patrick.net

Yeah, unfortunately it is the feminists-the modern version is nothing but a hate group- who have created this men are monsters myth. All rules benefit women and we have created this paradigm where men are to be treated like brute animals to be used and thrown. Women on the other hands are like Princesses who can do anything they wnat, never have to grow up and always have someone suppoort them no matter what.

Equality indeed. What it has created is a new generation of women who are xtremely entitled and do not know th econcepts of dignity, self-respect and such. Just look at TV. back then June Cleaver was the ideal woman-now it is Kim Kardashian.

EQuality means you get the opportunity to become business tycoons like Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina an drun for President like Hillary. CA has two women senators. It also means that if you fail, then you face the consequences an dbecome like the drunk, homeless bums we see often. You made that choice-but feminists only took th efirst option and in the case of the second-made sure men paid for them and kept them comfortable.

I really wish there was a way to turn this paradigm around, but not sure how to go about it. Have your equality-all of it.

Indiana Jones says

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of misogynists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

Certainly some men have issues that they are articulating here, and there are also some undercurrents of misogyny here, but these are very different times for men relative to women, and there's nothing wrong with talking about that.

Unless you are living in a cave, you must have seen some of what has been written about this. The so called mancession. or about for example how men supposedly don't see the point of growing up these days.

A lot has changed. Even for those of us who think that women having the ability to do whatever they want (with careers etc) or to be able to "have it all" is great,.. we at the same time can not deny toll this has taken on the family.

Unfortunately the economy has adapted quickly to the two income household such that now it's practically required to support a family well.

That in and of itself is sad, if you think about it.

June Cleaver was a slave to daddy cleaver, Beaver and his buddies.
You don't want equality. You want the whole thing turned around 180....
What do you think brought about the feminist movements? Centuries of male dominance.

lostand confused says

Just look at TV. back then June Cleaver was the ideal woman-now it is Kim Kardashian.

Where do I sign up??

lostand confused says

where men are to be treated like brute animals to be used and thrown.

marcus says

Unless you are living in a cave, you must have seen some of what has been written about this. The so called mancession. or about for example how men supposedly don't see the point of growing up these days.

Well said. That is the crux of the issue. The real issue is not men vs. women, but free-loading on the most productive segment of the society (not counting domestic labor and child bearing, which are not taxable). The middle class to upper middle class male population has been the most productive segment of the society; they were the ones who built the society (outside the family). Now they are taxed and burdened so heavily, including this marriage tax and sex tax, that the middle class and upper middle class male are reproducing less, and young males are discouraged from joining the class and become productive members of the society (outside the family). We are getting to the point where studying how to use drugs all day and play Don Juan hopping from bed to bed (which is not taxable, and has little liability if one has little income) is far more rewarding than pursuing a professional career and become a productive member of the society. The loser class has become the reproductive aristocracy (whose sole job is to reproduce and enjoy their lives) riding on the middle class (the latter essentially becoming serfs) thanks to tax and transfers that benefit losers at the expense of the middle class and upper middle class.

SoftShell says

What do you think brought about the feminist movements? Centuries of male dominance.

No. Male dominance had been in place for much more than mere centuries. Feminist movement did not come along previously. The Feminist movement was actively encouraged by: a desire to tax both adults of the family, making domestic labor taxable. The home cooked meal was not taxable. The take-out is, and usually at rates higher than average sales tax on raw ingredients, and that's in addition to income tax that both the wives and the restaurants have to pay. The tax bite is a significant contributor to the fact that most families now can not afford proper gourmet meals (from restaurant or home cooked) but can only substitute with junk food with dire nutritional consequences for the young (e.g. youth obesity)

Just looking at sex:

Young men might deny it (with their tattoos and earings or whatever), but women have always been the more attractive ones sexually, and for a lack of better terms, the "economics of love" has always favored women.

Most experienced men know this and love it. This is how it's always been. I would go so far as to say that in most healthy relationships the man is more desirous of his woman's affection than vica versa (or at least that's the understanding they play out). I don't know how this could be denied (although it can drive a man a little carzy at times).

My belief is that it's this fact that confuses matters when you add "equality" to the mix. The way things were, men were the provider for the family, and women ran the home, abut also were the mans lover.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not longing for those times. I'm just saying that if you think about it, you can understand why things are somewhat messed up now.

Indiana Jones says

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening; otherwise I do not return to the site. I'd hate to have to stop perusing this site as normally, I quite like it, and I have learned a lot about the real estate market.

Why is this such a problem for you? There are 1000s of other threads on patrick.net, yet you come to the one that offends you and participate in what you call name calling. Or participate in the logical and factual part of this discussion instead of focusing on the minority of posts in this thread that are emotional and slightly inflammatory.

Indiana Jones says

Just because more men get online and whine and bitch like babies about how horrible women are to them, than women doing vice versus, does not make any gender all good nor bad.

Wow, that's one of the most misandrist comments on this site. And completely untrue. I have to call B.S. on that. Women scorn men at least as much as men scorn women, probably more so given how little men talk. What's that saying? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

But let me get this straight, if a woman goes online and levies complaints against men or the privileges given to men, she is being empowered, but if a man does the exact same thing, he's whining and bitching like a baby. That is a perfect demonstration of the original post.

And by the way, with the exception of MershedPerturders (with whom no one agrees), who exactly made the statement that either gender was all good or bad? This thread was about the treatment of men as second-class citizens by our society, in particular by the media, the family court system, and the police. How exactly is pointing out these injustices misogynistic?

Just remember, regardless of your gender, half your descendants are going to be male and half are going to be female. It is in your family's best interest that neither side get screwed over legally, financially, or socially.

Mark D says

who in their right mind would want to marry U.S women when they idolize hoes and talent-less hacks like Paris Hilton, Kim - fat ass - Kardashian, Tila Nguyen, Anna Nicole Smith, Jenny McCathy, Britney Spears and other trash "celebrities" out there?

thanks to U.S women these women became famous in the Western world. U.S women love them so much they spend all their disposable income buying everything these their trash celebrities sell.

which other parts of the world do you see hoes and talentless hacks like those get a TV show?

To present a counterpoint, there is the marriage of American country singers, Tim McGraw and Faith Hill, both famous & successful but a happy & balanced couple. They're now celebrating their 18th year together.

Now you're correct, outside of Nashville, the dynamic couple doesn't get much attention simply because they're too normal unlike some drama queens. But like the drama queens listed [ Paris, KK, ANS, etc ], Faith's also got a merchandising brand name and such but without all the paparazzi stories since she's not a rotten person.

I'd argue that Tim and Faith are very elite, among famous American marriages, which last w/o fanfare. The chances of something like that, happening for the average Joe is probably at best ~15%.

sbh says

Modern sexism remains based on primitive archetype.

I agree with everything you said there. Of course, these instinctive biases are silly and counter-productive in modern society. Sure, in the Stone Age accepting the alpha male who beat you and cheated on you might have been in your best genetic interest. It clearly is not today.

Nor is expecting men to suffer injustices silently. I would hardly consider a call for family law reform to be "men behaving helplessly". If anything, they are being pro-active, and thus would make better mates than the brute who simply hits a woman to get his way or the fool who lets a woman walk all over him. There is something to be said for a strong and fair fatherly figure.

On the contrary, I believe that our society is STILL primitive in the way it disposes of families and responsibility for children. In a modern society there would be a complete social network to support the raising of children where the parents wouldn't necessarily be the primary caregivers past infancy. It makes far more sense to group children under dedicated caregivers who have made this their profession than to waste resources on making sure each woman must assume sole responsibility for the care of her own children. Treating them as the children of the community is a more modern way of looking at this, and would instantly render moot this entire thread. Some "primitive" societies such as Polynesians had this culture fully developed before we "modern" westerners came to destroy it with our civilizing ways.

It's no accident that in America the demographic of women most likely to be murdered are pregnant.

Quigley says

Treating them as the children of the community is a more modern way of looking at this, and would instantly render moot this entire thread.

Well, isn't the whole foster parent thing, a failed attempt at such an ideal?

I mean it's one thing where parents' admonish each other with expressions like, "Don't tell me how to raise my child!" and then, a system where in effect, ppl live in an extended "Brigadoon" highlander clan US zip code.

Rin says

Quigley says

Treating them as the children of the community is a more modern way of looking at this, and would instantly render moot this entire thread.

Well, isn't the whole foster parent thing, a failed attempt at such an ideal?

I mean it's one thing where parents' admonish each other with expressions like, "Don't tell me how to raise my child!" and then, a system where in effect, ppl live in an extended "Brigadoon" highlander clan US zip code.

I'd argue that the foster parent system is a clumsy patch on a boat with many leaks. People who are paid by the state to grudgingly provide necessities to a child have motivation to do the wrong thing (turning it into a business) and only their own consciences to compel them to do right by the children.
Parents in this society have tyrranical authority over the situation of their children, so that if they are bad parents the hold suffers without recourse (as long as certain narrowly defined conditions of malfeasance are not met). And if they are good parents they still must struggle in competition for limited resources with other citizens merely to provide an adequate standard of living for their offspring.
Communal child care isn't easy, and the reason is that we haven't evolved culturally to the point where petty differences can be put aside, contribution measured justly, and a system of raising children agreed upon.
We are still primitive, and so we must behave as primitives, less our children be put at a disadvantage.

Reality says

The loser class has become the reproductive aristocracy (whose sole job is to reproduce and enjoy their lives) riding on the middle class (the latter essentially becoming serfs) thanks to tax and transfers that benefit losers at the expense of the middle class and upper middle class.

This is hardly new:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Reality says

The home cooked meal was not taxable

Are you advocating for a new tax? LOL

Quigley says

Communal child care isn't easy, and the reason is that we haven't evolved culturally to the point where petty differences can be put aside, contribution measured justly, and a system of raising children agreed upon

Sure, you can care as much for the children of the others as for your own. The same way that in communist countries you care as much for the benefit your labor labor brings to the community as the benefit it brings to you (that it happens to be 0.00..001%)

Indiana Jones says

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening

Are you saying that name calling is incompatible with intelligent conversation?
Perhaps the mismatch is your sense of aesthetics is what makes you a mismatch with this websiteIndiana Jones says

I quite like it, and I have learned a lot about the real estate market.

I also have learned about monetary policy and health care systems. A percentage of slightly-related topics is welcome for me and I presume by all the ones that read it and answer.

You can read just the real-state threads/articles if you dislike the others.

denise says

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

I don't know how many misogynist are around, but if so certainly most European women are as well. They get surprise when they know the American women attitudes. In general, highly spoiled and 90% only being able to compromise with the top 1% of males. To spoil them, of course.

It's a stereotype. And stereotypes are not true. Of course, germans are not stubborn, French are not arrogant and Italians do not spend more time than their women in front of the mirror. Till you start meeting German, French and Italians...

A common wisdom joke:

HEAVEN IS WHERE -
American salary
British house
German car
Chinese food And
Indian wife.
HELL IS WHERE -
American wife
British food
German house
Chinese car And
Indian salary.

http://patrick.net/?p=1228334

This seems to contain snippets from the yahoo! finance and Reuters post I had linked in my previous post.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis-higher-prices-sap-foreign-040338632.html

So your position must be "Male dominance has been around since BEFORE the Big Bang", as my 'centuries' comment covers every second since....

Reality says

SoftShell says

What do you think brought about the feminist movements? Centuries of male dominance.

No. Male dominance had been in place for much more than mere centuries.

I prefer blinders....

marcus says

Just looking at sex:

which equates to about 10% of number of categories of mistreatment of women over the centuries....

Quit bitchin while your ahead....your gonna fuck it up for the rest of us...

Dan8267 says

This thread was about the treatment of men as second-class citizens by our society, in particular by the media, the family court system, and the police.

SoftShell says

which equates to about 10% of number of categories of mistreatment of women over the centuries...

You seriously need to read this post very carefully.

i did, and....

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

which equates to about 10% of number of categories of mistreatment of women over the centuries...

You seriously need to read this post very carefully.

All very compelling, until you hit the line below.

Just because the ruling class makes the laws, does not mean the common man must follow them. The 'typical man' is not absolved of anything. He 'chooses' to follow the law laid before him. Alternate choices are rebellion/revolution.

The true moral of your story is that the typical common man is as guilty of following a corrupt law as the ruling class is of issuing it.

Dan8267 says

The moral of the story is that the typical man is not responsible, in any way shape or form, for the choices made by the ruling class.

Recent Dow day is Monday, August 19, 2013

ja says

Reality says

The loser class has become the reproductive aristocracy (whose sole job is to reproduce and enjoy their lives) riding on the middle class (the latter essentially becoming serfs) thanks to tax and transfers that benefit losers at the expense of the middle class and upper middle class.

This is hardly new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I'm not advocating eugenics. What we have is governmebnt enforced (through taxation and subsidies) disgenics/malgenics by encouraging/subsidizing the least productive and most irresponsible to reproduce more . . . hence consequently idiocracy is what we end up with.

I just previewed a dump for us bottom feeders. Called my agent & she told me it has a overseas owner who bought in 2008. I looks as if it's been sitting there unoccupied for several years.The listing price is the same as they paid in 2008.

HEY YOU says

I just previewed a dump for us bottom feeders. Called my agent & she told me it has a overseas owner who bought in 2008. I looks as if it's been sitting there unoccupied for several years.The listing price is the same as they paid in 2008.

A house that I offered on and lost earlier this year has been sitting vacant for 6 months now. It looks condemned. It went all-cash to Chinese nationals (at least according to the sellers' agent that my agent talked to) for $140k over asking. The grass is about 18" tall and some of the composite wood siding that needed to be repaired even back then is now partially falling off. I'd be pissed if I was one of the neighbors because it looks like a rat nest in an otherwise nice neighborhood. I wonder what the rules are for reporting residential blight.....

SoftShell says

The 'typical man' is not absolved of anything. He 'chooses' to follow the law laid before him. Alternate choices are rebellion/revolution.

The true moral of your story is that the typical common man is as guilty of following a corrupt law as the ruling class is of issuing it.

Wow, sometimes I forget how wacked you're point of view is.

Throughout history, most rebellions have ended in the slaughter of the rebels. It is relatively rare when a rebellion succeeds and the rebels establish a new order. Even talking about rebellion in most societies, including our own, has a tendency to lead to be tortured, imprisoned, and/or killed.

To blame the common man for not rebelling under these conditions is harsh to say the least.

When I hear this song on the radio it always makes me laugh, not because I've been there exactly. But close enough.

Maybe relevant to the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CkFH0KMO0G0

It doesn't have to be revolution. They can also choose not to follow the corrupt law, and dodge enforcement authorities.
It probably happens on the same scale as your 'corrupt policeman' estimates...

Dan8267 says

To blame the common man for not rebelling under these conditions is harsh to say the least.

bmwman91 says

HEY YOU says

I just previewed a dump for us bottom feeders. Called my agent & she told me it has a overseas owner who bought in 2008. I looks as if it's been sitting there unoccupied for several years.The listing price is the same as they paid in 2008.

A house that I offered on and lost earlier this year has been sitting vacant for 6 months now. It looks condemned. It went all-cash to Chinese nationals (at least according to the sellers' agent that my agent talked to) for $140k over asking. The grass is about 18" tall and some of the composite wood siding that needed to be repaired even back then is now partially falling off. I'd be pissed if I was one of the neighbors because it looks like a rat nest in an otherwise nice neighborhood. I wonder what the rules are for reporting residential blight.....

Find out:

http://www.citysourced.com/neighborhood/2544/us/california/santa-clara-county/city-of-santa-clara

bmwman91 says

It went all-cash to Chinese nationals

It went all cash to Chinese bagholders! "Got it"...

Call it Crazy says

HEY YOU says

I just previewed a dump for us bottom feeders. Called my agent & she told me it has a overseas owner who bought in 2008. I looks as if it's been sitting there unoccupied for several years.The listing price is the same as they paid in 2008.

What??..... it's 2013 and you didn't offer DOUBLE what they paid for it???

That's so un-American of you.....

OMG! Buy now before it's to late...

SoftShell says

It doesn't have to be revolution. They can also choose not to follow the corrupt law, and dodge enforcement authorities.

OK, start by growing weed. See how well you do. Enforce your land rights with your Second Amendment rights.

Bubbabear says

bmwman91 says

It went all-cash to Chinese nationals

It went all cash to Chinese bagholders! "Got it"...

The Chinese bag holder probably got rich in the real estate Ponzi scheme going on out there - but may be on the way to unravelling.

marcus says

When I hear this song on the radio it always makes me laugh, not because I've been there exactly. But close enough.

Maybe relevant to the thread.

We covered that song with "the band" back in the days - lots of groupies.. ;)

oh i see some tough guy come in here and show us how "manly" he is because he's not a wimpy fuck. can't wait until this moron gets to divorce court. some nice surprises waiting. but again some guy has nothing so they have nothing to worry about.

No rebuttal from the bulls? Market is changing from bullish to bearish? From sellers to a buyers' market?

mbSFBay says

Bubbabear says

bmwman91 says

It went all-cash to Chinese nationals

It went all cash to Chinese bagholders! "Got it"...

The Chinese bag holder probably got rich in the real estate Ponzi scheme going on out there - but may be on the way to unravelling.

It's more like their escape plan / plan B. When shit hits the fan there, they can flee with their ill-gotten riches to here and out of Beijing's grasp when the proletariat grows restless and demands that the crooked slave (factory) owners' heads roll. Then again, Beijing may just roll tank battalions into the poor districts and silence the rabble-rousers to protect the wealthy and connected. It'll be interesting for sure.