too tedious and expensive. | |
|
| |
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:04:51 AM | Ok so the bottom line is this.
Most men are intersted in finding the right girl, falling in love, maybe moving in together, maybe not - but definitely meeting and ending up with "the one".
Some are not going to pop the question and ask her to marry them because they are on strike against not the female gender, but the system and it's bias toward women. Call it unfair, archaic, whatever. The women are not to blame for this, but many feel they are taking the brunt of the fallout. Therefore:
A lot of women have found this to be a personal affront, and have defended their gender and/or reacted harshly toward the male gender.
Bottom line is that a lot of men (and some women) agree that the system IS biased toward women and agree that men/people who feel strongly against it should strike because basically the industry of marriage in itself is profiting someone who might be able to make a difference in current laws should the industry fold.
A lot of people have said...ok we understand you feel this way, and go for it. Not only will we not stand in your way, but we'll supply catering to the picket line.
Can we close this thread? Have I missed anything? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:04:54 AM |
Forums do not put any words in my mouth, I never made that statement or implied in any way I would have done that. I find that offensive and very wrong and by implying that you are as guilty as the others of making generalized statements and reinforcing assumptions about people. My statement was referring to the fact that I had the legal right to make a case against him just as he did against me when it came to the division of assets, not that I had an automatic win.
Apologies, Aligirl. I wasn't trying to pinpoint you in that case, from what you posted you sound like you were very fair in your divorce, walking away simply for the sake of 'wanting out', probably with the simple (and fair) attitude that it was just "perhaps a bad choice, not meant to be" and owning your own part of it without a lot of blame. I dated a woman who did a pro-se divorce, just walked away 'wanting out', and I respected her greatly for that. I was merely showing what that statement *could* imply, as stated.
You certainly had a "legal right" to make a case, I would not argue that. Personally, you are the type of person, from the sounds of it, that I would sit down with at a divorce and say "look, I had $70K in my 401K when we got married, its $90K now, we split it and I give you $10K", and you'd probably find that equitable (as would I). I'm all for fairness in a split... regardless of the emotions involved.
Unfortunately, as I said, divorce often brings out a lot of bitter emotions, and a lot of people (both men and women) stop thinking "rationally" about it. It becomes more about 'revenge' than being equitable, "making him pay" rather than about "splitting assets"... and *often* times the courts are biased in favor of the woman (especially if there are children involved).
I find the whole "prenups basically not being worth the toilet paper they are written on" interesting, since the idea of a prenup is to have a *contract* made by both parties based on reason, rather than emotions. You mentioned traffic violations, ok, isn't you paying $60 a year (or whatever it costs for a drivers license in your state) a *contract* between you and the state? They agree to let you drive (legally) and you agree to abide by the traffic laws (and carry insurance to protect other drivers, in effect somewhat of a contract with the other drivers)? So isn't, in effect, a marriage license (which you pay the state for) in effect a contract, between you and the stage *and* between you and your spouse? So are we saying that a marriage 'contract' is enforced (usually made more out of emotions/passion) in a court of law, while a prenup 'contract' (usually made out of logic/reason) is not? To me, prenups should be *more* enforcable - why should a contract signed and agreed to by two rational adults be "negated" based on emotional desires to "get more" during such and emotional thing as divorce? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:08:16 AM |
A lot of people have said...ok we understand you feel this way, and go for it. Not only will we not stand in your way, but we'll supply catering to the picket line.
Can we close this thread? Have I missed anything?
Shouldn't you be leading by example? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:09:19 AM |
Msg 1175 So that's one example of how domestic violence "worked" BEFORE...
So, assuming that the answer isn't to do away with protection orders altogether, and assuming that many of us agree that the system of providing them gets abused as it stands, what's the solution?
Very good questions Nomadic… I have no idea.
Should, for example, the threat of violence be enough to warrant a restraining order?
The threat of violence has to be enough… statistically violence increases in the period right after people split up. If you wait for it to occur, people might be dead.
I can see the argument that a man with no violent history should receive the benefit of the doubt.... is this the solution?
Hmm, I have a bit of a problem with that, although I would like to believe there would be reliable indicators we could use to predict behaviours, sometimes the only time a man gets violent is when faced with a divorce. It is a time when both are emotional wrecks, all too easy for someone to wind up dead. A little over 200 women were killed in these circumstances in Canada last year… not sure if or how many of those men had a history of violence.
I don’t know what the solution is at this point. There are legitimate fears, legitimate abuses of it and some (potentially) lifelong ramifications. Perhaps it is what happens to the record after the fact, especially if there is no history of other violence? Or how it is used during the divorce or custody proceedings? Even that gets a bit wrinkly.
Msg 1176 A lot of today's women have the mentality that men don't have the right to complain or feel angry at anything that is unfair towards their gender which happens in the present. Buts its perfectly validated for any woman (no matter what age) to complain about unfairness towards women which happened in another generation. These same women who put men down that complain about these types of issues happening in the world today think nothing of a woman who complains about issues towards their gender which happened in another generation.
I had to read your post a few times to be able to hear it… it was kind of jarring coming immediately after Nomadic’s post… at first I heard it as an angry reaction to what she said. (probably because of the “another generation” references). Yes, I see this quite a bit here on the fora.
I’ve come to believe feminism has largely taken away men’s voices. Nomadic, we were about to get into this in a different thread that got deleted, I wonder if that’s the thread you were mentioning?
If men complain about something it is invariably seen against the backdrop of wanting to take away from women. But if they have no voice, how does change take place? Beyond that, I think we ARE conditioned not to hear it, not that we don’t want to, but it does not exist and anyone who says anything is a woman hater who wants to shove women back in the kitchen. We focus on the anger but all too often are deaf to the pain and fear that lies underneath it.
Msg 1190 How do you tell the difference early on
I have no idea, but I’d sure like to. You can’t even necessarily go by statements. My ex was pretty emphatic about how despicable it was for people to take advantage of others in divorces and stopped being friends with someone over their affair. Yet, my ex had an affair and came after me for spousal support among other things. Love going in sometimes does not equate with the sense of entitlement on the way out.
Perhaps the only way is to give a good hard look at how they’ve handled problems and treated their enemies throughout their life. Because if the relationship breaks down you are the enemy who is their number one problem.
Msg 1192 I'm old enough to have been a teenager and adult in the 60s and 70s. During the "feminist revolution", women were interested in getting equal pay for equal work, not dumping all over men. The movement was more directed towards what THEY wanted, rather than complaining about men.
Oh my AlexandriaGal… there was an awful lot of complaining about men. It was fractious and divisive and arguably was necessary to raise consciousness to the point that change happened. A best, this statement is revisionist.
msg 1196 ...............???? Did anyone else fail to take my meaning when I used the word 'win'?
Nope, knew right away what you meant. I did think uh-oh someone will smack him for using “win” if they are trying to score points as in a debate. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:11:23 AM | What I meant was to your way of thinking they must, hence the unfairness. Of course they don't. Hysteria only you know if your hysterical.I got your meaning on the dead I just thought it was lame.:down
If the system was unfair to you, you just didn't hire the right lawyer. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:14:40 AM |
If the system was unfair to you, you just didn't hire the right lawyer.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word 'fair'? I find myself literally unable to formulate a proper response to this. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:16:01 AM |
For all the people who equate happiness with relationships, I have one question for you. Are you happy?
Do you feel empowered?
Or would you rather not have your happiness depend on something you only have limited control over(that being your relationships with another person who has a mind of their own)?
^ ^ ^ ^ Actually , yes. I'm happy.
I'm also in a relationship. I'm always empowered.
But I'm happy because I don't think I have to have control over my boyfriend. We are on an equal footing and work things out.
When you get to the power trip stage, all is lost.
And sure, if I wasn't in a relationship I'd also be happy, but I enjoy being in one.
And since I can, why not?
Because of those lines that I bolded, I don't think you are the type of person who equates relationships with happiness. I say that because you'd be happy even if you weren't in a relationship.
The point of my question was that if you need something outside yourself, like a relationship, to be happy, chances are, even if you get that thing outside yourself, you still won't be happy. At least that's been my experience. Though I'd welcome any input on that. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:16:06 AM | DonkeyPimp:
Yes I 'm very happy. My question was, is it working for you? I'm just curious to know if it's working. Is that an unfair question? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:32:44 AM |
Oh my, I had no idea the courts were made up of primarily women. It must be if the courts are bias. Or maybe you can tell me just who came up with this unfair system.
Are men fighting to change a system they helped create?
Gee, I don't know--let's ask the Abolitionists. Or Martin Luther King. Or Ghandi.
Feminists have exerted tremendous influence over public policy for the last 40 years. Suggesting that this is impossible simply due to the ratio of men to women in the court is just feeble.
Not to mention the anti-male laws or polices that are implemented without the public knowing at first, or given support by agenda (money and status) driven politicians (which many women voted for) or lobbyists that cry for more power. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:42:40 AM | If men complain about something it is invariably seen against the backdrop of wanting to take away from women. But if they have no voice, how does change take place? Beyond that, I think we ARE conditioned not to hear it, not that we don’t want to, but it does not exist and anyone who says anything is a woman hater who wants to shove women back in the kitchen. We focus on the anger but all too often are deaf to the pain and fear that lies underneath it.
Haha, Margo, y'know, I read that and thought about *work*. When I started 4 years ago, being the "new guy", I basically "had no voice"... I basically walked into a dysfunctional "rats nest" of things that continually broke, and anytime I suggested things to fix it they were "overridden" by the people that, in effect, made it as screwed up as it was in the first place. 4 years later, I have the *reputation* of being the guy who speaks his mind, sometimes very "forcefully" when I need to (less so in recent years because I've earned the reputation/respect of knowing what I'm doing) to make my point.
Point being, that I think its a natural human reaction that if you feel "not listened to", either you crawl in the corner and become a "doormat", or you learn to speak more "forcefully" in order to be heard. That can come across as "anger", but in the case of my job I would have put it more as "frustration" back when I started... frustration that I could see all the things going wrong, saw how to fix them, and felt "ignored".
Of course, it was just me and the boss back then... there's 7 of us now, and we have the reputation of "getting the job done, and done right". And for all that frustration early on, and being forceful about it, I frequently get asked for on calls now ("he'll know how we should fix it").
Now, thats computers... I've been working in the IT field for 20+ years, and I have the experience. Divorce, hey, I've been 'close' but never been married, I don't 'claim' to have the answers... but I *can* be vocal about what problems I see. That doesn't mean I'm bitter and angry, I've been in love, and will be in love again, and who knows, maybe married someday... I know its a risk, and its one that I'm willing to take with the 'right' person if that comes along someday. But I do think many men have very valid concerns about the state of the legal system and how divorces are handled, and y'know... I play the lottery when it hits $100mil, fully realizing its 'pissing $1 away' most likely, but its a chance... marriage is always a chance, but when the odds are so high that its a 50% chance of working out long term, and you could lose 90% of your income in the process... who could blame someone for seeing that as an 'unacceptable risk'??
I might suggest, for those who want to argue - men who don't want to marry at all, who don't think marriage is at all something they would ever want, would *not* be on a "marriage strike" - women didn't strike/protest about not being able to vote because they didn't want to vote anyways, did they?? Has anyone thought that those "on strike" are most likely the guys that *would* like to marry someday, but simply don't like the odds that they could lose virtually *everything* they have just because "she decided she's not happy and wants to end it"? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:56:39 AM | quote]WHY DO SOME PEOPLE THINK THEY NEED TO
Many people thinks it's easier to read than dense paragraphs...
<div class="quote">The women are not to blame for this, but many feel they are taking the brunt of the fallout. Therefore:
I will concede to: though intellectually, I understand all these points, and even agree for the most part, emotionally ( my first natural response, for good or bad), I felt I was being blamed for something I did not do, and was going to personally be punished for it.
{quote] If the system was unfair to you, you just didn't hire the right lawyer.
I respectfully decline to agree. I work for one of the best domestic attorney's in my county. He's even written books on Domestic Law. ( I know this may be hard for some to believe, but, he is a good, ethical, fair guy, or I wouldn't work for him). He doesn't always get what is "fair" or "right" for his clients. ( male or female). Almost without fail, if he doesn't, he says it was due to the interpretation of the judge. The judges have the discretion to use their interpretation of the law, or even their personal beliefs, to decide what the settlements are. And I think, what many are saying here, is that the judges have developed a bias in favor of women, or women's rights. I will say that sometimes women get treated unfairly too. But, in our courts , at least, I'd say, more so, the men.
So, I agree with what the men are upset about. But, I also go back to abitnomadic..is the marriage strike going to fix it?..Or is there something more tangible that can be done?.. What are your suggestions?..And, you'll notice, not too many younger people participate in these kinds of threads. Aren't they the ones to help effect the change? And how do you get the message to them. Younger women, in particular, would be hard pressed to even take this seriously..most being pretty romantic and idealist at this point.
Edit: I will join and say, yes, I can be happy without a relationship. I've manged for 12 years. Wasn't even looking for most of them. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like one, or I might not be happier with one... | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:05:24 AM | | If you went to the bank ,, wanting to deposit a sum of money ,, and the person behind the counter said "There is a 50% to 60% chance of you losing that money within a few short years" ,, would you place the deposit??? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:17:57 AM |
Msg 1228 Point being, that I think its a natural human reaction that if you feel "not listened to", either you crawl in the corner and become a "doormat", or you learn to speak more "forcefully" in order to be heard.
Oh my Forums1, my apologies for making you think about work on a Saturday, lol. Your point is dead on... add to that mix that I believe there are distinct differences in communication along gender lines which complicates things further.
Has anyone thought that those "on strike" are most likely the guys that *would* like to marry someday, but simply don't like the odds that they could lose virtually *everything* they have just because "she decided she's not happy and wants to end it"?
Agreed, and I tend to see it beyond just the individuals involved, even beyond social justice and look at it from an overall societal impact basis. I'm very concerned with where we are heading. As we circle the wagons to be even more protective, the tendancy is to get ever increasingly individualistic and centered on self and less likely to reach out and connect with others. This runs completely counter to building successful relationships in life. As I see it, the fall-out goes beyond individual relationships and affects the foundation of a healthy society. The beginnings of a marriage strike movement is akin to the gasping of a canary in a mine. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:18:32 AM |
DonkeyPimp:
Yes I 'm very happy. My question was, is it working for you? I'm just curious to know if it's working. Is that an unfair question?
For me? Im' not on a marriage strike. Personally, I think that in today's society, marriage is financially safer than the alternative - having children with a girlfriend.
It's not an unfair question at all, but I think anyone who bases their happiness on relationships, whether marriage or other, is not going to be happy regardless of whether or not they have those relationships.
If you went to the bank ,, wanting to deposit a sum of money ,, and the person behind the counter said "There is a 50% to 60% chance of you losing that money within a few short years" ,, would you place the deposit???
I'm not as experienced in this as you are, but from what I've seen, prenuptial contracts make marriage the safest long-term relationship, at least as far as money is concerned. What's your experience? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:29:39 AM | Some thoughts on whether the "system" (in some countries or all) is "biased" in favor of women:
I am not sure if that is actually the real effect. By being "overly" regulatory in marriage and unions to the perceived favor of women, the system may actually be providing the dynamics for a further move away from marriage and unions and in effect towards NEW types of rels that MOST women do not SEEM to want, but men are driven towards in order to "adapt" to a system that (maybe justly) tries to better "protect" the interests of women in marriages and unions (and their terminations) but, as many policies and laws do, in a re-active fashion, ie by addressing the issue in a 1960s way, in 2007.
Just some thoughts (policy faults are very common in many areas of policy and regulations in many countries, be they re labor matters, business, environment, tax, etc - see the famous Belgian slogan "too high tax rate means no tax revenue" (trop d'impots, pas d'impots). Thus consider: Too many regulations re marriage, no marriage!!! Whom does that favor and whom does that hurt? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:34:00 AM | This entire debate would be so much easier if it wasn't online. I think some posts are being misunderstood as to who they are directed to and what about. Flints Gunner, I sometimes get the feeling that you feel the need to defend every man in this thread, and the thing is that not every man here is talking the same language as you or even meaning the same things. I'm thinking there needs to be a bit of a separation between what's an attack on men or women as a whole, and what is an attack on an individual. Let's just say that 80% of all men are just fine human beings and 80% of all women are just fine human beings. That still leaves the 20% of both men and women that just flat out suck moose as human beings that will get either criticised or ignored. I wasn't getting the sense that you were being lumped into the 20%, but I think you may have seen some of the criticisms of that 20% as pertaining to you. I think that's one of the problems with online communication is that it's just hard to tell sometimes. Also, that 20% of each is going to try and lay the blame of the criticism of them or being ignored at someone else's feet rather than just seeing that they are sucky human beings.
Admittedly, I've deleted more things I've written than I've posted, because sometimes an immediate emotional response is a bad idea and it makes more sense after I step away and think for a bit. What I'm saying is that I've accidentally took some things personally that I don't think were meant that way.
probably because of the “another generation” references I asked which thread he meant, because I related my own experience in what drove me to throw off what I had been taught and to forge my own way....which is what I see as feminism. I'm not a "different generation." I'm about 10 years older than Xeno (I think), so I don't think what I experienced qualifies as a "different generation."
Maybe rather than an feminism or masculinism push, we should have an equalism push that transcends gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Really, I think that was the intention of the whole civil rights movement and sexual revolution; that we all can decide for ourselves who we want to be and how we run our lives without being controlled or prevented from pursuing happiness. It's unfortunate that every movement in all of history at some point seems to go sour or have some bad apples in it. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:34:16 AM | If you went to the bank ,, wanting to deposit a sum of money ,, and the person behind the counter said "There is a 50% to 60% chance of you losing that money within a few short years" ,, would you place the deposit???
Actually, if you went to the bank with say $100K, you know a CD is very safe but only earns say 4.5% these days... its safe (staying out of a marriage, being "on strike").
So instead you look at mutual funds, which you know could have a much better return (in a good marriage - love, long term partnership, potentially 2 incomes and a better standard of living, perhaps raising children together)... a decent mutual fund you could gain 25% over a few years, or lose 25%, but maybe you're willing to take that chance for the potential gains (and, even though its a chance, you "feel good" about the chances - who would go into a marriage if they didn't?).
But, who would invest that mutual fund when the terms are "there's a 50% chance of a gain, but there's a 50% chance you could lose 50+% of your investment, *plus* losing 50+% of your income for the next 20 years", and oh yeah, we can terminate your investment in the fund at any time, for no reason other than we don't like you anymore? (I'm discounting children here, since they are an "investement" of a differerent nature, the "returns" are far more emotional/personal than purely financial).
"I'm not as experienced in this as you are, but from what I've seen, prenuptial contracts make marriage the safest long-term relationship, at least as far as money is concerned. What's your experience?" -- Funny DP, since it seems even the women here who work in the legal field seem to agree that prenup's aren't worth the paper they are written on a lot of the time. Although, one might think that having gone through the process of doing one and having the idea up front that neither party "walks away with the golden parachute" in the end, *might* make both parties more willing to try to work things out while still in the marrige, rather than rushing to end it...? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:37:23 AM | [Agreed, and I tend to see it beyond just the individuals involved, even beyond social justice and look at it from an overall societal impact basis. I'm very concerned with where we are heading. As we circle the wagons to be even more protective, the tendancy is to get ever increasingly individualistic and centered on self and less likely to reach out and connect with others. This runs completely counter to building successful relationships in life. As I see it, the fall-out goes beyond individual relationships and affects the foundation of a healthy society. The beginnings of a marriage strike movement is akin to the gasping of a canary in a mine.]
Couldn't agree more .. I think the age old saying , "United we Stand , Divided we fall" could be appilicable here. If the core of our society falls apart ,(and I believe marriage and families are the core), the rest is not looking too good .
Seems throughtout history this has occurred, when people don't need each other any more ,the collapse of the society tends to follow . | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:40:48 AM | [I'm not as experienced in this as you are, but from what I've seen, prenuptial contracts make marriage the safest long-term relationship, at least as far as money is concerned. What's your experience? ]
I may be a tad older , and things may have changed somewhat, but from what I can recall,, pre-nups were never worth the paper they were written on .However, if they are ,they only resolve the material issue ,, the emotional is a totally different story, that's the part that rips your life apart . | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:50:26 AM | DonkeyPimp:
Who said anything about basing ones happiness on a relationship. I just wanted to know if this was working. Are the one's on a marriage strike happy with their choice not to marry . And if so why? | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 11:51:22 AM |
The beginnings of a marriage strike movement is akin to the gasping of a canary in a mine. I guess I see that a little differently. I see getting rid of marriage as putting the focus back where it belongs...the two people that are in the relationship. If there is something you would not do unless there was the marriage contract in place, then maybe doing that thing with that person is a bad idea (I'm thinking of the idea of having kids or staying home to raise the kids). I think it would require more personal responsibility in the choice of whom one spends their life with.
I'm all in favor of the partnership laws that I mentioned earlier. I think money should be kept separate, and that during the relationship a couple should take a serious look at what will be done in the event of a breakup. In fact, I think during the marriage, the couple should pre-write out the divorce decree (well, ok I guess I'm back to getting divorced as the first thing). The assumption that a relationship is until death do us part should be done away with. | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 12:17:24 PM |
I think money should be kept separate, and that during the relationship a couple should take a serious look at what will be done in the event of a breakup. In fact, I think during the marriage, the couple should pre-write out the divorce decree (well, ok I guess I'm back to getting divorced as the first thing).
Thats kinda what I was getting at with a prior comment, Whenyer, about maybe a "prenup" ("financial agreement"?) should be a *requirement* of getting married. It certainly would:
(a) open a hopefully mature discussion about the future *before* marriage (and if it can't be "mature" I would hope they don't get married, I'd think thats a bad sign as far as communication and compromise go...).
(b) take the emotional "oh, if you want that you're planning on divorce and don't love me" concept out of it... it would be a *legal* requirement.
(c) Perhaps a bit more enforcable in court (and a legally approved "template" could be provided, ie, 50% of marital assets "gained" in the marriage, pre-existing personal assets "untouchable" unless they are co-mingled jointly, etc). | |
|
| Men on a Marriage Strike
Posted: 9/29/2007 12:21:11 PM | To me, prenups should be *more* enforcable - why should a contract signed and agreed to by two rational adults be "negated" based on emotional desires to "get more" during such and emotional thing as divorce?
@Forums. I agree that prenups should be "more" enforcable but the courts are to be blamed for that as well as the legal profession for doing their best to make them unenforcable. And the remark about getting a better lawyer is unfortunately what will most likely decide if they are enforced or not. Not necessarily your gender.
My point has been and always be if you dont want to get married....Dont. That is your choice. We all make choices and sometimes they bite us in the ass and sometimes they dont.
If you do want to get married do what you reasonably can to protect yourself in the event of a divorce because no one can see the future or predict what will happen. It is like anything else a roll of the dice that you either choose to make or dont. If I was to wait for someone else to look after my best interests I will be waiting for a very long time.
I often wonder exactly how much emotion is embellishing the responses to this thread and how much of the truth is really being told about many of the "experiences" some people have had. It is very easy to look away from your own mistakes and blame others rather than admit some culpability and perhaps learn from it.
VVVVVVV Nomadic
Well said and perhaps that is what has been picking at me all along about this thread. It seems to go back to the "good old days" argument being used as a template of what we should be striving for quite a bit and what many people are overlooking is that many of the issues that are being complained about other "groups" are still dealing with and will continue to deal with long after"mens" rights are dealt with. Anyone who truly believes that equal rights in its purist form has been achieved is crazy for many people there are still many inequalities that exist like poverty, people of colour, native rights, the list goes on... | |
|
|
| Page 48 of 50
|
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
|
Home
login 
