https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/ — Cuthbert

I still think you need to read more if those laws does not seem unfair to you.

Most of those laws, that you mention with such beautiful description, do not apply to lesbian women, for example.

I thought MmeGazelle was a fanatic. I was wrong.

Now I am sure I am talking with one.

I will stop replying to you before you start insulting and all that you all do.

I have a "negative" (in quotes because I don't think it's necessarily negative) opinion on women because the most common behavior I have seen on women is manipulation. More specifically, emotional manipulation. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Don't feed the incel.

Your mom is the one being fed. :monkey:

Do you want some?

I am talking about love, obviously.

My incel heart is full of love. I can definitely give you some, but only if you let me.

Are full-time employees or employers more important in the economy? ... there is a greater probability of survival for the economy the more there are employees — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Good example. This is one aspect of the case. There are more. For example, an emloyer can do the job of the employee if needed. (It happens when his business cannot afford hiring more employees to cover its needs . But the opposite is rarily the case. E.g. in a farm, workers know and can do only their job --plowing, harvesting, animal caring, etc.-- but they don't know or can manage the whole farm, they don't have the money needed to maintain the business, etc. In other words, the employer, as the owner of the farm can do everyting if needed. Withoud him, most probably there would not be a farm. In a case of economic crisis or other adverse factors like Covid lock downs, those who get unemployed are the employees. The employer/owner of the business usually is still working and earns some money. So, who is more valuable: the employer or the employee? And in prosperous times, who is the one who is the only who offers jobs to people so that they can maintain themselves and their families?

Anyway, in actuality, we don't think or talk about who is more valueable or necessary: we assume that both employers and employees are equally valuable and necessary for a prosperous economy. The same goes with men and women in the field of reproduction. And I think this is fair.

cancel — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

In the good ol' days of yore known as damnatio memoriae! Nothing to see here, move along, move along! :grin:

There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all! — Xerxes

My incel heart is full of love — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:clap: :grin:

Don't feed the incel. — RogueAI

:death:

My incel heart is full of love. I can definitely give you some, but only if you let me. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:eyes: oh boy

I thought MmeGazelle was a fanatic. I was wrong.

Now I am sure I am talking with one. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

True. Another difference is that MmeGazelle is making clever and insightful points whereas I am just being randomly sarcastic.

I have the answer to my question. Biological differences have nothing to do with legal concerns.

In the good ol' days of yore known as damnatio memoriae! Nothing to see here, move along, move along! — Agent Smith

You know what? You're right.

Thank you again for all your answers. I found what I was looking for.
Have a great day.

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

What are you talking about, every woman alive today was made from a man. That's the most fallacious argument I have ever seen.

Not to mention you say that evolution only cares about procreation whilst making value statements on behalf of "evolution" (women are more important)...

So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And then go on to tell others that value statements cannot be made about evolution...

Evolution itself is not intelligent — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

So are you picking and choosing what value statements get created about evolution? lol

"they somehow have to have", lmaooo totally half-assed attempt here buddy...if evolution understands that women are more important than men (because they take 9 months to reproduce whereas men do not), then I would say that is highly "intelligent".

I found what I was looking for. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Yourself? Like this time when I was searching for my keys...I wuz desperate...sweating and all...the keys were in my hand all the while.

employees are more important. Both are necessary, but employees are more important because of that. (Because the more of them there are, the better, i.e., the more probability of survival for the economy) — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Have you thought that the more the employees the greater the unemployement?
Hasn't overpopulation, periods of economic crisis, immigrational floods, etc. shown that?

And on the contrary, that the more the employers the less the unemployement?
Hasn't a flourishing and expanding businesses and economy, business investments, etc. shown that?

Winnipeg-based Canadian Centre for Child Protection recently stated they're concerned that "adolescent boys are being targeted primarily on social media giants Instagram and Snapchat as part of an ongoing sextortion crisis ... The offender will then threaten to report the victim to police, claiming they are in possession of child sexual abuse material." ... But so far I've seen this CCCP media release printed in only one Canadian newspaper.

My understanding is that male victims of sex-related harassment and/or abuse are still more hesitant or unlikely than girl victims to report their offenders. Boys refusing to open up and/or ask for help due to their fear of being perceived by peers, etcetera, as weak or non-masculine.

Also, I've noticed over many years of news-media consumption that, for example, when victims of sexual abuse are girls their gender is readily reported as such; but when they're boys they're usually referred to gender-neutrally as children. It’s as though, as a news product made to sell the best, the child victims being female is somehow more shocking than if male. Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’.

[Interestingly though not convincingly, one online reader suggested to me that since most sexual offences against boys are committed by men and therefore are homosexual in nature, the mainstream news-media will typically deliberately omit this information out of some misplaced concern for a potential resultant increase in hate-motivated violence against the collective gay community.]

Additionally, I’ve heard and read news-media references to a 19-year-old female victim as a ‘girl’, while (in an unrelated case) a 17-year-old male perpetrator was described as a ‘man’. Could it be that this is indicative of an already present gender bias held by the general news consumership, since news-media tend to sell us what we want or are willing to consume thus buy?

It's as though boys are somehow perceived as basically being little men, and men of course can take care of themselves.

Meanwhile, a New York Times feature story (“She Was a Big Hit on TikTok. Then a Fan Showed Up With a Gun”, February 19, 2022) written by reporter Elizabeth Williamson, at one point states: “Instagram, owned by Meta, formerly known as Facebook, has … been accused of causing mental and emotional health problems among teenage female users.” A couple paragraphs down, it is also stated that “Teen girls have been repeatedly targeted by child predators.”

The plain fact is, teen boys are also targeted by such predators. Another plain fact is that mental and emotional — along with physical — health problems are being suffered by teenage boys directly due to social media use. Revelatory of the latter is the extensive March 9, 2022, feature story headlined “Bigorexia: Obsession with muscle gain increasing among boys” (which originally appeared in The New York Times).

But a collective mentality may still societally persist, albeit perhaps a subconscious one: Real men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men.

And without doubt, writes the author of The Highly Sensitive Man (2019, Tom Falkenstein, Ch.1), societal ‘real-man’ conformity stubbornly persists.

There are “numerous psychological studies over the last forty years that tell us that, despite huge social change, the stereotypical image of the ‘strong man’ is still firmly with us at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and among all socio-economic backgrounds. In the face of problems, men tend not to seek out emotional or professional help from other people. They use, more often than women, alcohol or drugs to numb unpleasant feelings and, in crises, tend to try to deal with things on their own, instead of searching out closeness or help from others.”