Until there is a medical solution, artificial wombs, women need to acknowledge that they OWE men a political or social solution to level the field for men.

Since this situation is not the fault of women--they didn't do that to men; nature did--why do they owe anything? It's like saying men OWE women some way of getting rid of the problems of pregnancy and childbirth, or post-menstrual syndrome, or menopause. Do men OWE women that?

Maybe SOCIETY owes both men and women some way of making up for whatever natural disadvantages they have. But would you go so far as claiming society owes women to make them physically stronger, since they happen to be weaker, in average, than men?

I'm not sure society is responsible for correcting problems created by nature itself. (The greatest of these problems created by nature is, of course, the inevitability of death.) It would be nice if it did, and I would support it. But such natural differences were not society's, or women's, or men's fault.

That women do not feel obligated to do such a thing is PRECISELY the reason it is perfectly logical to say MAN HATING in the context of feminism.

Would you say then maybe that "men do not feel obligated to say society should compensate them for being in average physically weaker than men and achieving less in sports than men, and this is PRECISELY the reason it is perfectly logical to say WOMAN HATING in the context of anti-feminism?..."

No, this is not logical. Man hating, woman hating, that's people hating. Both are wrong, and illogical. I think my comparison shows that you're exaggerating here.

Now, since you apparently think men are LESS than 3/5ths of a person compared to women, I can completely understand why you would think the current regime is just fine and dandy.

Nope, I don't think men are less than women (and I'll add my voice to Christina's, why 3/5?). The reason why I don't attack the "current regime" is that I haven't seen so much evidence in my own life that women have become man-hating 'feminazis'. Most women I've met are quite normal and moderate, and simply look at people as individuals. I'm not saying there are no radfems out there (especially among young, unexperienced women); but there are so many normal people among women that I'm really surprised you've missed them.

he may be right about how the situation evolved but even if all reproduction becomes artificial it won't change the instinctive sexual/emotional reactions of people because those things have already become hard wired in response to the situation.

“Until there is a medical solution, artificial wombs, women need to acknowledge that they OWE men a political or social solution to level the field for men.”

I’m curious, what do u propose?

And why 3/5?

women love to play the victim card because it throws men, like you, off the scent of the REAL problem, which is this treatment of men as mere FRACTIONAL humans.

if men are somehow DISADVANTAGED in contrast to women, by not having a womb for instance, A FAIR AND EQUITABLE SOCIETY would work to COMPENSATE men for this shortcoming of theirs.

I'm sure science is working on that, but it's harder to build an artificial womb than it is to artifically inseminate a woman. And this is not the fault of society; it's just that wombs are more complicated. But all in all, I'm sure science is working on that, and at some point men will also be able to have children by themselves.

Until there is a medical solution, artificial wombs, women need to acknowledge that they OWE men a political or social solution to level the field for men.

That women do not feel obligated to do such a thing is PRECISELY the reason it is perfectly logical to say MAN HATING in the context of feminism, because feminism at core is against this concept of compensating men politically or socially for this very valid shortcoming men have.

Now, since you apparently think men are LESS than 3/5ths of a person compared to women, I can completely understand why you would think the current regime is just fine and dandy.

This is why men have low esteem. WOMEN do this to men.

Hm, I know it's satyre, but I think you must be aware of what you're asking for. If you were in an environment in which all women--regardless of how unattractive, overweight, bald, old, etc.--were trying to make your environment more sexualized and got angry if you didn't react enthusiastically, you might actually find out it's closer to hell than to the working environment of your dreams.

In principle I don't think there's a difference. You might argue that society doesn't "owe" people anything other than security and freedom (the libertarian viewpoint I guess), so it neither "owes" men compensation for lacking a womb nor women compensation for the problems of childbirth. But since this is not my viewpoint, I wouldn't be against society making up for the lack of wombs in men--at least for these men who want to have children without women. Of course the technical problem involved is much more complicated, and a good solution--an artifical womb that could take a fertilized ovum and nurture it till it becomes a complete baby--is not going to be available any time soon. (I'm sure they're working on that though. Biotechnology goes in all directions these days.)

well ME being in an UNDERSEXUALIZED environment where most of, well some of, the women couldn't get it up for me if I was the only man on earth puts me under TREMENDOUS STRESS and causes my intellectual and social performance to be FAR INFERIOR to what it would be in the absence of that stress and this has significant effects on my career performance. I think people should be required to alter their behavior to suit MY emotional preferences or I should be compensated in some way if they can't or won't do so.

interesting point, how is this any different in principle from asserting that society has an obligation in principle to compensate women somehow for the competitive disadvantages that pregnancy and childbirth impose.