"Tampon tax: men should share the burden of ending domestic abuse"

"However, we must take every opportunity to loudly and clearly affirm that women alone are not responsible for ending domestic violence.'"

What the Hell is that even suppose to mean...???
Women are the perpetrators of domestic violence 70% of the time, so I would say that we (women) are primarily responsible for ending it, seeing as we are responsible for most of it...!

The assumption is often made that if a woman needs it, a woman pays for it. Not necessarily true. A lot of men pay for tampons and birth control for the women in their lives. They also often pay for babies being born, either through insurance or out of their pockets. But if it's for a woman, the press always assumes the woman herself pays for it.

Being a woman is all about getting someone else to pay for the stuff you want. That someone else is usually either the nearest man or the nearest taxpayer. A woman who pays for something herself is not quite a real woman.

"A woman who pays for something herself is not quite a real woman."

She may not be acting like the typical woman in a heterosexual relationship, but she would be in fact a "real woman" if it means acting like an own-weight-carrying adult. Anything short of it is someone who still hasn't quite grasped the notion that true independence and full adulthood necessarily requires that one assume full responsibility for the support of oneself at every turn.

If a man sees something he wants, his first thought is to think of how he can buy that for himself.

If a woman sees something she wants, her first thought is to think of how she can get somebody else to buy it for her.

Chris's delivery is better, but the idea is the same. The bigger the rock, the more the woman is validated. The bigger the alimony check the more the woman is validated. The woman is supposed to be so desirable that a man will gladly part with his money to buy her what she wants. If she has to buy her own stuff, well, it's because she's not good enough to get a man to buy it for her.

Of course, I'm saying that's how it is, not necessarily how I wish it was. A man who can't get laid is not considered a real man. A woman who can't get a man to buy her the big rock or the right house or the right car is not quite a "real woman."

I personally don't blame or shame either gender for acting naturally as per their biological programming. When you have different motivations and risks you get different behavior. I see it as a two-way street with men playing an equal role as women.

I often say woman are valued for the sex and reproduction capabilities (she must be sexually attractive) and men are valued for their utility (work and production). With these values and with men h*ving a higher sex drive, you naturally get men putting more effort forth to have sex (or a relationship which leads to sex). This mostly pertains with men h*ving sex with women of child bearing age. It's been this way since the beginning of time. Men have always "paid" more for more attractive women - no one forces them - it is normal biological behavior.

Some men even like that they have the ability to do this. Actually it is men who can increase their value by becoming successful and they have more time to do it. Women are stuck with the value they were born with (they can't change their attractiveness much) and their clock runs out at about age 35.

... then wouldn't a far better strategy for women be to develop their ability to provide for themselves and cultivate true independence? Since their "market value" begins to plummet at/after 35, the better long-term strategy for them would be cultivating independence rather than dependence, which is what they do whenever they think abt getting someone else to buy things for them.

I don't know any parent who raises their daughter to be "dependent." All parents I see, instruct their daughters to get an education, career, etc. With people marrying later, and the divorce rate high and the difficulty for a family to get by on one income, Most (all?) women know they need to have a career.

Perhaps you are seeing things differently.

is that I don't like my government taking $$ from me and giving it to groups like planned p'hood that funds abortions. yeah yeah yeah, we know all about how they swap pockets w/ the $$ as camo. use your own $$ for your abominations. same goes for birth control. grow up.

then there is the v.a.w.a., where every year over 1/2 billion $$ in everybody's tax $$ is thrown into a black hole and NOBODY knows where it goes. funny how the fact that women instigate most d.v. is ignored by the sold out msm?

then there are the countless other gov. programs that are specifically designed for women, or minorities, or whatever group needs to be stroked this election cycle for their monolithic support. we are now being overrun w/ illegals because some idiot can promise them stuff and in doing so load our tax boat even more. anybody notice how our boat is sinking, and the halfwits free stuffers just keep on piling in?

spending oneself into the poor house isn't exactly a new concept.

From men's POV, despite what you say, women still expect to be paid for, and in so doing reinforce their commodification and teach themselves dependence on men. The dependence may not be financial, but it's psycho-emotional. By expecting men to rent them, they teach themselves to value themselves based on their appeal to men as measured by their rentability (which to them translates to their attractiveness). In this way, women teach themselves dependence on men's approval of them as measured by their willingness to rent them out.

The only thing left holding back true female independence from men is women themselves. When women both decide to pay their own way through life like men are expected to do and indeed refuse to let themselves be rented out by men will the grand goal of original feminism be met: female emancipation. Like birds afraid to leave the cage after the door to it is left open, they just can't move themselves to spread their wings and fly away under their own power.

It's a terrible shame, really. Hard to know what to say when one is her own worst enemy.

Now here Kris, let me buy you a drink.

LMFAO!!, Ahhhh ha ha ha ha!..... ;-)

I agree with you on the taxpayer funded stuff, daveinga. BTW- traditional relationships, which tend to be less 50/50 on financial expectations from the genders, very rarely need social assistance, as they are the most successful families and are most likely to provide healthy children for the next generation.

Here are some old adages and things I say often which support my views:

Women are valued for REproduction capabilities and men are valued for PROduction capabilities. These values are due to biological dispositions.

If you tear down the basic male/female relationship and get right down to the foundation, you get men trading for sex/reproduction and women trading for monetary things.

When you have genders with different motivations and risks, you get different behavior. IMO, it is ridiculous to expect otherwise, or to blame/shame anyone for their biological disposition which heavily influences their behavior and "choices".

I also think women should not have to be chemically or surgically altered in order to be respected by society (or avoid shame). There are many women who dislike or cannot use birth control, therefore they must plan for natural consequences which includes avoiding dangerous careers and or finding men who are able and willing to support pregnancy/children.

Women set the bar for sex and parenthood (women are the gatekeepers). Some women are not doing a good job (look at the ghetto). Men will do as little for sex as a woman requires or as much for sex as a woman requires. When woman set the bar high for sex and parenthood, all of society reaps the benefits.

Promiscuous women are the root of most of society's destruction (look at the ghettos)

Slut shaming is not social construct. It is set by biological dispositions.

This old adage sums it up pretty good:

"When it comes to sex, men and women are like locks and keys.
Women are the locks. Locks which can be open by any key are shitty locks.
Men are the keys. A key which can open any lock is a masterkey."

PS- to Matt, as always I respect you opinion even when it is far different than mine.

So you're getting a rum and Coke? :)