We should support abolishing the privileges of the first class, and reducing taxes on both. It takes only enough people to demand it, to become politically possible.

Then the people now living at everyone else’s expense can earn their money – just like everyone else has to do! - by providing shopping, cooking, cleaning and sexual services for the people who are now doing double their fair share.

What’s exploitative or unequal about that? Why should there be any general expectation that women as a class have an unequal right to force men to sacrifice their interests and values? That women’s interests automatically justify treating men as property?

No wonder we have such a culture of sneering hostility to men.

Men need to affirm that they have a legitimate interest in consensual sex with women and no obligation to any resulting children *unless they explicitly undertake it*.

Only policy that treats the sexes equally regardless of differences can be fair.

Legitimacy of children is necessary for protection of *the man's* human rights.

Grim

You still have not explained how factual differences *can* be treated equally.

Men and women have different factual reproductive interests in any given child and in casual sex. Only the man’s information code contribution is equal. Woman’s biomass contribution – her material contribution - is trillions times that of the man. This difference is natural, not socially-constructed. There is not agreement that an alleged equal responsibility exists, or should exist. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Faced with this difference, you don’t respect them and treat people equally. You don’t respect an apple and an orange as pieces of fruit, or man and woman as human beings. You try to bash an apple into the shape of an orange; you try to force men to sacrifice their different interests and values in favour of women.

In supporting so-called child support laws, you’re treating unequally you on the one hand, and those who are to be imprisoned for disagreeing with your opinion on the other. You’re treating unequally men who have had children, and men who have not had children. You’re treating unequally women who have had children, and women who have not had children. You’re also treating Australians differently from others nationalities.

The old-style conservatives thought it was morally good to coerce women into relationships they didn’t want to be in, on the basis of alleged “responsibilities” made up and imposed by the bullies. You are doing just the same to men.

I have shown how equality is factually false and theoretically meaningless. You’re just going round in circles.

hi RObert,

Commonwealth:
2 men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

States [except QLD and the Territories]:
2 men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

QLD and the Territories:
1 men's legislature to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

Total legislatures:
0 women
10 men

Jurisdictions at law:
0 women
1 men

Corporate committees
Boards of Directors ASX top 200 companies:
0 women
200 men

With complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. The same cannot be said for men. Men rule Australia, that's the law, it's as simple as that. It beggars belief there are men in Australia who genuinely consider women disadvantage men.

Jefferson
Please explain how you inferred I am the one advocating violence. Nothing like a few emotive statements to distort the facts to suit your own agenda.

It does take a man and woman to produce a child regardless of the intent of the sexual act, but one solution might be to develop a male contraceptive pill to even up the reproductive 'rights'. Or as discussed on another thread some time back a casual sex contract which comes with no obligations.

I am not sure how casual sex is discriminated against. Both men and women can and do participate in casual sex afterall who are the men having sex with? Casual sex is not against the law and in fact men are commended for it, women castigated so you are good to go on that one.

Jefferson you still have not described exactly what you would do differently if you were King. How would you rearrange things to make society more 'equal' for men in terms of legislation, child custody etc. You have explained a little but much of it is emotive using words like 'imprisoned' and 'violence' which distorts much of what it is you are trying to impart.

<Men can never be feminists - millions have tried and nobody did better than C+.>

A good point to ponder, and although nobody ever dares to go there, perhaps one big factor is how women will change their minds.

It was pointed out to me once, that if you asked a women what flavoured ice cream she wanted and she said chocolate, are you sure about that?

Yes!

So you get her a chocolate ice-cream, she will then say she wanted vanilla.

JamesH,

I was going to comment here - but I've just changed my mind, Lol.