Forum: Author Hangout

However, as to "men should lead and women should follow", there may be individual cases where it goes the other way around.

There are always exceptions, but we should never build societies and make laws based on exceptions.

Western laws now are written not only to protect women (they should protect everybody of course), but to favor women. This has been very detrimental to society, to families and to men and their children.

Children with divorced parents grew up to be more mentally ill than ever, leading to things like school shootings (every school shooter has no father at home).

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would like a word with you. Both had fathers at home. The evidence about divorce and mental illness is complicated. Yes, there is more mental illness amongst children of divorce, but there is also more mental illness among children of parents who do not divorce but have unstable, conflict-laden relationships. It's very hard to distinguish one from the other.

Birth rates plummeted, prompting widespread importation of humans leading to all kinds of societal issues.

Correlation vs causation. Birth rates plummet as societies become materially wealthier regardless of feminism.

Yes, I'm archaic and I believe that men should lead and women should follow.

Sounds like how quite a bit of the Islamic world functions to me.

Women's emotionality and decisions based on emotions never lead to anything good when it's a leadership style.

You could drop 'women's' out of that sentence and it would be exactly as true. We're seeing that play out every day. So far, I've seen little evidence that female leaders are more emotional or make decisions based on emotions more often than male leaders do.

A seemingly inexorable move towards left wing politics

Looks pretty 'exorable' given that quite a few nations (particularly the US) are rapidly moving towards almost entirely emotion-driven right-wing politics.

From a later comment:

they should protect everybody of course

On that, we can agree. The laws should protect everybody. But the rise in divorce happened when laws allowing women to leave abusive marriages were put into place, for instance.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would like a word with you. Both had fathers at home.

yes, let's focus on the exception and completely ignore the average.

Birth rates plummet as societies become materially wealthier regardless of feminism.

Maybe, but I wonder why the first thing that feminists insist on, when asking for more rights, is abortion...

Yes, I'm archaic and I believe that men should lead and women should follow.

Sounds like how quite a bit of the Islamic world functions to me.

Typical leftist tactic, smear by association. Are you gonna call me Nazi next? How about a misogynist? Sexist? Take your pick. Those words mean nothing.

Women's emotionality and decisions based on emotions never lead to anything good when it's a leadership style.

You could drop 'women's' out of that sentence and it would be exactly as true.

Again, let's ignore the averages and focus on the exception. In general, men as less emotional than women and more logical.

A seemingly inexorable move towards left wing politics

Looks pretty 'exorable' given that quite a few nations (particularly the US) are rapidly moving towards almost entirely emotion-driven right-wing politics.

The world seeks balance. Maybe the pendulum is swinging right after the atrocities that the leftists have managed to inflict. Let's hope the world keeps moving towards the center and away from the point on the left we've reached.

But the rise in divorce happened when laws allowing women to leave abusive marriages were put into place, for instance.

The strongest rise in divorce rates happened when no-fault divorces were implemented. Considering that 80%+ of divorces are initiated by women, are you implying that 80% of married men are abusive? Like, really?

So far you offered no meaningful arguments.

yes, let's focus on the exception and completely ignore the average.

This started with:

(every school shooter has no father at home)

They're hardly the only example, and it's not at all clear that they're even that far out of the average. The work done on this has been very spotty.

Certainly, if you'd said 'Most (but not all) school shooters were from troubled families,' I wouldn't have said anything. You're the one who tried to imply it was all or nothing. It's not. It's part of a pattern - you throw out a fact-free emotion-based argument, then - when it turns out the facts don't agree - throw out another fact-free emotion-based response to try to justify your incorrect statement.

the first thing that feminists insist on, when asking for more rights, is abortion

The first thing, after - let's see - the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to compete in the workforce, the right to equal treatment in (non-abortion) medical care, the right to open their own bank accounts, the right to leave an abusive marriage, and - in general - the right to agency over their own lives, is abortion, based on history. Seems like it wasn't exactly the 'first thing', considering it post-dated many of the others by many decades. But, again, why let facts get in your way, when you can make an emotional argument about abortion?

Typical leftist tactic, smear by association.

Acknowledging reality is a 'smear' now? Really? Goodness!

Again, let's ignore the averages and focus on the exception. In general, men as less emotional that women and more logical

Based on what, exactly? I've seen research (from male researchers, even!) that indicates exactly the opposite. That seems to be an entirely sexist trope with no basis in reality, as far as I can tell.

Or, to rephrase: the notion that women are more emotional and less logical than men is, itself, an emotional and logic-free argument. Ironic, don't you think?

Let's hope the world keeps moving towards the center

I'm all for that. That said, we're nowhere near as far to the left as you seem to think we are, nor have we ever been. Well, unless you consider Reagan to be far left (see below).

Considering that 80%+ of divorces are initiated by women

The highest number I can find evidence for is 69%, and many researchers believe that's overstated. Note that that number hasn't really increased a great deal since well before 'no-fault divorce' entered the picture, either, and is now lower than its peak.

are you implying that 80% of married men are abusive

Of course not. Under 50% of marriages end in divorce, so the proper number would be about 30-35% of married men were abusive, if we assume that every divorce was a result of abuse. But that's certainly not the case (both ways - some abusive relationships never end in divorce, but many divorces aren't a result of abuse - cheating isn't 'abuse', for instance, and that's a major reason for divorce). Ballpark figures seem to suggest about ten percent of married men are significantly physically or emotionally abusive. Might be higher, might lower. Note that no-fault divorce also made it much easier for men to divorce, and women are hardly free from sometimes being the abusive partner.

But your claim here is that 'divorce rates soared' when 'feminism' started. That's not true; 'feminism' predates no-fault divorce by decades. The divorce rate basically doubled when 'no-fault divorce' came in. It's not as if it was zero beforehand, either.

Oh, and remember who the biggest champion of 'no-fault divorce' was? It was none other than that noted far-left feminist, Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, divorce rates in the US have dropped significantly since 1980. If one were to assume 'feminism'/'leftism' was the reason for the jump in divorce rates, one would also have to assume the US is significantly less 'feminist' and 'leftist' in 2025 than it was in 2025, no? I guess it's all because we finally got the far-left uber-feminist Reagan out of US politics (note: compared to the current US Republican party, Reagan was indeed pretty much a leftist, so that's not just a joking comment).

So far you offered no meaningful arguments.

Nor have you. At least my arguments are based on facts and reality, not emotions.

In general, men as less emotional that women and more logical

Based on what, exactly? I've seen research (from male researchers, even!) that indicates exactly the opposite.

Sorry but, this right here, proves you're completely illogical. No research needed for this.

The only thing I get from this is you must be a woman.

So you're literally saying that, because I look at facts and use logic, I am illogical and must be a woman.

How, exactly, does that work again? I'm dying of curiosity.

Again, let's ignore the averages and focus on the exception. In general, men as less emotional that women and more logical

Based on what, exactly? I've seen research (from male researchers, even!) that indicates exactly the opposite. That seems to be an entirely sexist trope with no basis in reality, as far as I can tell.

Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Geez, you must be a woman.

ETA: Damn it, somebody beat me to the same answer.

I will note that I'm the one using facts and logic, while your messages use almost no logic and are based almost entirely on emotion. By your argument, then, you must be a woman, correct?

I will note that I'm the one using facts and logic, while your messages use almost no logic and are based almost entirely on emotion. By your argument, then, you must be a woman, correct?

Sorry my friend, but don't bother to reply to me.

I just can't take you seriously to have a discussion with you.

Thanks for making it clear that you're running purely on emotion and don't take facts or logic seriously. I appreciate it. It explains so much, really.

NO! You refuse to discuss ANYTHING you can't successfully refute. You're a whiney loser, who grabs then ball when a game is going against them and runs away, spoiling the game for everyone.

How is that in anyway a responsible, legitimate position. Face it, you ARE losing this argument, because you have NO reasonable objections to make. So, leave the mature enough to play to their game, and go sulk in private. That way, you won't have to cope with logical and sensible arguments you're obviously incapable of dealing with.

Notice that there are few defending you here. Ever wonder why that is. Clearly, the majority of authors here disagree with you, and those who do agree, have abandoned the argument long ago, seeking the cover of obsurity.

Face it, you ARE losing this argument,

Yes, I am. You can only win an argument against a logical, open minded person.

When Grey Wolf introduced an appeal to authority argument saying that studies have shown the men are more emotional and less logical than women, I knew that there is no point as I'm not arguing against a logical person.

It's a bullshit argument and my time is way more valuable than wasting it on refuting bullshit argument.

It's like arguing with a pig. You get muddy and pig is happy to drag you into the mud for no other reason than getting muddy. There is no point humoring the arguments.

oh gosh you're gonna feel silly when you realize how stupid your position on this is

I do feel silly. Look who I'm arguing with, you and Grey Wolf. If ystokes joins in, it would be complete.

I just want to make sure that when you feel like an idiot, it's for exactly the right reasons.

It would take people way, way, way smarter than you to make me feel like an idiot. Maybe somebody with an IQ of 90 or so. But keep trying.

It would only take someone 'smarter' to make you 'feel' like an idiot, as you're incapable of realizing it on your own, as it's painfully obvious to everyone else in this discussion. Julka is right, it requires an ability to make reasoned points to discuss anything.

So at this point, you're like a pouting infant, who adults mostly ignore until their temper tantrums run out, rather than lecturing them. Though, unlike most small children, you just don't seem to get the point, continually repeating the same nonsense, rather than realizing you're not gaining any benefit from it.

You'd do better, if you weren't as old and as set in your ways, and actively behaved like a child, as they eventually get the point. It takes time, yet when they realize that no one's listening to their cries, they eventually figure out it's NOT working.

That's how children grow and develop, something you've never managed yourself.

You're arguing against people who use facts, logic, and reason, while you categorically refuse to do so (and, in fact, say that you refuse to take facts, logic, or reason seriously).

If that makes you feel silly, my suggestion to you is to consider using facts in the future, and not basing your entire argument on unsupported emotions.

"when somebody else asserts control over your own body and forces you to submit to life altering and painful medical procedures, it's not very nice and it turns out that people don't like it when that happens."

I thought you were using that in the context of women and abortions so I didn't understand it - who is forcing women to have abortions? Other than Uyghur women by the Chinese, obv.

You're obviously a superior life form with a superior intellect so you need to dumb it down for us mere mortals.

AJ

which is a life-altering and painful medical procedure.

Thank you.

Calling it a medical procedure fooled me. Surely mammals gave birth before there were doctors.

AJ

That's definitely not in the UK! Here, maternity units are understaffed, underperforming and result in the largest proportion of medical negligence claims. And there's a tribal reluctance of midwives to get consultants involved, and on-call consultants to leave their golf courses.

I understand that humans have more difficult births than other mammals because of our large head sizes but even today, in many parts of the world, I believe women have to give birth unassisted.

AJ

Unfortunately we're into the dark arts of debate territory where scoring points off opponents is more important than establishing facts.

Still, at least a couple of people made realistic attempts to address the initial subject, for which I offer my thanks.

AJ

Yeah, we get it, you refuse to accept anything which doesn't support your presumptions. So, if you refute the whole basis of facts a logic, it's no wonder you wouldn't recognize it when hit hits you in the face. Most learn to at least duck, yet that too takes a very small degree of reasoning capabilities.

Given the amount of research I did making sure of statistics and facts before responding, I beg to differ.

You can only win an argument against a logical, open minded person.

Which, by your own admission, you are not.

an appeal to authority argument saying that studies have shown

If facts are 'appeal to authority arguments' to you, I can see why you're so averse to using facts in anything you write. Somehow, to you, 'just make it up' (e.g. the arguments you make, which are fact-free) is a valid argument, while actually referencing research is a 'bullshit argument'. I'm not sure how well that works for you in the rest of your life, but no one's buying it here.

I'm placing it back at least with the suffrage movement (but really well before that), because the label is much less important than the meaning. The term 'feminism' in the sense of 'advocating for women's rights' dates back to 1895, so it makes little sense to start the discussion in the 1960s.

Wikipedia is certainly not always the best source, but it's reasonably accurate enough for this:

Originating in late 18th-century Europe, feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, run for public office, work, earn equal pay, own property, receive education, enter into contracts, have equal rights within marriage, and maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to ensure access to contraception, legal abortions, and social integration; and to protect women and girls from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

Basically, my feeling is that excluding all of the other rights women fought for, often over centuries, to set an arbitrary start date of the 1960s is just a form of intellectually stacking the deck.

Because, after all, this started out with equality in relationships, and that subject was a point of discussion in the 1860s almost as much as it was in the 1960s. Heck, Jane Austen counts, in many ways, and she was writing in the early 1800s. Or, say, John Neal, who was actively championing women's rights and equality in the 1860s.

Only by saying, 'Well, if you exclude a long list of rights women by and large did not have in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and limit it to only the rights they started seeking once they'd at least somewhat secured all of the other rights they fought for first, then, see - the 'first' thing they fought for was this!' can you come up with the idea that abortion or no-fault divorce were at the top of the list.

The word 'feminist' was in use for that since 1895. The word doesn't really matter as much as the meaning, though, or at least I don't think it does.

Arguing about words is something authors like doing (which makes this entirely relevant to this SoL forum :)), but it's also a bit misleading, like saying 'oxygen' wasn't a thing before 1777 since we didn't have a word for it.

People in the 1800s (and 1700s - and in ancient Greece, for that matter) were espousing beliefs consistent with 1960s 'feminism'. If the shoe fits, might as well wear it, in my opinion. That's why I consider it to be arbitrary.

'I don't begrudge your choice of starting points or your reason for it.'

This is partly why I made the comment about arguing over words. I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing, but - yes - discussing when the starting point is matters.

That depends on where you place the start of Feminism.

Arguably, the first "feminist" was John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), author (along with Harriet Taylor Mill) of "The Subjection of Women" (1869).

Mill argued that the inequality of women was a relic from the past, when "might was right," but it had no place in the modern world.

... [T]he legal subordination of one sex to another – is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.

Women's emotionality and decisions based on emotions never lead to anything good when it's a leadership style.

You make here a series of emotionally charged assertions with zero supporting evidence, and you think the women are emotional?

Funny, I wrote a character that mirrored a lot of your spew, but got rid of him because I figured he was too much of a caricature to be believable.

Funny, I wrote a character that mirrored a lot of your spew, but got rid of him because I figured he was too much of a caricature to be believable.

I think anyone writing a political thriller would look at the US and UK over the last decade and dismiss the whole thing as an unrealistic plot.

The history books from 50 years in the future are going to make fascinating reading (or, more likely, listening).

The history books from 50 years in the future are going to make fascinating reading (or, more likely, listening).

History is always written by the winners. If we could currently read the history books from fifty years in the future, we'd be screaming, "No way, Jinping didn't liberate the world from the tyranny of Trump and Putin!"

AJ

History is always written by the winners.

If this were strictly true, I think we'd be seeing far less criticism of, say, Thatcher, than we currently are.

But as I say, if I'm still alive I would be fascinated to see what historians who are being born now make of the first quarter of this century. Particularly given they are arguably likely to have access to far greater source material than people born after 1945 eventually had material from the two World Wars.

I think we'd be seeing far less criticism of, say, Thatcher, than we currently are.

I'm not seeing a lot of actual reasoned criticism of Thatcher, just people expressing their dislike. I wonder how she'll be judged in 50 years' time.

AJ

Thatcher came to power 46 years ago. Mad that. Time really does fly.

But my point was that after 3 election victories, and arguably changing Britain for good, if history really was written by the winners, we'd only be seeing good things about her, wouldn't we?

Over 50 years, history isn't written by the winners unless the winners truly "vanquish" their opponents (eg, WWII). 100 years later? Maybe, we'll see. 200 years? Who knows.

But it's the "Thatcher" sort of timescale I'm interested in reading about today. Far enough away to be objective but not so far away as to be distorted.

Perhaps it's too soon to decide whether she was on the winning side or the losing, but already 'facts' about her reign have become distorted.

The same is true of Blair's time in office. And Major's, for that matter.

The real "history" will be written by the people who weren't alive to either live through it or hear stories of living through it directly from people who did.

I'm not seeing a lot of actual reasoned criticism of Thatcher, just people expressing their dislike.

The Origin Story podcast just launched their seventh season with a fairly nuanced and objective discussion of Thatcher and Thatcherism over two 1-hour episodes.

Lynsky and Dunt are certainly on "the left" but they do try and be as objective and academic as they can in Origin Story, so it's worth a listen. They even express sympathy with her at some points.

every school shooter has no father at home

What are you even talking about? Several school shooters had fathers in the home. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Kipland Kinkel, Jesse Osborne, and Colt Gray, whose idiot father actually gave him the gun, among many others.

A seemingly inexorable move towards left wing politics

You must live in a bubble or something because this is just objectively wrong. There's been no consistent shift in one direction or the other in the past 100 years. Only a strident partisan would claim otherwise. It's been more like a pendulum, with swings to both sides, and recently there's been a move toward polarization and populism, but again it's been on both ends of the spectrum.

Yes, I'm archaic

LOL. No, you're not. You're just making shit up on the fly, most of which is misogynistic nonsense. Either that, or you're simply parroting back other people's claims as your own without actually checking the facts first. Frankly, I can't decide which is worse, but either one of them paints you as an anti-intellectual, which is to say that you're literally diminishing the collective intelligence and wisdom of the human race every time you own your mouth, so please stop.

They haven't discussed it, but they would both choose the same car, so there is agreement.
One of them goes out and buys the car without consulting the other.

Obviously, if that's true (that, without discussing it, they would both choose the same car), there was no disagreement. There was consensus. Acting on that consensus is fine. I, personally, wouldn't presume to know, without any discussion, that my partner would choose the same car I would choose, though, and it's inviting the response, 'Sure, I would have agreed, but why didn't you ask me first?' - which, if made, would make it a problem.

Why not discuss it? Then you can debate the pros and cons of which car to buy or agree that one is the best choice. More communication is usually a good thing. The phrase 'I wish you had asked me first' is a cliche for a reason.

In other words, there can only be a "shared decision" by a couple where there is agreement in the first instance.

This makes no sense. If there is no agreement in the first instance, the two have a discussion, compromise, and make a shared decision. That's how consensus works. There are more options than 'people agree beforehand' or 'someone makes a unilateral decision'. Certainly, agreement is best, but negotiating an agreement is likely better than one person making a unilateral decision - and that's true even if one person has the 'right' to make that unilateral decision.

You seem to be presupposing that discussion between partners about matters of significance is rare and to be avoided. I doubt that's what you're intending to do, but I can't quite figure out what you are intending to do.

Obviously, there are cases where the disagreement in intractable, but that just changes the stakes. If I absolutely want car X and will accept nothing else, while my partner absolutely wants car Y and will accept nothing else, while we have a budget sufficient only for X or Y, then we're at an impasse. If I go buy X, my partner now must decide whether that's a relationship-ending decision. They still get a vote, but the stakes of that vote are higher - and I get no vote in whether they stay or leave (unless I can find an acceptable compromise, anyway).

The answer, of course, is that we almost certainly need to compromise before I go buy X. Either my partner accepts X, or we both settle on Z as being 'good enough'.

If you can't compromise, how is this all supposed to work anyway? Should one person have to put up with e.g. living in an area they hate simply because they're not the one 'paying the bills,' if the couple together have the means to live somewhere acceptable to both partners? That doesn't strike me as a relationship but something more akin to servitude.

What I'm suggesting is that a couple agree up front on a decision maker for cases were they fail to achieve agreement. And that doesn't have to be the same person in all areas.

No disagreement on either part, but that's a per-couple decision, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some couples cannot agree in the case of 'major life decisions'.

It's also one of the shakier decisions in terms of holding up, I think. If someone says 'Sure, I'll follow you to the ends of the Earth' at 20, they might have sharply different views at 50, and it may be compromise or divorce, not compromise or the assigned decision maker decides.

Decision making by committee doesn't work well when the committee has an even number of members. It's at it's worst with a committee of 2. There's no way to resolve ties.

You have to use consensus-based decision-making, which makes sense in the context of a romantic relationship. Yes, some decisions have to be made, but either you find consensus with compromise or you split up. Giving either party the 'right' to arbitrarily make major life decisions is likely going to result in resentment and separation later.

for the one who is paying the bills to have somewhat more say

That's a point of negotiation, not a starting point. Relationships aren't presupposed to be a 'might makes right' system, nor are we necessarily in the era where one party is valued primarily for their wallet.

It's not 'unreasonable,' but I wouldn't say it should be a default, just something that's one of many agreements that go into forming a marriage in the first place.