Thank you for providing the perfect illustration of the situation even though you neglect to spell out it's implications, luckily I am prepared to correct this inexplicable oversight: a man "like that" is usually capable of taking a genuine interest in a woman "like that" once he is convinced he can't do any better but a woman "like that" generally will be incapable of a real emotional or sexual interest in a man "like that" (even if she is interested in having financial and social assistance, kids and someone to help with them, etc.).

men certainly wouldn't feel disrespected if women were obsessed with their cocks. Not saying there aren't reasons, just that the issue should be understood for what it is, not promoted as an unexamined moral absolute.

the response that is, actually the real article makes clear what happened: everyone was killed except for the fertile women.

the idea of a contrast between the effete prius owner and the real american hummer/suv/pickup driver. $4 a gallon gas seems to have deflated this campaign somewhat though. (You CAN get 60 plus miles to the gallon on the freeway in a prius and there is no non hybrid you can drive which comes anywhere near it which isn't MUCH smaller).

except that the kids were killed too, only the adult women were spared.

the females "marry" the guys that will do a good job helping with the "kids" and cheat with the hot guys when they can get away with it, (there is also, and not just with humans, a lot of energy put into defeating this strategy by the "suckers").

it's convenient though because as long as men have a stronger sex drive than women i.e forever unless hormones are added to the water supply and are therefore "reducing women to a body part" women will always have "proof" that they are disrespected, victimized, abused, "objectified" etc. etc. no matter how much of the money, social authority, political authority, advanced degrees or anything else that they have.

You don't know much about human history then, because this statement is flat out wrong.

and this fighting for/over women takes many forms, in many times and places it has frequently included lethal group actions. This evidence for this general fact is overwhelming and unequivocal.

and in the largest group there were no adult women killed only men and kids.

of course if you have the ability to steal the women you will likely take other things too, or the other way around, so there is never (well rarely) a "women only" situation, there is however overwhelming evidence that getting women is often a major factor and in many cases looks like the dominant factor.

is, in the historical and anthropological sense of the word, normal. Doesn't mean this is what everyone does all the time, but it's been widespread.

so there is nothing to discuss. Women on the other hand often claim that their situation is not so clear cut, therefore there IS something to discuss and so people discuss it.

I can assure you based on the personal experience of most people I know that the "not psycho" part is STRICTLY optional.

men are interested in steering clear of marriage NOT steering clear of sex while women are steering clear of both.

that when you have relationships, and a society, consisting of pairs of co-parents one of which gave birth to the kid (and therefore, who, absent unusual circumstances is the "real" legal parent with the other one being a helper) and one who did not who spend most of their time and resources on their kid but have no real, i.e romantic or sexual, relationship with each other that the vast majority of men will end up the functional equivalent of eunuch servants.

this usually happens anyway. It's somewhat disconcerting though to see people openly giving up.

he is only off the hook until the exact moment she wants him to do something and he doesn't want to do it.

because most women won't get (or at least won't stay) seriously involved with a man (unless he is abnormally rich or VERY abnormally attractive) who is devoting significant resources to raising another woman's kid(s) men in this situation generally will have no life. This probably explains a lot of the reaction even when other reasons are given. It's a little like Hillary hatred, the reaction is real but the explanations given for it don't account for the amount or the intensity of the reaction.

maybe progress is being made

not

temptation to say, etc, was resisted, so maybe progress is being made.

female stem cells have already been tweaked to produce sperm, obviously only sperm with two x chromosomes, but two women can thus produce daughters and the genetic mixing is exactly the same is what happens when a man and a woman have a daughter.

couldn't get women. I'm so confused.

TCF and FF are now officially tools of the patriarchy.

The problem is that men may turn out to not be like women and not necessarily inclined to do what women want them to, then where would we be?

They appear to have the evidence on their side or at least some interpretations of it; it seems that whenever responses are measured men ALWAYS respond either to only one gender or to one MUCH more strongly than the other. There is never "true bisexuality" i.e an equal (or anywhere close to it) response to either gender in men, although there is in women. I suppose you could define ANY capacity to go both ways as "bi".

no there aren't, because everyone knows that if this were possible all men would be gay.

for example if it is male bashing to say that men are or should be or could be the same as women and it is male bashing to acknowledge that men are innately different from women what is the point of anybody trying to discuss anything.