• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

Men: Would you marry an American Woman?

  • Total voters
    83
ChrisL said:
LOL! No kidding, no one wants to give birth to monster babies. Kids are monsters enough! :lol: J/k!
Click to expand...
Conversely. All born as an angels, but parents and society made children monsters.
 
loader said:
Conversely. All born as an angels, but parents and society made children monsters.
Click to expand...

Dude, kids are little sociopaths. Completely self centered and self involved and its a parent's job to civilize them.
 
loader said:
Conversely. All born as an angels, but parents and society made children monsters.
Click to expand...

Well, how would you explain this? :lol:

funny-evil-kid-crayons-chalk-killed-pics.jpg
 
Peter King said:
That is legal talk, irreconcilable differences normally stands for a failed marriage but that does not mean that the actions of the men in that marriage did not cause the marriage to fail.



They have the power to accept a man's advances, that is not the same as the power in relationships. Men have the power to quit relationships whenever they want. There lack of balance in a wedding has nothing to do with men providing and women having the power to put out if they want too. There are a whole load of reasons why marriages have a lack of balance, sex is only a small part of that IMHO.

Women do not think with their reproductive organs, that is the way men operate a lot of the time. A woman chooses a male because she is attracted to him/loves him, few women would choose a man on the basis of how good he is in the sack.



The whole problem in the US is that political power is very male dominated and political voting power is slowly transferred into real change. With the whole structure of US politics it is very difficult for women to get into politics and for change to take place. In most European countries it is easier for women to elect politicians that care and promote womens rights.

And women in Europe were also activist up to a point to get equal rights. In the US it is more conservative politicians who want to keep the good old times in place and women have to use political activism to get equal rights through the courts because the political reality in the US means that getting equal rights through the political process is next to impossible (in a timely fashion).




Sorry, but even in households were men and women both work full time jobs, it is still the woman who has to do the bulk of household and child rearing jobs. Men still think they have the rights to "free time", "time with the guys" and "chill out time" even when the work in the house still has to be done.

And when the marriage breaks up it is still the husband who has to provide money to the wife in order for her to care for his (and her) children. And that is mostly because in the US there is no financial safety net which women get part of the money from until the child is old enough to go to school full time (at which time the woman is to start working close to full time).

In the Netherlands men have to pay considerably less most of the time than in the US. In the US this leads to unfair judgments towards the men. Maybe it is time for US law to order women to start working as soon as the children are old enough to be in school full time. If the women are not trained enough the US states might provide loans in order for her to start learning a trade so that she can stop draining her husbands pocketbook.



The problem then is that these are not healthy and balanced relationships which were achieved through negotiations and voicing expectations about what they would like to achieve in the marriage. And after the marriage has taken place it is even more important to negotiate and communicate to keep the marriage healthy. And I am sorry? A "John" hanging around in the background? How about the "Susan's" hanging around to seduce men? That accusation can be reasoned for both sexes. The whole problem there is that most women start having affairs because they are not satisfied in their marriage and they are looking for love and closeness, men do not need such reasons, usually they will do it just for sex.

And the reasons that it is much easier for women to break off the marriage is not the whole story, women usually see break ups as the last resort. Men don't want to divorce as long as they still have their sex, still have their laundry done and food on the table.



That is your opinion, he usually has a lot of fair points to make.
Click to expand...

I simply disagree with about everything you said. I think either you have very little dating experience, or are just under a major misaprehension... Or, possibly, even more unlikely, you are among that 5-10% of men who are successful enough to have never experienced discrimination against them. Either way, The below video is the best short explanation as to the myth of male power and a great example of how feminism skews the statistics in order to portray a false picture. Great and simplified explanation, and one made a long time ago. The crazy thing is that ACADEMICS NEW THE FEMINIST STATISTICS WERE SKEWED A LONG TIME AGO!!! Yet the myth is still around today. That all boils down to what I explained earlier which is that any time someone refutes the feminist doctorine, they are simple beat down with rhetoric and by their enablers (male feminists) are glad to come to the feminists aid to protect her... It's instinctual. It is also created a society where feminism is simply allowed to make up their own facts and, much like religion, does not have to substatiate them with real evidence. And anyone who tries to criticize and pull apart the false feminist statistics is beat down with rhetoric or simply called a mysoginist woman hater.

Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes - YouTube
 
ChrisL said:
We're only joking around. :)
Click to expand...

No, little kids actually pretty much are little sociopaths. They get better as their brain matures and they start to realize other people exist, have emotions, have desires, are important, etc.
 
tacomancer said:
No, little kids actually pretty much are little sociopaths. They get better as their brain matures and they start to realize other people exist, have emotions, have desires, are important, etc.
Click to expand...

This is very true. If you don't give your kids the building blocks for empathy and concern for others at a very young age, they can easily grow up to be sociopaths as adults.
 
tacomancer said:
No, little kids actually pretty much are little sociopaths. They get better as their brain matures and they start to realize other people exist, have emotions, have desires, are important, etc.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then all children who had bad parents would be sociopaths, and that's not the case.
 
tacomancer said:
again, brain development
Click to expand...

Okay, but I still wouldn't say they are sociopaths because that is a mental illness. They just have immature brains that aren't yet capable of functioning to their full capacity. That sounds a lot nicer anyways, don't you think? :lol:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is very true. If you don't give your kids the building blocks for empathy and concern for others at a very young age, they can easily grow up to be sociopaths as adults.
Click to expand...

Sociopathy is about 50% heritable, so even if the parents are conscientious in raising their little darling, they could be in for a surprise. On the flip side, recall the era of orphanages - those children had no parents around to teach them empathy and concern for others and the overwhelming majority of orphans weren't sociopaths.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, but I still wouldn't say they are sociopaths because that is a mental illness. They just have immature brains that aren't yet capable of functioning to their full capacity. That sounds a lot nicer anyways, don't you think? :lol:
Click to expand...

six of one, half a dozen of another.
 
tacomancer said:
Whether one is a child or a sociopath, their amygdala is still not completely functional.
Click to expand...

But the sociopath doesn't become cured and has to rely on medicines to chemically control their brain function. That's not the case with children. With children, it's simply a fact that they are still developing, so I would never refer to a child as a "sociopath."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom