The debate "Why are some men choosing dogs as life companions instead of human wives" was started by
August 8, 2017, 2:57 pm.
42 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
District9 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Najam1, haneen, ThePhilosopher, Diogenes_of_Sinope, SMNR, District9 and 36 visitors agree.
Hareed, amS07, vishakha, kill_all_idiots, greencat, JDAWG9693, district10, amir_alhakim07 and 27 visitors disagree.
Dogs love you unconditionally, you could be a serial killer but your dog for th most part would to loce you ( assuming your treat it right of course)
if all women are pain in the as to you, I'm guessing the problem is with you.
That's a black and white fallacy... not all pets are cute and not all women are a pain in the ass. Also you can have both a pet and a woman so...
Which one u prefer cute animal which reduce stress or pain in the a** women?
Also sorry to disappoint I'm not creative enough to chant things to advocate for men...
I'm a feminist who advocates for the rights of men and don't think they're the embodiment of evil.
1. I didnt make a reasoning for the divorce rates as that is mostly equal between man and women by definition. what I talking about is the results of the divorce decisions being unfair.
2. if women break the norm that women are unable to work and contribute financially to the family, then the norm that the man is the sole breadwinner will be broken, sharing the stress of struggle and not putting the burden of failure solely on the man. you can't break the norms of one gender without breaking their counterpart norms.
3. "When was the last time some feminist wasn't claiming that some person was the literal embodiment of evil just because he was a man? Do tell me kind Sir."
most of them, all the time.
just because "some feminist" says something doesnt mean it represents most or even many feminists. please see my recent thread about SJWs which shows an attack video made against one of these idiot hateful feminists which has 200 comments (mostly bashing her) but only 8 likes and 7 retweets.... she isnt representing anyone but herself.
if that feminist speaks for all feminists just because shes the most outrageous ones, then logically you must believe all conservatives go out and shoot up black churches! ridiculous isnt it?
Your reasoning for men's divorce rates are flawed. Especially considering the fact that normally, men are the breadwinners (which implies they work more) and provide to the women.
You also claim feminists are trying to end the "gender norms" which lead men to be victim to higher rates of suicide and etcetera yet, these same feminists are the ones who constantly shut down talks and conferences on men's issues and want to remove father's rights. Some of them are even advocating a removal of Father's Day.
Let me ask you a question: When was the last time you heard a feminist chanting of issues surrounding men and why men are so underprivileged compared to women? When was the last time some feminist wasn't claiming that some person was the literal embodiment of evil just because he was a man? Do tell me kind Sir.
"women are weak and cant earn money on their own."
that's the gender norm behind the unfair divorce outcomes. gender norms feminists are fighting AGAINST. same gender norms that prevent men from seeking mental health help or drive them to higher suicide rates
truly a horrifying situation. I wonder why a no mens rights groups are fighting this ancient precedent instead of protesting feminist.
Because dogs won't eventually break up with you, take half your stuff, take your children, and force you to pay them thousands of dollars each month. Consider the phrase "Man's best friend".
do not wake up the Najam. please
its more like the feminist would rather like the men to have dogs instead of them lol