Why are we hating all the men?

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

Pop on over to AVoiceForMen (For those who've never heard of it it's one of the biggest MRA sites and is run by a guy who youtube name was TheHappyMisogynist) or TheRedPill on reddit and you'll soon get a feeling for what kind of things MRA want and how they like to talk. I'm not putting that stuff here because it is mostly vile.

I note you appear to be blaming social changes you don't like on 'feminists' and then you blame this non-group for not producing a narrative that you personally find convincing. As I said before, feminism is not a political party or club, there is no manifesto beyond pushing for changes where there are inequalities - the majority of the effort is naturally going to be in areas which negatively affect women, but many of the changes feminism seeks also benefit men - specifically with the breaking down of gender roles and gender expectations.

(I should point out that I am not a spokesperson for International Feminism (tm), I'm only expressing my opinion, so if my mask slips and I start roaring KILL ALL MEN, it cannot be taken as evidence of a vast feminist conspiracy to kill all men.)

save me the time? tell me what laws the MRA's want changed and Ill see if I agree with them or not? As for your comments I don't see a convincing case in many cases what these negative effects are for women, take the "pay gap" its like arguing with fog.
I'd describe myself as my kids rights activists which made me have to consider what this beast of a thing called feminism is all about. I don't see anything in it for them especially my son except that potentially groups out there want to tip the education and legal system against him and possibly make him subject to an uncompetitive work environment . Likewise I don't want my daughter advanced at my son's expense. it just appears to be a very unbalanced movement which wants to take down men instead of lifting up women so I have to be aginn it

Wibbs

B0jangles wrote: »

By your argument, posters here who regularly argue from a men's rights perspective should be calling out and disavowing the many extremists in that movement, and I've yet to see that happen.

Well you missed have missed my posts on the matter. I regularly call out the "red pill" and MRA extremists as the utter muppets they are. I think the whole "PUA" trend that kicked off much of it beyond risible and downright nasty as it targets a particular subset of vulnerable young men to claw cash from them. The MGTOW yahoos IMH are for the most part running avoidance behaviour and usually have little choice but to "Go Their Own Way" so they band together to make themselves feel better about it. I see the extremists of the MRA the way I see the modern "feminists", mostly deluded, echo chambered, angry sheep following nonsense and nonsense spouters to make themselves feel better. AKA Muppets.

The only real difference I see between them is that the "feminists" get far more media support and exposure and more government ears too.

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

You are actually joking here, right? Good god. Yeah, that's a valid argument. In some other universe.

mzungu

koumi wrote: »

Because I willing entered into it. I didn't know that he would be but had I better judgment I might have made a better decision back then but like I said I was young and didn't have the benefit of hindsight or previous experience to guide me. My daughter says, "well, if you hadn't opened your legs.." and while I know it takes two to tango, the truth is she's got a point.

My father died a few years after these events and my mother will tell you that it killed him, so I do believe that men feel inherently protective of not just their daughters but women in general and most don't want to inflict abuse on them and may also have a hard time watching or knowing of other men who do. I meant in that way I believed that men do have some responsibility toward each other to make sure that behavior isn't the norm.

I don't agree there. I think we should all take responsibility for ourselves only, and nobody else. Obviously, if somebody sees something bad going down then report it to the police or relevant authorities etc. But, I am not sure exactly how men could be expected to police things like domestic violence carried out by other men, considering it usually happens behind closed doors?

B0jangles

Wibbs wrote: »

Well you missed have missed my posts on the matter. I regularly call out the "red pill" and MRA extremists as the utter muppets they are. I think the whole "PUA" trend that kicked off much of it beyond risible and downright nasty as it targets a particular subset of vulnerable young men to claw cash from them. The MGTOW yahoos IMH are for the most part running avoidance behaviour and usually have little choice but to "Go Their Own Way" so they band together to make themselves feel better about it. I see the extremists of the MRA the way I see the modern "feminists", mostly deluded, echo chambered, angry sheep following nonsense and nonsense spouters to make themselves feel better. AKA Muppets.

The only real difference I see between them is that the "feminists" get far more media support and exposure and more government ears too.
.

I've seen your many, many posts on the topic W, and the thing that always jumps out at me is that you equate 'the extremists of the MRA' with 'the modern "feminists"' - suggesting that you think every modern feminist is as extreme, as deluded and as irrational as the worst of the Red Pillers and the MRAs. That's quite a chunk of bias right there.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

save me the time? tell me what laws the MRA's want changed and Ill see if I agree with them or not? As for your comments I don't see a convincing case in many cases what these negative effects are for women, take the "pay gap" its like arguing with fog.
I'd describe myself as my kids rights activists which made me have to consider what this beast of a thing called feminism is all about. I don't see anything in it for them especially my son except that potentially groups out there want to tip the education and legal system against him and possibly make him subject to an uncompetitive work environment . Likewise I don't want my daughter advanced at my son's expense. it just appears to be a very unbalanced movement which wants to take down men instead of lifting up women so I have to be aginn it

As far as I have seen MRAs tend to be keener on preventing change than actually advocating for it. Most of the issues tend to be US-centric ones- One issue I think no-one could disagree with them on is male circumcision - its barbaric to carry out on infants and should only be done if medically necessary or if requested for whatever reason either medical or religious by a grown adult.
Another is child custody - this is a dodgier one; they tend to run with the narrative that the courts are biased against men and always give custody to the mother when apparently the split is closer to 50/50 as long as the father actually seeks custody. To be honest, I have rarely heard of MRA groups actually doing much in a practical sense to actively push for the changes they want - a lot of the time it just seems to end up in a lot of complaining about women and feminism.

I presume you want the very best for both of your children so I'd ask you to consider if it is fair that your daughter may be discriminated against in job interviews once she's in her mid-twenties to mid-thirties because of the perception that she might get pregnant. (This is not an imaginary scenario - I've seen multiple threads in Work and Jobs here where posters have openly said they do not hire women in this age group because they might go on maternity leave)

If she does have children, her career may well have to go on hold because of the assumption that primary responsibility for them will fall on her. Even if she does return to fulltime work, she might have the same experience reported by many other women; that once they became parents, they were given fewer opportunities and less important projects because they were perceived as being less focussed on and committed to the job they had once they had a child.

Hence the apparent reason those arguing against the existence of a pay gap tend to focus on women without children as evidence it doesn't exist; I'm not sure why they think this is a surefire argument since doing so effectively acknowledges that since men's earnings are largely unchanged whether or not they have children, women are clearly being penalized for having a family.

mzungu

B0jangles wrote: »

If she does have children, her career may well have to go on hold because of the assumption that primary responsibility for them will fall on her. Even if she does return to fulltime work, she might have the same experience reported by many other women; that once they became parents, they were given fewer opportunities and less important projects because they were perceived as being less focussed on and committed to the job they had once they had a child.

Hence the apparent reason those arguing against the existence of a pay gap tend to focus on women without children as evidence it doesn't exist; I'm not sure why they think this is a surefire argument since doing so effectively acknowledges that since men's earnings are largely unchanged whether or not they have children, women are clearly being penalized for having a family.

That is completely misrepresenting the argument. The line that is trotted out is that it is a job for job comparison, when it is not. That is the part that is contentious. I don't think anybody would doubt that whomever decides to take the parental leave will end up making less money. That is why reform of industry is needed to make it more accommodating so the choices are there.

It is worth noting that in Sweden (often cited as being the most working mother friendly country in the world), mums there choose to work less hours (and make less money) to stay at home and look after their children. They have the option of returning to work, but when the choice is there, they make that decision to look after their children instead. The family friendly policy in Sweden has made it easier for women to drop out of the work force, so they have. However, if they wanted to go back in they are free to do so, but they make the decision not to. No amount of social engineering has skewed the figures for gender differences in parental leave.

So, going by the above, some form of differences in wages will always exist. But it is down to choice as opposed to anything else.

B0jangles

mzungu wrote: »

That is completely misrepresenting the argument. The line that is trotted out is that it is a job for job comparison, when it is not. That is the part that is contentious. I don't think anybody would doubt that whomever decides to take the parental leave will end up making less money. That is why reform of industry is needed to make it more accommodating so the choices are there.

It is worth noting that in Sweden (often cited as being the most working mother friendly country in the world), mums there choose to work less hours (and make less money) to stay at home and look after their children. They have the option of returning to work, but when the choice is there, they make that decision to look after their children instead. The family friendly policy in Sweden has made it easier for women to drop out of the work force, so they have. However, if they wanted to go back in they are free to do so, but they make the decision not to. No amount of social engineering has skewed the figures for gender differences in parental leave.

So, going by the above, some form of differences in wages will always exist. But it is down to choice as opposed to anything else.

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap - the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

koumi

mzungu wrote: »

I don't agree there. I think we should all take responsibility for ourselves only, and nobody else. Obviously, if somebody sees something bad going down then report it to the police or relevant authorities etc. But, I am not sure exactly how men could be expected to police things like domestic violence carried out by other men, considering it usually happens behind closed doors?

I wasn't suggesting that they do, I was making the point that they take responsibility for their own actions, to police themselves if you will and if they have sons or brothers or work colleagues they should make it clear it's not fair game, not encourage it.

Will I Am Not

Glenster wrote: »

Name the 5 worst people in history,

Men or women?

I rest my case.

What's your case again???

Widdershins

Kuomi, I think there is room for improvement in how domestic violence is handled. I've known too many people to dismiss it as ''a domestic'' as if the existence of a prior relationship negates the seriousness of it.

Perhaps there were reasons why you chose to stay. I know it's often the case that leaving an abusive partner can result in financial hardship, for example.

Sometimes the person being abused still cares quite strongly for the abusive partner.

It seems like a difficult choice and rarely as simple as just walking away except for those with no real ties to the abuser and plenty of support and money to fall back on.

As for you having ''opened your legs'', that's natural, we all do it. It's a human need, not something to feel guilty about.

koumi

Widdershins wrote: »

Kuomi, I think there is room for improvement in how domestic violence is handled. I've known too many people to dismiss it as ''a domestic'' as if the existence of a prior relationship negates the seriousness of it.

Perhaps there were reasons why you chose to stay. I know it's often the case that leaving an abusive partner can result in financial hardship, for example.

Sometimes the person being abused still cares quite strongly for the abusive partner.

It seems like a difficult choice and rarely as simple as just walking away except for those with no real ties to the abuser and plenty of support and money to fall back on.

As for you having ''opened your legs'', that's natural, we all do it. It's a human need, not something to feel guilty about.

well I had his child, and accordingly could not deny him access. I did try to get away, but it wasn't until I was brought to hospital that I decided the only way to do that would be to skip the country, which I did. I know a lot of people will consider that bad form, but thats the way things were. The gaurds did ask if I wanted to press charges but I honestly just wanted to go away and never come back.

Glenster

red ears wrote: »

Women didn't have much access to power in the past. We have no idea how they would have behaved in those circumstances.

name the three most prolific paedophiles in history.

do women "not have access" to children?

the prosecution rests.

Glenster

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

What's your case again???

no further questions

Will I Am Not

Glenster wrote: »

no further questions

Just put it in your own words... this thing you're trying to say.

mzungu

B0jangles wrote: »

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap

Long before the discussion on wages became a headline, there were numerous calls for us to adopt the Swedish model for childcare from many different quarters.

B0jangles wrote: »

the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child

Aye, it is a choice. Both parents choose to have the child. Just like they both come to a decision regarding childminding. I doubt anybody has been coerced into it. Two grown adults big enough and bold enough to make their own free choices.

B0jangles wrote: »

but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

If they are making the choice to remain looking after their child (e.g. Sweden), then what would you suggest? You can't force somebody not to take parental leave. The options are there, but a high number don't wish to avail of it. The best possible scenario is one where all parties are given the choice.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

The need to reform industry is almost never mentioned when people are declaring that there is no pay gap - the vaguer term 'choices' is employed to gloss over the fact that both parents choose to have a child but the negative career effect of doing so is almost invariably experienced by the female parent.

No offence but i find it hard to be overly sympathetic to your point when it presents only one side of the equation. Given the hours i currently put in to enable a position where only one of us have to work for the next few years, given the evenings i miss with my kids due to work, and the cost in time and effort and lack of sleep to make up the workload when i take some time out for special occasions i frankly dont have a lot of interest in worrying about how terrible it is that, shock horror, society isnt prepared to let someone have their cake and eat it.

I'll be damned if I'll make those sacrifices and then be penalised a second time because someone decided its ok to basically lie with statistics to help create their view of a perfect society.

And while this is a choice made by us, make no mistake about it, even if we were both working (as we did for some time) there is far greater tolerance expected in most workplaces for mothers than for fathers. And that position isnt down to men or patriarchy, its how we as a society, men and women, have crafted our social norms.

RabbleRouser2k

koumi wrote: »

men who are with women who treat them like children are usually men who have chosen a wife who they wanted to mother them.

I think that's slightly too harsh, tbh. Our biology, for men at least, is to seek out a mate who would make a good mother to our children.
So oft times we want a motherly figure.

That said, if a woman treats a man like a child, and the man treats her like a mother-that's not a healthy relationship, probably won't last.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

name the three most prolific paedophiles in history.

do women "not have access" to children?

the prosecution rests.

You can be serious.. but just in case you are:

Female Sex Offenders Are Often Overlooked

--- Article written by Julia Hislop, a licensed clinical psychologist and the author of "Female Sex Offenders: What Therapists, Law Enforcement and Child Protective Services Need to Know" and a co-author of "Female Sexual Abusers: Three Views ---

While no one who has researched sex crimes believes that females comprise more than a very small percentage of all sex criminals, a number of factors conspire to keep these women from being detected and prosecuted.

Studies consistently find that a vast majority of both male and female victims of female sex offenders tell no one. Girls face the task of convincing others that females can be abusive and that touch between females can be sexualized. Males are not socialized to report victimization. Their physiological responses can also confuse the issue of consent, leaving them puzzling to explain how, if an erection was present, there was still abuse, or how, if there was not, that sexual acts still occurred.

Female sex offenders are not easily identified. They do not tend to fit the stereotypes of male sex criminals. It is rare that they offend against strangers or stalk serial victims, for example. An exclusive sexual preference for children is also rarely seen among women.

A witch hunt for female sex offenders is unlikely to benefit society. However, it is important to recognize that they can and do commit serious crimes.
They also do not tend to conform to the titillating stereotypes portrayed in the media of attractive young teachers who’ve had sexual relations with teenagers. Females have committed sex offenses against infants, children, teenagers and adults, using varying degrees of coercion and violence. Grandmothers have committed sex offenses, as have prepubescent girls.

Laws protecting individuals from sex crimes have not historically considered female offenders. Rape, for example, often carrying more severe penalties than other forms of sexual abuse, has traditionally been defined in terms of forced vaginal intercourse. While some legal definitions have broadened, females have often been legally incapable of committing rape. Similarly, while victims of sexual violence occurring in the context of violent relationships may be protected by laws against domestic abuse, these laws have generally not pertained to lesbian couples; moreover, victims in these circumstances have historically risked their own prosecution in coming forward.

As states develop laws for determining which sex offenders are dangerous and need longer prison sentences, and which may be helped by treatment, they are limited by the lack of research concerning female sex offenders. The few studies that exist on the topic have found that overall rates of sexual offense recidivism for females are quite low. However, research to determine whether subtypes have different rates of re-offending is only in its infancy. Studies of subtypes of female sex offenders in general have produced very inconsistent findings.

Females convicted of sex offenses have little by way of research-based treatment available to them, and given the limited demand, may have none at all. Their treatment needs may be different from those of men. For example, across studies, the percentage of female sex offenders who have a history of having been sexually abused tends be about 75 percent. It tends to be severe – starting early, and/or involving multiple or closely related offenders, and/or multiple or intrusive acts. While sexual victimization does not by itself cause offending (if it did, more women than men would be offenders), it is likely to have played a role for most female sex offenders.

Given their comparatively small numbers, a witch hunt for female sex offenders is unlikely to benefit society. However, it is important that investigators recognize that females can and do commit serious sex crimes. Their victims can be seriously harmed. Continued research concerning female sex offenders is needed, and as states certify sex offender treatment providers, education related to female sex offenders should be required.

ceadaoin.

mzungu wrote: »

Long before the discussion on wages became a headline, there were numerous calls for us to adopt the Swedish model for childcare from many different quarters.

Aye, it is a choice. Both parents choose to have the child. Just like they both come to a decision regarding childminding. I doubt anybody has been coerced into it. Two grown adults big enough and bold enough to make their own free choices.

If they are making the choice to remain looking after their child (e.g. Sweden), then what would you suggest? You can't force somebody not to take parental leave. The options are there, but a high number don't wish to avail of it. The best possible scenario is one where all parties are given the choice.

In Sweden it's pretty rare to be a stay at home parent, it seems to almost be looked down upon by society because you are not contributing. From what I've read mothers and fathers work less hours after they have a child but few make the choice to give up work completely. in other countries without highly subsidised childcare, lots of people don't really have a choice because working would not be financially worth it for them.

Murrisk

Zulu wrote: »

In before the next cop-out: "Feminism isn't a hive mind".

TBH, it's usually fair when it's said, from what I can see. Usually in response to some moronic generalisation or non-sequitur. Not a cop out at all most of the time, from my own observations. It's as much of a cop out as blaming everything under the sun on 'de feminazis!'.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think that's slightly too harsh, tbh. Our biology, for men at least, is to seek out a mate who would make a good mother to our children.
So oft times we want a motherly figure.

That said, if a woman treats a man like a child, and the man treats her like a mother-that's not a healthy relationship, probably won't last.

A motherly figure? Interesting one. If I understand correctly, that means 'childbearing hips'. Perhaps larger breasts (even though size has no bearing on lactation).

I've never researched the hip thing but I suspect it's not valid. Not your assertion that some men subcosciously seek it out, but the relevance of it in itself.

I know the breast thing is a misconception because I have a few 'lactation consultant' friends

It irritates me when people make demeaning comments about very slender womens' ability to carry children. E.g I heard lots of comments suggesting Kate Middleton is too thin for childbearing. I'm not sure why it annoys me so much.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

As far as I have seen MRAs tend to be keener on preventing change than actually advocating for it.

That's absolute bullshit but it's bullshit that Cassie Jaye believed before she made the docu The Red Pill. In it you see that it has actually been feminist groups which have stood in the way of change, actively lobbying against bills designed to target court bias and indeed they have been very successful in that regard:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/206474-womens-rights-groups-host-statewide-media-conference-sb-668
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0802sacks.html

They even had a orchestrated email campaign to have the docu pulled from as many film festivals as they could and again they were largely successful. For the screenings they didn't manage to get cancelled, they protested them:

https://twitter.com/cassie_jaye/status/804482644675207168

Much like the many protests they have whenever Christina Hoff Sommers has the audacity to speak at college campuses.

Few pages back I posted about the man who single-handedly set up a battered shelter for men in Canada (all the female ones are government funded) even to the point of using his own home and getting in severe debt in an effort to keep it running. In the end the guy took his own life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/29/earl-silverman-dead-suicide_n_3179850.html

But yet it's the MRAs that don't want change apparently.

To be honest, I have rarely heard of MRA groups actually doing much in a practical sense to actively push for the changes they want - a lot of the time it just seems to end up in a lot of complaining about women and feminism.

You have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In Sweden it's pretty rare to be a stay at home parent, it seems to almost be looked down upon by society because you are not contributing. From what I've read mothers and fathers work less hours after they have a child but few make the choice to give up work completely. in other countries without highly subsidised childcare, lots of people don't really have a choice because working would not be financially worth it for them.

Yep, in Sweden, a lot of mothers do take part time work with family friendly hours to fit around their child's schedule. They are still the parent who stays at home to look after the child. The flexible time arrangement suits many to the point where they are happy continuing like that thereafter. Hence why there are more women in the Swedish workforce (on less hours and in lower paid jobs), but they earn less than their counterparts in the USA who have better paid jobs and more hours, but they have zero flexible options in the work department. But thats America for you.

There are positives and negatives to both systems depending on what way you look at it.

Wibbs

B0jangles wrote: »

I've seen your many, many posts on the topic W, and the thing that always jumps out at me is that you equate 'the extremists of the MRA' with 'the modern "feminists"' - suggesting that you think every modern feminist is as extreme, as deluded and as irrational as the worst of the Red Pillers and the MRAs. That's quite a chunk of bias right there.

Nope, I do see most people who have skin in the game of feminism or MRA are generally speaking egalitarians, because as normal human beings they see that as a given so ignore the crazies in both camps.

However the public face and craw thumpers of current "feminism" are almost to a woman(and man) "just as extreme, deluded and as irrational" as the extremists in the other camp.

The main difference being they're seen as more acceptable, more mainstream. When was the last time you saw any MRA side debate/debater given the mainstream platform in media and politics that the "feminist" mouthpieces get regularly and are encouraged to do so?

If a "red pill" moron came up with something like the calling Shark! on an Aussie beach histrionic phrases like "trigger warning", "rape culture", or "it's always women's fault"(which is a staple of the red pill/MRA muppets under the surface) I would call utter bullshit on that too and tell them to sack the hell up and grow the hell up. And have.

Glenster

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can be serious.. but just in case you are:

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

The main difference being they're seen as more acceptable, more mainstream.

When in fact the grey feminist establishment has been peddling anti-masculinity from behind very suspiciously patriarchal looking desks in academia for decades.

retro:electro

Glenster wrote: »

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

What are you even going on about? Make a point if you have one.

Mountainsandh

I chose to go part time a few years ago for two reasons : to spend more time minding the kids, and my sanity.

The Granny used to do the drop off and collection from school on days Mr M couldn't, so it wasn't a necessity, just an idea I had been toying with in my head for a while.
My job can be stressful and time consuming, with working hours and hours worth of work at home too. That's all halved now.

I'm so glad I did. Less money, more happy.

Mr M is self-employed and does 50% of the minding/school runs. Unless I'm free to let him work more, then I take on more.

Better child minding arrangements here are a must, but I don't think all women outside the school gates are "pressured" into going part time, or giving up their jobs. Some like me just make a life choice that's nothing to do with sexism.
edit : just to explain a bit further how not related it is to "my role as a woman", my father was very stressed and unhappy at his job, and that contributed to his early death at 47 years of age. It ain't happening to me.

Outlaw Pete

Glenster wrote: »

I asked for the three most prolific.

Not some unspecific article about how women do bad things too devoid of any facts.

The article was to retort to what I felt was your overall point, as is this and also the following quote from Esther Rantzen:

Last year, more than half the boys who rang disclosing sexual abuse reported that they had been abused by women. The most common female perpetrator – in almost 1,000 cases – was the boy's mother. Among the boys who reported being sexually abused by a man (almost the same number of callers), the most common perpetrator was the father – again, in about 1,000 incidents. Both shocking statistics.

But if you just want the three most highly prolific (I'll humour you... here you go):

Vanessa George:

George began to find time alone with children at Little Ted's, sometimes when she changed their nappies. She sexually assaulted them and used the camera on her mobile phone to record the abuse. She used objects found at the nursery in the assaults, but also smuggled a sex toy in for at least one attack.

Rosemary West:

Beginning in the early 1970s, Rosemary West regularly worked as a prostitute, often while her husband watched. She also actively encouraged Fred to sexually abuse her stepdaughter, Anne-Marie, beginning when the child was just eight years old; Rose would also sexually abuse the girl herself. Later, Anne-Marie was forced to prostitute herself within the household — being told by Rose she was a "lucky girl" for doing so.

Terri-Lynne McClintic:

Terri-Lynne McClintic lured eight-year-old Tori Stafford from her school in Woodstock, Ont., and presented her to her boyfriend, Michael Rafferty in April 2009. They drove her to a secluded field, where she was sexually assaulted and brutally beaten to death.

Now, care to tell us what your point is seeing as I apparently missed it.

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

A motherly figure? Interesting one. If I understand correctly, that means 'childbearing hips'. Perhaps larger breasts (even though size has no bearing on lactation).

I've never researched the hip thing but I suspect it's not valid. Not your assertion that some men subconsciously seek it out, but the relevance of it in itself.

I know the breast thing is a misconception because I have a few 'lactation consultant' friends

It irritates me when people make demeaning comments about very slender womens' ability to carry children. E.g I heard lots of comments suggesting Kate Middleton is too thin for childbearing. I'm not sure why it annoys me so much.

Yes, I will admit there is an element of physicality to it-as in we obviously do go for traits we want in a partner-looks are a factor.

However, I was talking more about inherent traits-as in things like are they some one who seems cold, or are they kind? Are they reliable, or would they be late to their own funeral?
Are they someone to lean on when you feel like crap, or are you better off crying to your barman?

So while the looks may grab us, from the start, the old adage 'beauty fades, dumb is forever' comes into play.


It's the smile that always grabs me, tbh.