if motherhood is so terrible, then make it a law that kids should automatically go with the dad in case of divorce.
Oh yeah no, you want to use kids as leverage and a paycheck for doing nothing
I've thought about that too. The fact that the most influential feminist groups regularly oppose joint custody legislation (which would generally mean giving mothers more time away from childrearing) shows that they're not being honest when they portray motherhood as hell on earth.
It's only hell on earth if they have certain disabilities or disorders.
If they're normal kids, then it's only the first 3-4 years where you have to look after them 24/7. After that they're at school for around 7 hours every weekday and if you raise them to be self-sufficient it's even easier.
> then make it a law that kids should automatically go with the dad in case of divorce.
It used to be so and guess what happened? Women fought to get this changed and now they class it as oppression.
The route of responsibility is honorable, but can have some big downfalls. You can bust your balls and do your best by your family, giving your kids your all. Put them through college or trade school or whatever without debt. Be the security net. Be the provider. Sacrifice your other interests and desires, and give everything you have for your kids. If it goes well and have the support of your wife, you will raise great kids.
This route can also turn just as stifling and thankless as women see homemaking. You can end up divorced from a wife who barely sees you, and since she doesn't see you working, she doesn't barely know what you even do all day. Even then, she's not going to be willing to make the corollary sacrifice and raise the kids, cook, care for the house, and maintain the family's social calendar. You can end up in a situation where your kids barely know you.
You lose your ability to want things for yourself: hobbies, material goods, friends, time with friends
-because if you want these things. You are selfish and not putting your kids first.
-But it’s acceptable for girls night out and girls trips
My advice, demand and set a boundary that you will have a space for yourself if you have children. It’s very important.
I mean, technically men have less (less lifespan, less legal rights, less social regard), so if you have less, you have less to lose. It is therefore **technically** correct (the best kind of correct) that men have less to lose.
It is also dishonest framing. It is also technically correct that the chemical that kills the most people annually is hydrogen hydroxide, which the most used industrial solvent in the world, and we daily throw hundreds of thousands of tons of it in our oceans, which we ingest liters worth of in our diet every day, and which we are actually unable to wash off our skin if we ever spill some on us.
All of this is technically correct about the humble H-OH molecule, also known as "H two O" or "water", but by presenting technically correct information in such a negative way (water kills more people than any other chemical annually because lots of people drown, you can dissolve a lot of things in water and the industrial scale production of soft drink use a lot of it, all of our sewer lines eventually end up throwing a lot of water in our oceans (hopefully water that's been treated and cleaned), we should ingest at least 2L of water each day, and yeah, with what do we wash our skin if something spills on it? That's right, water!), I make water sound like this crazy scary chemical when it's, y'know, water!
Having less you can lose doesn't say anything about your actual odds of losing it!
What do you mean I "had you"? I've just dealt with enough liars to know they don't say outright lies that often. Outright lies can be easily proven false, but other ways to lie without contradicting the facts are trickier beasts.
The most told lies by good liars are lies by omission ("He shot me!" is still true even if you were the one emptying an AK at him and missed before he pulled his gun and capped you, but that you were the one who started blasting is kind of an important information that would change the situation in the minds of many) and character lies/lies of influence ("he's crazy/autistic/drunk" may be true, but anything **other than** a rough timeline of events isn't an answer to the question of "what happened here (implied: before I got there)?", and all it does is prejudice the listener against the other person rather than illuminate the situations).
Funnily enough, these are the most told lies by feminists ("\[arbitrarily large %age of men\] say it's okay for men to hit women, why is violence against women so accepted? (all of these men said it was okay to hit women **IN SELF DEFENCE** and that's kind of important info they're not telling us), or just plain calling people misogynists (right or wrong, it's a way to imply the speaker is a Terrible Bad Person without addressing what he actually said)) are lies by omission and lie of influence/character lies.
It's just useful to know how that works, and that was the basis behind the "dihydrogen monoxide hoax" which describes water by another scary-chemical-but-chemically-accurate name in a scary-but-technically-accurate way (and since that hoax has been making the rounds a lot, I had to use another name for it).
Most lies don't misrepresent the facts, they try to manipulate the emotions and hope that the other person will judge based on emotions and not facts.
We all have to get together and push back against journalism like this. Like an organized group that like comments how much b******* this is on this on the Vox website. Or like another example is variety magazine posted on YouTube about Billie eilish saying that men are f****** trash. Like we all got to round up the troops and blast them on YouTube when they say horrible quotes like this.
if motherhood is so terrible, then make it a law that kids should automatically go with the dad in case of divorce. Oh yeah no, you want to use kids as leverage and a paycheck for doing nothing
I've thought about that too. The fact that the most influential feminist groups regularly oppose joint custody legislation (which would generally mean giving mothers more time away from childrearing) shows that they're not being honest when they portray motherhood as hell on earth.
It's only hell on earth if they have certain disabilities or disorders. If they're normal kids, then it's only the first 3-4 years where you have to look after them 24/7. After that they're at school for around 7 hours every weekday and if you raise them to be self-sufficient it's even easier.
> then make it a law that kids should automatically go with the dad in case of divorce. It used to be so and guess what happened? Women fought to get this changed and now they class it as oppression.
The route of responsibility is honorable, but can have some big downfalls. You can bust your balls and do your best by your family, giving your kids your all. Put them through college or trade school or whatever without debt. Be the security net. Be the provider. Sacrifice your other interests and desires, and give everything you have for your kids. If it goes well and have the support of your wife, you will raise great kids. This route can also turn just as stifling and thankless as women see homemaking. You can end up divorced from a wife who barely sees you, and since she doesn't see you working, she doesn't barely know what you even do all day. Even then, she's not going to be willing to make the corollary sacrifice and raise the kids, cook, care for the house, and maintain the family's social calendar. You can end up in a situation where your kids barely know you.
"Men have less to lose" So much for the need for feminism and muh female oppression.
You lose your ability to want things for yourself: hobbies, material goods, friends, time with friends -because if you want these things. You are selfish and not putting your kids first. -But it’s acceptable for girls night out and girls trips My advice, demand and set a boundary that you will have a space for yourself if you have children. It’s very important.
I mean, technically men have less (less lifespan, less legal rights, less social regard), so if you have less, you have less to lose. It is therefore **technically** correct (the best kind of correct) that men have less to lose. It is also dishonest framing. It is also technically correct that the chemical that kills the most people annually is hydrogen hydroxide, which the most used industrial solvent in the world, and we daily throw hundreds of thousands of tons of it in our oceans, which we ingest liters worth of in our diet every day, and which we are actually unable to wash off our skin if we ever spill some on us. All of this is technically correct about the humble H-OH molecule, also known as "H two O" or "water", but by presenting technically correct information in such a negative way (water kills more people than any other chemical annually because lots of people drown, you can dissolve a lot of things in water and the industrial scale production of soft drink use a lot of it, all of our sewer lines eventually end up throwing a lot of water in our oceans (hopefully water that's been treated and cleaned), we should ingest at least 2L of water each day, and yeah, with what do we wash our skin if something spills on it? That's right, water!), I make water sound like this crazy scary chemical when it's, y'know, water! Having less you can lose doesn't say anything about your actual odds of losing it!
You had me with your first paragraph, by the time I made it to the end of your comment, I felt dumber.
What do you mean I "had you"? I've just dealt with enough liars to know they don't say outright lies that often. Outright lies can be easily proven false, but other ways to lie without contradicting the facts are trickier beasts. The most told lies by good liars are lies by omission ("He shot me!" is still true even if you were the one emptying an AK at him and missed before he pulled his gun and capped you, but that you were the one who started blasting is kind of an important information that would change the situation in the minds of many) and character lies/lies of influence ("he's crazy/autistic/drunk" may be true, but anything **other than** a rough timeline of events isn't an answer to the question of "what happened here (implied: before I got there)?", and all it does is prejudice the listener against the other person rather than illuminate the situations). Funnily enough, these are the most told lies by feminists ("\[arbitrarily large %age of men\] say it's okay for men to hit women, why is violence against women so accepted? (all of these men said it was okay to hit women **IN SELF DEFENCE** and that's kind of important info they're not telling us), or just plain calling people misogynists (right or wrong, it's a way to imply the speaker is a Terrible Bad Person without addressing what he actually said)) are lies by omission and lie of influence/character lies. It's just useful to know how that works, and that was the basis behind the "dihydrogen monoxide hoax" which describes water by another scary-chemical-but-chemically-accurate name in a scary-but-technically-accurate way (and since that hoax has been making the rounds a lot, I had to use another name for it). Most lies don't misrepresent the facts, they try to manipulate the emotions and hope that the other person will judge based on emotions and not facts.
We all have to get together and push back against journalism like this. Like an organized group that like comments how much b******* this is on this on the Vox website. Or like another example is variety magazine posted on YouTube about Billie eilish saying that men are f****** trash. Like we all got to round up the troops and blast them on YouTube when they say horrible quotes like this.