Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

efb wrote: »

maybe if we lowered male pay there would be more employed????

I'll call IBEC!

Mate, now you're just taking the piss. If your only refutation is to scream ictu over and over then I'm afraid your strawmam is on fire

efb wrote: »

maybe if we lowered male pay there would be more employed????

I'll call IBEC!

Wouldn't that be discrimination given several posters have pointed out the pay gap is at best St minimal, at worst a myth?

efb wrote: »

largely down to the collapse in the construction sector and the likelihood of husbands of unemployed families claiming the benefit.

What are the employed %'s?

Umm that would be because we in effect had full employment before the crash. That the construction sector being hit affects men so badly surely demonstrates that men a)aren't getting the same educational opportunities to apply for professional roles and b) women need programmes to encourage them to enter construction (this game of yours is fun, I think I'm getting the hang of it....)

Men and women are naturally unequal in many respects. This is just common sense.
In the military no sensible person would put women in the combat infantry.
They break down physically faster than men if they are humping the same combat loads over difficult terrain, female hygiene is impossible during extended operations in the field, in hand to hand combat men will prevail over the physically weaker sex and women are simply not as violent and aggressive as men are.
Women are not physically strong enough to be safely employed in heavy labor like construction, mining and other heavy industry and no sensible women tries to get into these industries.
In the cut throat and hostile field of politics and business few women make it to the top. Why? Few women are as sly, crafty, viciously ruthless, single minded and capable of bluff as many men are.
In romance most men make the first move and initiate sex. Women are generally passive.
In most relationships women still are homemakers and child carers while men are expected to work and earn an income.
In practically every field men outdo women.
Science, business, politics, military, sport, literature, entertainment and organized crime are all dominated by men.
This wasn't planned.
This surely evolved and it evolved because men and women have innate differences.

As I said, you could spend all night throwing proven facts, logic, studies at this guy and get nowhere.

B0jangles wrote: »

I think the really dubious section starts with the word "men" ends with "differences."

Just insisting what I said is nonsense is not going to cut it.
Are women physically capable of matching men in combat?
Can women met the same physical demands that men must endure in heavy labor?
Are women more ruthless, cunning, intimidating, single minded etc than men who are successful in politics and business and even organized crime?
If women are as violent and aggressive as men why is the majority of the prison population male?
Isn't it true that most women still are homemakers and child rearers even though most women also work outside of the home too?
Isn't it true that many men work and earn money for their families while not being directly involved in the rearing of their children?

If you can refute these facts by all means do so.

It is clear that there are obvious gender differences.

Dean0088 wrote: »

This is despite the fact that wars today are mainly fought with cruise missiles, drones, communication warfare, cyber warfare, stealth bombers and Mutually Assured Destruction arms races. Which are all based in science, technology and engineering. Which women are perfectly capable of.

The overwhelming majority of engineers and scientists involved in manufacturing weapons are men. Many of these men have already had careers in the military hence the concept of the military industrial complex with many former officers in the military becoming military contractors and weapons manufacturers.

So power, and the ability of who can wield the sword, has changed.

Someone still has to take the high ground.
Despite technology the business end of the military is still the rifleman, machine gunner and mortar man.
The infantry soldier must carry his weapon, ammunition, equipment, water, food, helmet, body armor, grenades, explosives and everything else he needs for extended combat operations on his body.
He must be able to march for hours at time carrying an immense load on his back up and down hills and mountains, through jungles, across deserts or arctic wastes in intense humidity, extreme cold, blazing heat and arrive at his objective and fight despite extreme exhaustion.
In the field a soldier will be covered in dirt and muck and will not bathe for weeks or months.
Infantry must also be prepared to fight hand to hand with trench shovels, bayonets or knives or bare hands.
Women have proven time and time again during tests of endurance to be simply incapable of doing the same job as men.
Women lack upper body strength, their bones break more easily and their reproductive system makes them more vulnerable to infection in extreme environments.
More importantly.
Few is any women are natural killers.
If women kill they kill with poison and they usually kill children and old people who were defenseless.
Women do not start fights in bars, they do not punch and kick men to death and they rarely is every take part in violent robberies.

You are plain wrong.

This 1% who do make these moves ALWAYS fail to hold onto their power.

Many hold onto power for decades and others are killed by other psychopaths who rule for decades. The history of the world is about the constant rise and fall of leaders and their realms. The most powerful empires and nations have always been ruthless.

lHitler lost in the North African theater because he refused to see sense. Rommel had compassion for the men he led into battle. Hitler didn't care and used them as cannon fodder - a true ruthless ****. So his generals disobeyed orders even if it men putting a bullet in their own heads. The same story repeated itself when the Russians and the US/UK were advancing towards Berlin.

The North African theater was a sideshow. Hitler was preoccupied with the Eastern Front where the overwhelming majority of the combat in WW2 occurred. The overwhelming majority of Hitler's general obeyed him as did millions of men who continued fighting right up until the defeat in 1945.
The Americans and Russians were quite prepared to throw away their own men from strategic advantage and Stalin especially so.

Again you are dead wrong.

Leaders of men are normally compassionate and hold power for long periods of time. Churchill springs to mind.

Churchill was a ruthless imperialist and warlord. He gassed Iraqis who rebelled against British occupation troops. He allowed millions of Bengals to starve to death. He presided over the British colonial wars in Kenya and Malaya. He signed off on the carpet bombing of German cities. He supported the terror policies of the Black and Tans and supported the creation of Northern Ireland.

So wrong again.

They're humane and caring but can make harsh decisions when they make logical sense, never out of hatred or a lack of emotion.

That is the definition of psychopathic behavior.

60% of men can make decisions which go against their strongest emotional impulses. 40% of women can do the same. So there might be a slight "logic gap" between the sexes when it comes to who can hold the upper echelons of power.

20% is not a slight gap.

But the idea that women are highly stung emotional people incapable of power is ridiculous.

The majority of power is in male hands is it not? I am not sure if you can say women are highly strung emotionally but women clearly must have some natural disadvantage which means they lose the power struggle?

Finally, physical strength only wields power among men as it intimidates.

Intimidation with physical strength is key facet of power. Might is right.

Normally, the loudmouth muscle heads make terrible leaders and all their yes men abandon them at the first sign of trouble.

They only abandon them when another bully challenges the first.

The best leaders are highly intelligent and the least likely to see violence as the first option - Michael Collins, Churchill etc...

Michael Collins was a ruthless man who ordered the assassinations of policemen and enemy agents.

However, the media does a great job of convincing men that they're strong, alpha-male warriors. Something has to convince a 17 year old to sign his life away to become a professional bullet catcher in some ****hole desert on the opposite side of the world.

Many young men enjoy fighting, are prepared to risk death and maiming and seek glory.

That is as old as Achilles and the Illiad.