example to point out that any normal woman, unlike a man, can get someone to KISS THEIR ASS AND DO WHATEVER ELSE THEY WANT THEM TO for free in addition to having sex, so there is no need to pay.

obviously she would rather have what she has now than go without although I agree with you that there obviously is a disparity of interest between two of them, but isn't that probably the case in some form in almost every relationship. If men applied the same standard that you are urging women to the human race would be extinct.

as the equivalent to "how women (or men) feel about sex"

can be exactly the way they decide they want it to be. Very convenient. In a sense the only interesting question is what percentage of the female population sincerely believes that with the "right" culture men can naturally and happily play their assigned role in a female utopia and what percentage knows that there will be nothing happy or voluntary about it but believes that they will be able to eventually win out by social, economic/educational and sexual force and is using the "all culture" line tactically.

I didn't say using, I said men applying the same standards as women. It's nice to see you, sort of, admit that you are applying different standards since when men apply the ones you are urging women to the situation is magically transformed into people using each other where when only women were applying them it was a mutually satisfying equal relationship.

killing a pet on the other hand has quite an impact and is a relatively low risk action, and it really is not as bad as killing a person, so I would suspect this is quite common, and as a matter of fact it IS quite common.

they may not be dealing with it very well but there are reasons why things and people are they are, even when they are fucked up. Women need to somehow make themselves able to understand that the same thing is true of men. It was one thing for women to say they couldn't "afford" to do this when men REALLY were running things, but that is not the case now (reserving the right to whine ineffectually isn't real power).

BTW BS65 makes a good point: if men are such pathetic losers why does their whining matter. The feminist line seems to be that men are SIMULTANEOUSLY useless ineffectual pathetic losers AND the incarnation of all the power of evil and oppression in the world. How dare anyone accuse women of being illogical.

even though they are mixed together they are really seperate issues and it isn't THAT hard to sort some of it out. Suppose that if a woman gave the slightest hint that she has/ever had personal problems with a man or men that EVERYTHING she said would be entirely dismissed. A productive approach indeed.

A man taking alimony will pay for it in a way that a woman taking it will not: women are pickier to begin with and a man who takes alimony is going to turn off a lot of women. A woman isn't going to be rejected by anyone who wouldn't be rejecting her for other reasons anyway because she takes alimony from her rich ex. It's not all about irrational emotional and cultural reactions on the part of men.

It's a fact that the economic power disparity is simply too great for this to ever work well. If it ever COULD work in the past, which is debateable, it CERTAINLY can't work now given the current cultural and sexual climate.

ought to make it clear that the the role of sexual gatekeeper/social enforcer is not something forced on females but something they actively seek to do in order to prevent overly attractive women (or overly slutty women) from reducing the market value of the enforcers sexuality.

once the pipeline of qualified women reaches to a certain point suddenly women are everywhere in those jobs. Given women's continuing advantage in educational performance it seems impossible that women would be kept out of positions of authority for long.

so in a broader social and political sense it IS about public opinion over the long run. Of course constitutions are generally designed to demand a much higher and deeper consensus in order for attempts to change them to succeed (although this varies quite a bit by state).

it is fair but it is not difficult to implement it is completely impossible. There is simply no way to know and unlike the case with wrongful death there is no way to make even a reasonable guess. Wrongful death awards are basically an average: what does the "average" (education/profession/etc. or for a young person simply the "average" earning of someone in the same social class as the person who died) person who is "similar" to the person who died earn in their life. Since the majority of the population, or close to it, gets divorced at some point (unlike wrongful death awards which are relatively uncommon at least by comparison) it seems clear that income confiscation/transfer on such a nearly universal scale based on such rough guessing would be both unworkable and disastrous if it could somehow be made to work.

so what does it matter (unless women want men to be interested in them even when the interest is not reciprocated and these things appear to threaten this although in reality of course they don't).