It has been much worse men for those same thousands of years. The theory of “opression of women” was invented by marxist proffessors who use women as driving vehicle for marxism.

First they tried to convince workers that they’re opressed by employers, and have been for “thousands of years”. That failed, and then they moved onto convincing women that they’re “historic victims”.

The way they accomplish this false history is by simple omission. They will for example give you all these horrible examples of how horrible life was for the average woman in say 1567, but they will omit that the AVERAGE man had a much harsher life. Women have always been more protected and lead less opressed, less harsh lives.

Another trick these people use is to compare average women with high-status men. Politicians do this when they want an excuse to take over some 3rd world country. They will show you “poor little women” live, but fail to show you their brothers lifes a much harsher life. They will present to you the average woman, and the male dictator, but not the 99% of victim men in that same 3rd world country who live a much harsher life than their sisters.

I’ve seen most women do this one. Whenever I see women complaining how hard life is for them, and how “men have it easy”… The pattern I’ve noticed is always the same. She’s comparing herself to the 5% of men on the top, while ignoring the 95% of men who are beneath her and enjoy less benefits than she does. But then again, most of us men are used to being invisible to women. We’re used to women using the word “men” to really mean “the hot guys” or “the high status guys”.

try this on for scary scenarios: given the current fitness and weight loss orthodoxies, what would a government suggested (or, gulp, mandated) workout program look like? imagine a diet/workout regimen required to qualify for health insurance…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35770181/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/

about using increased taxes (i.e., government regulation) on certain ‘bad’ foods (as determined by a government agency) as a means to influence people’s food choices. the basic intentions behind policies like this seem good-hearted and genuine, but i am also puzzled – if not outright troubled – at the implication that because many people are not making the ‘correct’ choices – though, once again, defining what is good v. bad or healthy v. unhealthy is incredibly subjective to say the least – that the solution is for government to step in and mandate the correct food choices for everyone including those who do not have a problem with these foods. the article also mentions the subsidies that already exist, like for corn over-production, that encourage the production of high fructose corn syrup and other ‘bad’ foods, but it does not address how or why those supposedly bad policies initially began, or how or why they are almost impossible to end once they are in place.

still, this does raise the issue of private vs. public or collective goods (like roads, national defense, etc.), which is perhaps the primary rationale for government in the first place, and the question of is health a collective or a private good? and/or what about health of the population vs. individual health?

to the extent that health is a public or collective good – or the kind of thing that people have an incentive to not contribute and still enjoy the benefits (i.e., if enough other people are healthy enough to continue to work and to support me through paying taxes to the government which then provides for my care, then i don’t have to be as concerned with my own health), then many people would say because of the non-existence of a relevant market process that government must step in and incentivize the health and even fitness-related choices that maximize the overall benefit – otherwise, because of the free-rider problem, everyone suffers.

ideas?

But I would also say that boyhood is being idolized. This article by George Will makes a strong case:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234248

In 1956, the median age of men marrying was 22.5. But between 1980 and 2004, the percentage of men reaching age 40 without marrying increased from 6 to 16.5. A recent study found that 55 percent of men 18 to 24 are living in their parents’ homes, as are 13 percent of men 25 to 34, compared to 8 percent of women.