Members carlos padilla

Aug 7 2011: I like this talk and its question , but the solution was cowardly: "i am an alarmist". I am sure there are solutions to this issue. One solution is to have a movement in society that represents the interests of men and solely the interests of men. As long as men are viewed as the disposable, less valuable of the 2 sexes, the "demise of guys" will continue.
Step one: start giving men custody of their children. 95% of the time custody is given to women. are they better than men and therefore entrusted with the children? is this blatant discrimination? You can preach equallity and fairness all you want to men. As long as when it comes to the most important decision in anyone's life (that is where the children go) if blatant institutional discrimination exists you will not resolve any "demise of guys" issues. Family Court i s the place to start. Show young men that men martter in society for something other than, fighting wars and bing an additional wallet in a household,

Dec 16 2010: i think they are too busy blaming boys for being male to try to fix the system which is failing them.
if as much attention were given to a men's movement as was given to the women's movement we would not be having these failures in the education of boys and men,
the excuses being used are similar to the excuses used to justify the failure to educate women at the beginning of the women's movement. Rather than blame society and its inability to change the gender identity of maleness to one more suitable for the day, and one more easily educated due to external pressures to see themselves as something other than a provider that doesn't have the time for education, Ted is putting forward speakers saying that this is all part of some inane maleness inherent to men.

Sep 7 2010: wow! this guy is fantastic.

Sep 6 2010: empathy was ruled in as a potentially species benefiting characteristic that can come to the forefront of civilization via the new technologies we are using.

The part about there being no empathy in heaven or utopia comes from the fact that there is no death or suffering in those societies, therefore the feelings of empathy are not needed and could never develop. Remember he went over the part when at about age 8, a child begins to understand death, and begins to develop empathy.
now, theoretically some of the people in heaven were humans at one point, so they would in theory experience what an 8 yr old experiences at some point in their life, but what of those that never were humans?
I think Mr. Rifkin makes the assumption that there are no other ways to develop empathy and being that no death and suffering occurs in heaven, it is unnecessary, and it doesn't develop. .
Whether it is true or not, is of no consequence to the main point.

Sep 6 2010: I got the notion that he was saying universal empathy as a superstructure in human society, was now much more a reality due to technological progress, ie the internet, cell phones, etc etc.