Saintandy666

Well, I'm glad I have one ally on here!

Why? Why should one individual be obliged to give up their name? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry, to clarify, by 'most people' - I obviously mean 'most people I know', and there's sure to be a certain bias. But I don't think it's unfair to say that marriage isn't the institution it once was - what with the average age getting older and rates much lower than they used to be. And with that part of the life cycle getting a bit more loose, the other traditions associated with it seem to as well. As I said, it doesn't bother me either way. It's a personal choice, and as I wouldn't want to give up my name, I shouldn't expect anyone else too. But at the same time, I understand the appeal to many, so wouldn't want to take that away from anyone. I can imagine that plenty find the idea quite patronising and demeaning though and a hark back to the time when husbands would 'own' their wives - whereas maybe they might envisage their marriage as more of a partnership? And I'm sure this will cue the patronising *What does young Andy know?* - but it's people my age who presumably will be the next lot to get married who are gonna be the ones who decide whether to continue this or not.

Wouldn't bother me or most people my age either way (I'm 22). I wouldn't want to give up my name, so I wouldn't expect them too either. Though less and less people are getting married in the first place these days.

Draw would be fine - Liverpool have a much tougher few games coming up than us. 5th should be within our reach, as long as we beat the teams below us.

Agree that we want our MPs to be paid well and comfortable. It's a bloody difficult job, with more responsibility than most jobs. What we don't want is for it to be restricted to a few richer individuals willing to work themselves into the ground with exceptionally long commutes and work hours. £67k is not a ridiculous amount for what they do. I'm in full support of proper expenses and probably a wage rise too, though I get that that is difficult in the current circumstances. NB: I know that lots of people work long hours with a long commute for less, but that doesn't mean that is a healthy way to live and we need our executives to be healthy.

United win probably seals off Champions League aspirations (though I guess quite predictably). Still though, 6th place would be nice and would mean Europa without having to think about FA Cup permutations!

Man City are probably fine with that points cushion, but they are stuttering a bit. Reckon Arsenal could finish 2nd at this rate, and Man City 3rd, but with Liverpool resurgent also, Man U had better watch out. Hope there is a European spot for us as well (though resigned to it being Europa!)

Interesting concept of what exactly is evil. There might be some central commonalities to morality possibly based around stuff like kin selection - but aside from that, there seems to be an endless stream of variation both culturally and historically as to what 'evil' means. So seems in the end evil is best thought of as just going totally against the social conventions of the day. Although there are definitely cognitive structures that bias people towards certain personality types and rebellion from the norms, or even gift the opportunity to manipulate others effectively. Psychopaths may struggle with empathy, but they seem to be able to map people's reactions in situations exceptionally well meaning they can take control of situations. Edit: And I think there should be less 'defective brains' chat and so on, cognitive development is an incredibly plastic process that creates a spectrum of outcomes that we are all on. There's no such thing as a 'normal' brain.

I'd definitely go one step deeper than that and ask why we as a society value jobs (in monetary terms) that have been socialised to be male more than those that have been socialised to be female.

No, the point of feminism is equality between the genders. There's some disagreement about how to achieve that - at a most basic level liberal vs. radical feminism (though that being basic means it's an extremely simplistic division), but all have the same goal of 'equality'. Though even equality is a bit of a heterogenous term, though I imagine all feminists would *at the very least* want equality of opportunity, which is still a long way off. Edit: Coxford_lou put it way better than I ever could!

There isn't an innate 'function' to race, although there seems to be an instrumental use of it by organisations to divide and oppress. So it's what people have made of it. If you look at the genetic structure of humans, it's very narrow and overlapping compared to other species. The differences are minuscule and we largely base race on a few insignificant differences like skin colour (which is decided by very few genes). There is far more that unites the 'races' than divides them. The 'function' of why some of us look different is down to stuff I'm sure that you already realise to do with pigmentation and sunlight etc.

Selection doesn't happen at the level of the species anyways, it's at the level of the individual, but that's a side point. Nature =/= Culture. And isn't subservient to it either. To quote Richard Dawkins 'We alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators'. And I'm glad we do, because life and culture would be pretty miserable otherwise. So, you do not have a basic point, you just seem to be excusing universal subjugation of people based on genitals because 'survival of the species'. Do you really think if we treated everyone equally regardless of genitals, then society would collapse. What are you afraid of?

People are fundamentally cognitively different from animals. We have complex culture and that makes all the difference. Like seriously, this is primary school biology. Why does this need to be pointed out?

Of course there are some men's issues, but there are far more women's issues and so that is where most effort must reside as the problems are more numerous and relatively worse. Every day is a day where men have the overwhelming concentration of power, something women aren't afforded. Also worth point out that men's issues are generally a product of gender norms and male dominance. So access to children for example is routed in ideas that women's primary responsibility in life is to reproduce and bring up children.

Out by 6! CB Fry's very first reply was the date of men's day.

Great - thread about International Women's Day reduced to posts demeaning women to just objects of sexual desire or servants to men. Well done everyone, you've just proven the point.

The Health and Social Care act, whether you agree with it or not, represents radical reform. As does the introduction of the universal credit in welfare. Add in pupil premium, triple-lock on pensions, 10k income tax allowance, shared parental leave and equal marriage (to just name a few) and this government can clearly be shown to have been very effective. Attack them that you think their policies aren't helping the country or another way might have been better - but the coalition have done lots and by that have destroyed the idea coalition governments are ineffective.

Can not see Salmond, or indeed Angus Robertson who is the leader of the SNP in westminster, taking an active role in government with Labour. It wouldn't function because they hate each other, and it wouldn't be in the interest of the longer term goals of the party both in practice and popularity. Far more likely is a deal on further devolved powers in exchange for voting through of the main bills and budget and so on. Whether the SNP have the discipline as the Lib Dems have to carry any deal through to fruition we shall see.

Regardless of policy differences, the current coalition has been a very effective government who have introduced radical reforms to tax, welfare and the NHS. I think the last 5 years has smashed the idea that coalition doesn't work. Both parties managed to get through key policies and work together. As a second to that, the economy is also growing now again (and fast) and things are looking up.

No sure on that one - the SNP are v. popular at the moment of their own accord. You might be correct on some voters who would vote tactically, but I do think there is a fast solidifying SNP base at the moment in Scotland - and whilst it's not in the numbers to win an election, under first past the post it causes landslides.

SNP are the most interesting aspect of this election. I can't work out what's going to happen. Part of me is convinced 40 SNP seats will mean chaos - the SNP will be able to cause some trouble and trigger another election in 6 months claiming that the 'westminster elite' and Scotland just don't mix and that the second election will be treated by the SNP as a 'referendum' on another referendum. But then I think, which parties can actually support another election? Probably only the conservatives. In terms of a deal, Labour and the SNP hate each other so much I'm not sure it could be functional, and a bind with the tories for the SNP would be catastrophic for them unless they did a 'referendum for referendum' supply and confidence deal. I'm just not sure, and all I see is a lot of chaos and another general election before 5 years is up. Could be wrong though!

Yes, women are structurally and systematically disadvantaged the world over. The kind of stuff discussed in this thread is just symptomatic of that.

Stop standing by and excusing this kind of abuse. There's no need for a scale or a comparison here, this kind of stuff is **** and what you are saying is a recipe for inaction which isn't productive. We should conemn, and work to eradicate.