Gender roles and equality.

No, there was no truth to it, just extreme childishness. And as much as you want to fall back on "I am not sexist, I want to the same for everyone" mantra- despite the fact that you think just saying it is all you need to do to prove yourself innocent, having made no attempt to put it in any sort of realistic or intelligent context- the fact is that everyone reading your comments about how you feel women are running the western world and how much you hate westernised women and any man taking their stance is a 'mangina' or whatever sort of puerile comment you find the need to make is in any doubt whatsoever that you are incredibly sexist and possibly the least pleasant person posting on these forums.

I can't stop you being the person you are, of course- I just pity you for that. But as I told you, I will stop you displaying that hostile attitude when people call you out on your idiotic crap.

You are, basically, a disgrace.

I think C-Master made some good points.

However, his posts are laced with too much sexism for his points to do any good.

Some of the same items he brings up that he doesn't like are the same things genuine (there's a difference between an ignorant feminist and an educated one) feminists bring up: males paying for dates and holding doors, unfair advantages in the legal system for either sex, and some other things I am not interesting in re-reading.

An old stat about kids in single parent homes and poverty from the census (I'll find a newer one, if I still post here, but I have to leave soon)

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

About men paying child support for kids that aren't theirs. Found to be at about 30%

http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm

Damn, a lot has been said in a few hours.

The way I view it is that marriage, in our society, is a standard contract which usually never gets stated very clearly. That's why divorce can be a very messy business as a lot goes on hearsay, assumptions and what was supposed. I'm all for pre-nups, and honestly think that, rather than the church or the government you should get a lawyer in marriage, as you are basically incorporating. But, that being said, I don't think that women necessarily get favoured in divorce. To me that seems to be a problem of definitions. Society obviously values the person more that makes money, but the contributions of the other person, taking care of the household are just as worthy, even if they are not monetarily rewarded. As such it may seem to someone that the woman is favoured as she gets the "man's" money in the settlement, however the standard deal is that she would not pursue a career and aid the man emotionally and by taking care of his domestic business in making money, so she does deserve a share of it. How much is what needs to be determined in court, and obviously many guys, especially those through a divorce feel that they have been treated unfairly, as they themselves don't value the non financial contributions as highly.

Obviously there is different arrangements too, like women that marry a billionaire or people that cheat, etc. and that has to be weighed differently, but that's why we have courts.

Generally, get a pre-nup, write down exactly what contract you get into, and know what it entails. Easier for everyone. You wouldn't start a business with a friend without drawing up a contract, and that's basically what you are doing there.

Originally posted by Mikey no 1
All I am saying is Cmaster has a message, like Jesus it goes against the present pervasive ideology. He should not be crucified for not being Alan Alda.

Don't spam, Mikey.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, there was no truth to it, just extreme childishness. And as much as you want to flall back on "I am not sexist, I want to the same for everyone" mantra- despite the fact that you think just saying it is all you need to do to prove yourself innocent, having made no attempt to put it in any sort of realistic or intelligent context- the fact is that everyone reading your comments about how you feel women are running the western world and how much you hate westernised women and any man taking their stance is a 'mangina' or whatever sort of puerile comment you find the need to make is in any doubt whatsoever that you are incredibly sexist and possibly the least pleasant person posting on these forums.

I can't stop you being the person you are, of course- I just pity you for that. But as I told you, I will stop you displaying that hostile attitude when people call you out on your idiotic crap.

You are, basically, a disgrace.

There was.

Also I have posted stats. And again. There are double standards here, and there are double standards in this thread. If this were a thread about how women are treated "unfairly" there wouldn't be a problem with it. It is only a problem when a man says it. And again the thread started out fine, but numerous members trolling and flaming that's what the thread turns into. People who disagreed in a nice manner had a better discussion. Which is why it was better the last few hours.

I don't really care if people disagree. They could even be hostile. They should be called on it as well though. Otherwise it isn't an even environment. No different than person making a "racist remark" or anything of the sort.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think C-Master made some good points.

However, his posts are laced with too much sexism for his points to do any good.

Some of the same items he brings up that he doesn't like are the same things genuine (there's a difference between an ignorant feminist and an educated one) feminists bring up: males paying for dates and holding doors, unfair advantages in the legal system for either sex, and some other things I am not interesting in re-reading.

Wanting men and women to have the same rights is not sexist. Saying something like "women shouldn't work because they're inferior" *is* sexist. You're welcome to feel the way you do. My point is anybody who disagrees with anything about a woman is *not* sexist. But it is viewed as such in this culture. As proven by this thread. You were on the thread about "mexifornia" and racist comments towards blacks. Not even then did someone bat an eye.

Again "I have posted stats" changes nothing- absolutely nothing- of the points I have made against you. Again, you seem convinced that saying that is a magic shield to protect you from criticism. I am glad to disabuse you of that notion. None of what you say is a problem because a man says it. It is a problem because it is being presented idiotically and offensively.

You ARE being sexist, c-master- and I am effectively making that official around here. I will consider it spamming if you waste any further time trying to deny it (in the same failed way you already have done so a million times). Your poor atittude has burnt up time here long enough.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again "I have posted stats" changes nothing- absolutely nothing- of the points I have made against you. Again, you seem convinced that saying that is a magic shield to protect you from criticism. I am glad to disabuse you oft hat notion.

You ARE being sexist, c-master- and I am effectively making that official. I will consider it spamming if you waste any further time trying to deny it (in the same failed way you already have done so a million times). Your poor atittude has burnt up time here long enough.

If you wish if that's how you feel. Take care. The thread did go pretty far in a short time, so it was successful in that manner.

You guys can keep on. It is a thread I should have made long ago.

On that same token tho, arnt you guilty of sniping Ush? It is a forum rule to attack the argument, not the poster. and it is C-Master's point of view that the laws are in some ways unfairly stacked against males in westernised countries. True or not, why did you proceed to call "Him" sexist and chauvinist or any other unplesant label? You could have labeled his oppinions as such, but you did personally attack him and not his argument, which is constituted as both sniping and flaming, both of which break forum rules, do they not?

This is not an attempt to turn this into a flamewar, and if you ask, I will redirect to PMs, but to me, as a moderator and admin of several forums, this is tantamount to a double standard....

No, they do not. C-master's position is so obviously sexist- and he even said earlier he would take being called chauvinistic as a mark of pride- that calling him so is no more flaming than calling the sky blue. You also entirely mischaracterised any argument I have made against him. I only ever attacked his argument when I was in fact arguing his views. In the last two pages I've not been arguing his views- I have been censoring his behaviour.

Just to make it clear- it is absolutely fair game for anyone to call c-master sexist based on him having demonstrated himself to be.

If you have comments on moderator decisions, do them by PM in future, thank you.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, they do not. C-master's position is so obviously sexist- and he even said earlier he would take being called chauvinistic as a mark of pride- that calling him so is no more flaming than calling the sky blue. You also entirely mischaracterised any argument I have made against him. I only ever attacked his argument when I was in fact arguing his views. In the last two pages I've not been arguing his views- I have been censoring his behaviour.

Just to make it clear- it is absolutely fair game for anyone to call c-master sexist based on him having demonstrated himself to be.

If you have comments on moderator decisions, do them by PM in future, thank you.

Sure, and I have not censored that. He can state all the sexist nonsense he likes. I have told him to stop displaying the bad attitude he shows when disagreed with and to stop wasting time with the sexism defence.

Again, take such comments to PM, please.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sure, and I have not censored that. He can state all the sexist nonsense he likes. I have told him to stop displaying the bad attitude he shows when disagreed with and to stop wasting time with the sexism defence.

Again, take such comments to PM, please.

You can have a debate about that if you want but my judgement is that he has landed so massively on a sexist position that it is pointless denying it. Taking relativity that far is pointless.

Regardless, this matter is done with. Move on please.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can have a debate about that if you want but my judgement is that he has landed so massively on a sexist position that it is pointless denying it. Taking relativity that far is pointless.

Regardless, this matter is done with. Move on please.

c-master?

YouTube video

yaya, sorry Ush, but tell me you didn't chuckle

So, Ricky Gervais cut a deal with Hanna-Barbara? The guy in the orange shirt looks like Fred Flinstone's descendant.

it's a HBO show that animated parts of gervais' podcasts and audiobooks. the show is awesome, and you can torrent the other stuff, which is mega funny!

but ya, they really hammed up how they look

C-Master, were you a regular Tom Leykis listener back when he used to be on the radio?