What do Modern women offer…

[Gregory A]

She can leave any time she wants. But she won't.

I don't endeavor to dominate anyone.

Feminism, the most dangerous head of the Hydra that is the Left, use emotive terminology such as "independence", "liberation", "equality", and "empowerment" as motivators in their propaganda. For a woman to be truly independent she would need to live on an island so as to avoid any of the benefits a shared society bestows upon its citizens. Otherwise male and female are the two sides of the one coin.

 

[Blues Man]

Then what are unemployment payments about?

The unexpected loss of a job.

You have to have a job before you can collect unemployment

 

[Blues Man]

Feminism, the most dangerous head of the Hydra that is the Left, use emotive terminology such as "independence", "liberation", "equality", and "empowerment" as motivators in their propaganda. For a woman to be truly independent she would need to live on an island so as to avoid any of the benefits a shared society bestows upon its citizens. Otherwise male and female are the two sides of the one coin.

Only in the extreme.

Independence can apply to may other situations in society

 

[Gregory A]

The unexpected loss of a job.

You have to have a job before you can collect unemployment

A government needs to compensate for its failure to run an economy in a way that provides sufficient employment. The nature of democracy guarantees that right as there will be politicians who campaign on a pledge of full employment for example. And that's regardless of whether they can or do achieve what they may say. And if it were not this way a sustenance payment would need to be available to everybody anyhow. You seem to have a poor understanding of democracy. Governments are obliged to do these things as they do also need to ask us permission to be elected in the first place.

 

[Blues Man]

A government needs to compensate for its failure to run an economy in a way that provides sufficient employment. The nature of democracy guarantees that right as there will be politicians who campaign on a pledge of full employment for example. And that's regardless of whether they can or do achieve what they may say. And if it were not this way a sustenance payment would need to be available to everybody anyhow. You seem to have a poor understanding of democracy. Governments are obliged to do these things as they do also need to ask us permission to be elected in the first place.

OK so you want to get paid for not working

 

[Man of Ethics]

Actually women who kill their husbands serve longer sentences than men who kill their wives.

That is absolutely not the case. Do you have any sources?

OK, I found a very old source from 1995. I doubt things have changed. Here, Table 32.

Average sentence for wife-cide: 16.5 years.
Average sentence for husband-cide: 6 years.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Promise?

Naah...I figure he pays a dominatrix.

 

[Man of Ethics]

How many?

How many modern women are abusers? About 70% of non-reciprocal Intimate Partner Violence is committed by women. Nevertheless, in reciprocally violent relationships, women are more likely to be injured. Here.

This is not surprising, since abuse of men is celebrated in Comedy and Sitcom movies.

 

[Rigby5]

That is absolutely not the case. Do you have any sources?

OK, I found a very old source from 1995. I doubt things have changed. Here, Table 32.

Average sentence for wife-cide: 16.5 years.
Average sentence for husband-cide: 6 years.

I am not sure you used the right terms?
I think wife-cide means killing of wives, not by wives.
Etc.

But I think I agree with what you meant.
{...
The average prison sentence for men who kill their female partners is two to six years (the illustration here takes the midpoint of those values). By contrast women, who kill their partners are sentenced on average to 15 years.
...}

Are women punished more harshly for killing an intimate partner?

The data shows there is a wide gender gap in the US when it comes to prison sentences for killing a partner

www.theguardian.com

 

[Man of Ethics]

I am not sure you used the right terms?
I think wife-cide means killing of wives, not by wives.
Etc.

But I think I agree with what you meant.
{...
The average prison sentence for men who kill their female partners is two to six years (the illustration here takes the midpoint of those values). By contrast women, who kill their partners are sentenced on average to 15 years.
...}

Are women punished more harshly for killing an intimate partner?

The data shows there is a wide gender gap in the US when it comes to prison sentences for killing a partner

www.theguardian.com

The article in Guardian provides false data. Official justice data is Here, Table 32.

Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence was 6 years for wives convicted of killing their husband, about 10 years shorter than the average 16 ½ years husbands received for killing their wife.

Also, of husbands who killed their wives, 15% got life sentence and 2% got death. Of wives who killed their husbands, 8% got life.

Sadly, Guardian author has knowingly presented false statistics. Very few people double check what they read in a reputable newspaper.

 

[presonorek]

For God's sake. Men and women NEED each other. Intelligent people know this.

Intelligent people do not exist. We are emotional creatures, not logical ones. Join reality.

 

[presonorek]

A government needs to compensate for its failure to run an economy in a way that provides sufficient employment.

Nah. This has nothing to do with the function of government.

 

[Gregory A]

Nah. This has nothing to do with the function of government.

So, what you are saying is if I were to google Biden + unemployment I shouldn't expect all too many hits? Seriously? Mabe if by your reasoning the function of government should not have anything to do with preventing inflation either? No? Homelessness? No? Crime? No?

As long as there are parties that say they will reduce unemployment every other politician is obliged to try and do the same. Governments are there to serve. They need our approval to become elected after all.

 

[Gregory A]

Intelligent people do not exist. We are emotional creatures, not logical ones. Join reality.

Rational people do exist. They are represented by a subset of the swing vote. The fact that there is a two-party system tells us that voters are under the influence of two factors, also telling us that rationality is not one of these as either majority's intelligence shouldn't stand out from that of the other.

 

[Gregory A]

OK so you want to get paid for not working

I'm saying all birds have wings you respond with 'then all winged creatures are birds'. Not working and being unemployed are not the same thing. An unemployed person is someone not working. But a not working person need not be someone 'unemployed'. The unemployed want employment. Whereas you are blaming unemployment on the unemployed. It's your friends in government that are in charge of the economy and hence responsible for unemployment.

 

[Gregory A]

Only in the extreme.

Independence can apply to may other situations in society

Independence means only one thing in context and that is independence from males. It can be accepted knowing only that males are to be eliminated.

 

[Gregory A]

Sadly, Progressive women are incapable of compassion for

-- male victims of Domestic Violence who are arrested rather then helped
-- men who are blacklisted or expelled from universities over unproven accusations of Sexual Misconduct
-- men who get 61% longer sentence for their gender

Are men mere wage slaves? You'd rather women be no-wage slaves in a home?

It is not 'his' income it is their income. She accepts the role of being a mother he accepts the role of being the breadwinner. Thousands of years back he would be hunting large game for the family, she would be still the mother. Not a lot has changed. It was as fair then as it is now.

 

[Blues Man]

Independence means only one thing in context and that is independence from males. It can be accepted knowing only that males are to be eliminated.

Wrong

 

[initforme]

Makes aren't going to be eliminated and there are zero cultural negatives from a growing number of females who don't need a male around to be happy.

 

[Gregory A]

Makes aren't going to be eliminated and there are zero cultural negatives from a growing number of females who don't need a male around to be happy.

And, I do accept that there are a growing number of females around that don't need a male to be happy, and that's even if I ignore the incredible contribution to society that males have made contributing to these females present and ongoing happiness, accepted because my understanding is there are increasing numbers of males who are wary of getting married too. So these two statistics do seem to cancel each other.

Okay. So all us fellas can relax? The great news is that 4 billion males are not going to die? This would be something we would not allow is what you are saying. But, and as one raincoat-jacketed TV detective would once say " just one more thing" and that is in this instance the number of people who will die in the next 100 years is actually 8 billion people. Nearly every child born today and those of us that already exist won't be alive in 100 years, the grim reaper, a natural process of attrition taking its toll. So you accept this ultimate personal catastrophe, but can't accept another completely natural process of elimination? So, where is the logic in what you are saying? It's not because initforme says it will not happen? You are here to win in this contest not to rationalize.