Why do men get bashed for no reason these days?


It seems the law is quite tilted, yes. Even with local women. And the lack of enforcement of visits can be stated by most foreign men divorced here.

The solution is to access there is a problem and support changing the laws to be more fair.


When kids are kidnapped, and then the law rules against the spouse taking the kids. In most Western countries, it would be very hard for the law to deny access or not act when ruled access is not given


Not when the spouse denied access is male. Happens all the time. Also witness imprisonment if mothers versus fathers - courts bend over backwards to keep mothers out of prison, couldn’t give a stuff about depriving children of access to their fathers. It’s disgusting.


I’ve never heard this in Taiwan. Most courts at lesst in the US tend to favor women when it comes to these things. Are there any laws that make this the case or is it just how judges seem to rule in favor of biased?


This is the theme I see a lot and told. Shut up and listen. Because I’m in the so called “privileged” and “oppressor” class because I’m a man my voice and opinions are somehow less than the “oppressed” class of women and their opinions are privileged in the conversation. I find this to be utter nonsense.

And the only solution to fix this problem everyone is saying is giving the oppressed more privileges or bringing down the oppressor. How are these things enforced and carried out. Every solution I can think of sounds totalitarian.


I agree with you on most of what you wrote just not how you argued your point. They may be true but I feel like you’re attacking the scare crow as they say. With each issue you’ve deflected and brought up something else I’m not talking about or said was not true. I can’t help much with things in your country because well I don’t know where it is so I’ll just take it as true. I would be happy to do what I can to bring it to light if that helps. But I’m resources as a person are limited. And Of course there are probably man beating their wives somewhere in Taiwan. I’ve never made the claim ther isn’t. If I ever see it happen I would stop it. If I ever hear about it I will openly condemn it. But saying it happens somewhere isn’t helpful to what you and I want to accomplish which is a better world. And I’m sure there are women beating men here in Taiwan. Have you seen some of my fellow Taiwanese men? The ones that carry purses around while their girl spends all the money shopping that are probably weaker than most women. I’m just saying most men like myself are allies to women in their struggles or anyone’s struggles as we are like most people decent human beings. And I find it extremely unfair and counter productive and even harmful for men when there’s this openly allowed demonstration of men. For example, suicide rates for men are alarmingly higher than women and is the drug and alcohol addiction rate vs women. I think men’s issues are being left behind as a result.


So you are telling me there is a chance? :heart_eyes:


The Law in Taiwan does seem totally biased towards the Male . Marriage/Legacy and other ways .


I still find what your backtracking extremely dishonest to your intent and obvious sexism. Below is the direct quote from you. Idk why it says it from me.

You brought up this as evidence of inequality, not me. So some burden of proof lies with you. Can you or anyone honestly read this and find any other reason in this paragraph that pointed to any other reason for these particular men unqualified to make laws and policies because they are men? I never made a stance supporting or condemning them. That’s not my point. They could all very well be unqualified and awful people and make poor policies. But that’s not what you said. You said them being men is the reason here. No other. I would probably agree with you they are not right for the job but not because they are men. But poor senators in general.

And I think that’s the issue. It’s ok to rethink and question people, even if it’s everyone around you. I’ve also lived in California in LA, which I assume you’re talking about. And I don’t think being in a geographic location and being in a room with prominent feminist makes what you say automatically true or more correct than mine or even good at all. It’s like me saying I’ve met with all 4 presidents of Taiwan in real life, Ma 3 times, once when he was a mayor the reason my opinions are better or I’m somehow more qualified to make this opinion. And perphase you just made a case for yourself on why I think you’re wrong and misleading. You basically said you’ve been in a echo chamber and was raised into this ideology without much challenges to it.

I’ve been trying to be more civil and polite these days on the forum but I really don’t like any of my interactions with you. I’m arrogant and narcissistic and many things. But i can admit when i’m wrong or don’t know bitterly. But I feel you have an air of moral superiority based on thinking youre so progressive, forward thinking and civilized. I don’t think outside of the US women’s point that you’ve made a single good point. Not only are they poor arguments, I don’t think they’re even original or even ideas of your own. I’ve respected the points of other Forumosans ideas that I fundamentally disagree with on every level more than yours. Because at least they know what they stand for and have put some critical thinking into what their beliefs are and admits it. And even better, they have a way they think would work better with actual solutions. I particularly disdain your dishonesty when I pointed it out and backtracked and continual inability to do what you asked me to do, listen. I don’t think you are willing to listen at all. You also never confront evidence to the contrary of what you say. I don’t think you are capable of changing your position because you havent realistically made any sort of possible solutions and are just repeating what you heard in your bubble.

I don’t think youre interested in a solution or made any attempt to one. Because your basic stance is- there is a systematic patriarchy and forced gender roles that oppresses women, and it’s because of this same patriarchy and forced gender roles we aren’t capable of a solution. You’ve still not given me any answers on how you think things can be better, like actual solutions outside of very broad answers. And when confronted with good points, you fall back to “oh it’s because gender roles that this isn’t possible.” I think you just like saying the things about gender roles and patriarchy because it’s the popular trendy idea around you.

At least other posters like @yyy makes me think and reconsider my position.


What do you make of people who say the works of Orwell “reflect reality”? Just curious.


As he said at the start of the thread, some feminist acquaintance showed him the article, apparently to prove that men are evil. I didn’t notice that statement in the article, so I assume it came from the acquaintance.


Centuries of elections at the highest level? That sounds like a very small number of countries.


yes I suppose thats true. But still, I think it’s very impressive what Taiwan did. transitioning into a working democracy. Do you disagree?


But Comrade, where’s your sense of honor? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

(I know, that’s not what you meant. It’s still funny.)


I try to be neutral about politics (my position on Covfefism notwithstanding), but I will say I salute Taiwan’s development and hope the mainland will learn a thing or two from it, imperfect though it is. :rainbow:


Speaking of Taiwan politics, we’re basically going around in circles, but it makes a good example of the difference between de jure and de facto, which I agree with Rockefeller about in this context: it is my considered opinion women do not have equality with men in the everyday reality most people experience.

I think the people who are best qualified to speak about this are those who (unlike me and probably most of us) have lived as both male and female during adulthood, and I mean convincingly (not “campy” drag kings/queens). It’s like how in the 60’s the US had its Civil Rights Act, so then in theory everyone was racially equal, but the reality on the ground didn’t match and still doesn’t, despite the Obamas etc. being a strong indicator of improvement overall (regardless of how good or bad a president Barry actually was).

Now can anyone remember the name of the white guy who made himself look black for a while to see what it was like and wrote a book about it c. the 60’s? That’s the kind of firsthand experience I’m talking about, because it’s one thing to see a person’s shoes and say they look just like yours or even try them on for a minute and say they’re fine, and another to walk around in them out in the real world.


So how to close this wage gap of 22%?

You force women into fields that are more profitable and prevent as many men into them?
Let’s say there are 2 jobs and schools in the world, job A and job B. School A and school B.

You go to school A to get a job in Job A.

Job A is more profitable, and it happens that more males go to School A. And therefore more males work in Job A.

How do you fix this? Because thats basically how this 22% wage gap is calculated. Not by breaking down how men and women make per hour a week in job A and job B separately, but by grouping them together without calculating any hours past 35. And also, the there are no laws preventing anyone from going to either schools or jobs.


I can accept that position because I’m not argueing for a perfect egalitarian society or saying it is one for both men and women. But I’ve yet to hear a solution better than the ones I’ve put out. For example, hey there are more male senators than female. I’m sure there are hurdles women face like every single person in the world face regardless of gender or whatever else you can break us down into, but to say we can’t fix this even if it really needs to be fixed is stupid. People should vote for the better candidate and not just because of gender. And trying to or forcing people into a perfect 50/50 split is what you teach to children in the playground. I’m saying that both genders have the ability to do what they want in the free world. And you can’t force people to a perfect 50/50 split without basically a crazy unrealistic totalitarian utopia that I don’t think is real.

At least let me ask you this @yyy
That 22% number for the wage gap. Do you think it’s an accurate representation of the wage gap?


John Howard Griffin


Nineteen Eighty-Four . . . is a dystopian novel . . . set in Airstrip One, formerly Great Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania. Oceania is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation. Oceania’s residents are dictated by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism (shortened to “Ingsoc” in Newspeak, the government’s invented language). The superstate is under the control of the privileged, elite Inner Party. The Inner Party persecutes individualism and independent thinking known as “thoughtcrimes” and is enforced by the “Thought Police”.

They’re out of touch with reality . . .


I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but I do think looking at the problem from other viewpoints is a good start.

Democracy comes in many different flavors, it’s not always easy for a country to get all the nutrients it needs, and every country’s needs are different. So some people think the Electoral College works (it respects federalism, sort of), while others think it doesn’t (it disrespects the popular vote), and still others say the whole system is rotten and can’t be fixed by abolishing the EC (corruption is all around the place, Hillary didn’t win the popular vote either, coalitions are perceived as impossible, and so on).

Now consider what the point of democracy really is: to use a specific formula, to prevent tyranny, or to try to improve things?

  1. Formula

“One person one vote” is a common refrain, and it’s easy to see the logic behind it, especially when you’re dealing with local issues on a small scale. Yet in practice it gets messy. If you’re electing a mayor, how long do you need to have lived in the city? What if you own property but don’t live there? What if you’re a foreigner but have lived there all your life? What if you’re a convicted criminal? And so on.

On a larger scale, people may complain that rural issues are eclipsed by urban issues because of population imbalance, and they may be right. They may even say one specific urban district (like the City of London) needs to let people vote based on the fact that they work (but don’t live) there, because the issues affecting that district involve business to a greater extent than the issues affecting other districts. (This bears some resemblance to the much criticized FC system in HK.)

In a federal system, you may have an EC or similarly problematic FPTP system, and in the UN, you could stack the vote by dividing yourself into smaller countries – though the big five in the Security Council would still have their veto power.

And we haven’t even started on corruption. :money_mouth_face: :smiling_imp:

So it’s not as easy as it looks, and saying “but you have the right to vote” (which I do say sometimes) may indicate ignorance of the problems.

  1. Escape tyranny

This is one explanation for the UNSC: “the major powers need to have veto power because their interests are so often antithetical, and if the UN failed to respect the limits of each major power, it would simply collapse, dialog would be more difficult, and we would be closer to another World War.”

There’s a similar perception in the US, though the solution is the EC rather than a simple veto system: “if the will of the majority of states (imperfectly adjusted by population) isn’t respected, then some states won’t want to be part of the federation.”

So there are compromises, but obviously they’re imperfect.

  1. Striving for improvement

This means considering whether or not to adjust the existing system and if so, how. But with all the different possible revisions and tweaks (let non-residents vote? stop them from voting? lower the voting age? raise it? tougher voter ID rules? looser rules? smarter rules? more education about how the system actually works so you don’t have “hanging chads”? and so on) and all the complicated aspects of modern life that may not be well understood, we need to investigate the vast landscape to know what we’re dealing with. Activists may call for “more democracy” or even “less democracy” (as in Thailand a few years ago, and more recently in the US), but whichever side they’re on, they may be intentionally or unintentionally helping people they ostensibly oppose.

How can that be avoided? More information and deeper understanding of what that information signifies – iow, better education, both in “book knowledge” and irl (problem solving, critical thinking, trying new things). :2cents:

Now I won’t try to connect all these dots to gender issues, but (@ everyone) I reckon if you think about it you can see some parallels or reverberations.

Over and out. :bowing: