Self Defense: "Weak men put their hands on women for any reason!"

[κomıc]

Browsing through Facebook, my friend posted a video about Whoopie Goldberg's opinion on whether or not Jay Z had the right to defend himself against Salonge when she attacked him. You can view the video here:

My whole stance on this is that, yes, if someone puts their hands on you, you have every right to hit them back or defend yourself. For me, I don't look at the gender of that person. I look at them as a person who felt that they thought putting their hands on me was appropriate.

I'm advocating domestic violence nor am I insinuating that if someone hits you then you should "beat" them up.

I'm tired of society's double standards these days. It's even more grating when there are some women who believe that no matter what, I man should not strike a woman. A Youtube commenter stated something so ridiculous it really begs the question of whether this person has any lick of common sense and reality. This is what she said:

"Just because a woman slap you, you can't turn around and shoot her and call it self defense. Self Defense is that a woman slap you and you tried to hold her hands and tried your best to stop her from hitting you and you even tried your best to walk away but she would not stop coming at you and even tried to stab you so you had to shoot her. That is self defense."

Wait. So, because she is a woman, I have to make sure that I resist myself and not hurt her even though she is trying to inflict harm onto me? What? That makes no sense. Why would anyone in their right mind try to protect their aggressor? Non-sense. And thus, it goes on:

"I'm not preaching that men should be abuse what I'm against is Whooppis silly advice that the man should turn around and knock the mess out of the woman. How about if he hits her so hard and kills her, he is only making it difficult for himself. He just going to wind up in jail for life. I can't believe that you guys agree with her ridicules advice."

This individual has made some repetitive statements about women being weaker than men (physically) and how a man can kill a woman. Okay.

If she actually did her research, there's proof that women have killed men either shooting them or stabbing them. Death is death no matter how you paint it. You cannot die from punch to the face unless you have a chronic condition (for example, my eye doctor suggested I don't play physical or intensive sports because I have floaters in my eyes and any impact to my head may lead to severe mental problems) or you're extremely frail. A woman can strike me with so much force right now and it would be no different than a man striking a woman across the face who has the same condition I do. There was even a case where a girl kicked a boy's testicles and it left permanent damage- he cannot have any children and it was over something so petty and because she wanted to do it "for fun" (this was when I was in High School).

Very recently, there was a case of a woman shooting her husband in the stomach because he "did not ejaculate enough semen during sexual intercourse" therefore, she assumed the man was cheating despite him being 50+ years old. I mean, forget about the age and understanding that older men normally have the same sex drive like they used to years ago, but no, let's jump to conclusions without any solid evidence and shoot them in the stomach because we think they were doing someone the night before.

She also shot her ex-husband years ago and charges for that case was dropped because he didn't show up to court. The woman still had access and a right to have a gun despite her pass. And to make matters worse, she got away free even though the poor guy was hospitalized for 4 weeks as the bullet punctured several vital organs and this woman is sitting at home right now with no charges pressed against her.


I need to reiterate: I'm not for domestic violence. But the double standards in this society doesn't jive with me at all. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and gender should be a non-issure. The reason why were hardly ever see any cases of "Women abusing Men" or what have you is because stigma behind it. Men are often afraid and embarassed to report any domestic violence their significant other is putting them through and even if they do report it, they are often dismissed most likely and often because "Oh, it's a woman."

We can all come to that assumption because I'm pretty sure many of us have read stories where society is dismissive against FoM (Female on Male) violence but will hammer down on MoF violence.

In the end, I'm on Whoopis side. I've never personally had a woman put their hands on me or fight me but I know from what I've learned and it's that I will never let anyone disrespect me or allow them to put their hands on me.

It's also immature and adults, we should be better than that.

It's a classic Kindergarden rule: "Keep your hands, feet (and objects) to yourself."

 

[LarsINTJ]

I agree with your concerns.

This issue stems from the fact that eggs are more important/rarer than sperm cells. Men have always been viewed as the disposable gender whereas women have been very much sheltered/protected for the sake of reproduction. It's extremely archaic.

Why do you think men evolved to be naturally larger than women?
- The weaker males didn't live long enough to reproduce due to being thrust into high risk scenarios on a regular basis (disposable).
- Strength in males is preferable during sexual selection so that the offspring are more capable of guarding the most crucial members of their tribe.

Feminism is just a bigger kick in the nuts. That isn't to say I'm against the idea of gender equality, but feminism doesn't have anything to do with equality.

Feminism in a nutshell: Hate and punish men because oppressive patriarchy... despite the fact that women select partners and raise children, thus possess way more collective power than men in guiding the future of society. Oh yeah, also reward all those tough single mothers for their terrible choices.

Here's a tip for women - stop breeding with A-holes!!
Here's a tip for men - hotness does not equal happiness!!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I love how this thread was abstracted from a video featuring 'The View' (quality television) featuring a security camera footage with no facts on the actual events that happened in the footage.

What we get is three minutes of on/off speculation and commentary about social norms with notable commentary from 'The View''s talk show hosts pushing strong stances on something wholly immaterial via a short security camera footage of a scuffle between Jay-Z and Salonge.

Then we have a provocative forum post furthering the hypotheticals in a conversation about a hypothetical situation that is based on a true security camera footage that features no solid facts on any of the speculations having any relevance to the 'actual' situation.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Women are just as capable of evil as men are. Yet female evil always seems to come with some hand-waving excuse. What about men? Oh, they're just evil, no excuse, bad bad men. The dirty disposable gender doesn't deserve reconsideration.

True equality is not concerned about privileges (people are definitely not born with equal prospects for what they can realistically achieve), it is about responsibility for one's own actions. Feminists in particular recoil from responsibility, they want to shaft it all onto men... as if men aren't already shafted.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

What's sad is that news channels exploit situations like this to turn it into pointless banter about 'privileges' that no one will actually bother to fight for or materialize into actual demands for civil rights.

Also this news is old. So old.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What's sad is that news channels exploit situations like this to turn it into pointless banter about 'privileges' that no one will actually bother to fight for or materialize into actual demands for civil rights.

'Civil rights' is an elusive term. There's an abstract positive connotation, but what does it specifically refer to? How can politics tell us what is and isn't acceptable when the purpose of politics is to create exemptions? (e.g. how often are presidents punished for blatant war-crimes?)

I know what you mean though.

Like I said, equal accountability for behavior/choices would significantly contribute toward fairness within society.

We should have enough respect for women not to treat them like inept babies. Feminists, put on your big-girl-panties and accept some responsibility.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I got interested in gender issues via anti-feminist Karen Straughan and my skepticism over feminist ideas like "patriarchy" and "**** culture". Her critique of feminism resonates with much of what Lars is saying. Our society cares more about female victims of violence, and will readily excuse female perpetrators.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I got interested in gender issues via anti-feminist Karen Straughan and my skepticism over feminist ideas like "patriarchy" and "**** culture". Her critique of feminism resonates with much of what Lars is saying. Our society cares more about female victims of violence, and will readily excuse female perpetrators.

Not really though. I'm not really in the know about perpetrator culture and who are the ones who get away with it in the end. However, I recently read an article in the New York Times which I could pull for you about a sports team getting away with ****** a girl on a pool table and the academic committee overlooking it as well as the local cops although the sports team gave conflicting reports and lied to the oversight committee on at least two cases regarding the events that happened at the time.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I recently read an article in the New York Times which I could pull for you about a sports team getting away with ****** a girl on a pool table and the academic committee overlooking it as well as the local cops although the sports team gave conflicting reports and lied to the oversight committee on at least two cases regarding the events that happened at the time.

It's unclear whether the girl was incapacitated or just regretted having drunk sex with multiple guys. And in general, men are ***** (including "made to penetrate") almost as often as women according to a 2010 CDC survey of 18,000 US adults (tables 2.1, 2.2). Our society has female domestic violence shelters and resources to help female **** victims, but violence towards boys and men is consistently overlooked, trivialized, or defined out of existence.

 

[Game Boy Blue]

I think if you feel you have no other option, and cannot or have already warned them, it is ok to strike back offensively. If it is needed, then so be it, and if it is the best way bring it on. That said, I am open to other options as well, such as pushing and shoving.

 

[κomıc]

I love how this thread was abstracted from a video featuring 'The View' (quality television) featuring a security camera footage with no facts on the actual events that happened in the footage.

What we get is three minutes of on/off speculation and commentary about social norms with notable commentary from 'The View''s talk show hosts pushing strong stances on something wholly immaterial via a short security camera footage of a scuffle between Jay-Z and Salonge.

Then we have a provocative forum post furthering the hypotheticals in a conversation about a hypothetical situation that is based on a true security camera footage that features no solid facts on any of the speculations having any relevance to the 'actual' situation.

The post really wasn't about "The View". It was more about an individuals thought process of "Men cannot hit women for ANY reason." And there are others who think this.

No one should be putting their hands on anyone. Period. But if they do, you have the right to defend yourself.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The post really wasn't about "The View". It was more about an individuals thought process of "Men cannot hit women for ANY reason." And there are others who think this. No one should be putting their hands on anyone. Period. But if they do, you have the right to defend yourself.

You have horrible reading comprehension skills.

 

[κomıc]

You have horrible reading comprehension skills.

No I don't. Because this is what YOU said. What is there to comprehend? Is there a hidden message behind your whiny **** post?

Don't talk about anyone's reading comprehension when your communication skills are mediocre itself. And when you totally missed the point of the post other than to ridicule it just for the sake of it and for your own gain. It's pathetic showcase on your part.

 

[Thor]

I'm not sexist - I will attempt to punch an attacker be they a man or woman.

I agree with your concerns.

This issue stems from the fact that eggs are more important/rarer than sperm cells. Men have always been viewed as the disposable gender whereas women have been very much sheltered/protected for the sake of reproduction. It's extremely archaic.

Why do you think men evolved to be naturally larger than women?
- The weaker males didn't live long enough to reproduce due to being thrust into high risk scenarios on a regular basis (disposable).
- Strength in males is preferable during sexual selection so that the offspring are more capable of guarding the most crucial members of their tribe.

Feminism is just a bigger kick in the nuts. That isn't to say I'm against the idea of gender equality, but feminism doesn't have anything to do with equality.

Feminism in a nutshell: Hate and punish men because oppressive patriarchy... despite the fact that women select partners and raise children, thus possess way more collective power than men in guiding the future of society. Oh yeah, also reward all those tough single mothers for their terrible choices.

Here's a tip for women - stop breeding with A-holes!!
Here's a tip for men - hotness does not equal happiness!!

You don't understand feminism in the slightest, and it would take me too long to explain all the false things you managed to put out. But if you knew what first-wave feminism was you'd see just how wrong you actually are. At best you paint a picture of casual radical feminists, which is by and large the minority (and by far the stupidest group of feminists). And you give men a bad name, because people read bullcrap drivel like this and assume all men think this way (you just gave them ammo).

Women are just as capable of evil as men are. Yet female evil always seems to come with some hand-waving excuse. What about men? Oh, they're just evil, no excuse, bad bad men. The dirty disposable gender doesn't deserve reconsideration.

True equality is not concerned about privileges (people are definitely not born with equal prospects for what they can realistically achieve), it is about responsibility for one's own actions. Feminists in particular recoil from responsibility, they want to shaft it all onto men... as if men aren't already shafted.

Again, this is depressing to read. The first part is a byproduct of the patriarchy you seem to be arguing does not exist (at which point you should just open your eyes)... and feminists want more responsibility last I checked (we'll even use your stereotypes: "I wanna be the breadwinner and pay the bills and make the decisions so the stupid men can stay home and just take care of kids" or something like that.) Or a realistic example: First-wave feminist (which are all outdated because they succeeded): "I want the right/responsibility to vote to have a say in where the country goes."

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

No I don't. Because this is what YOU said. What is there to comprehend? Is there a hidden message behind your whiny **** post? Don't talk about anyone's reading comprehension when your communication skills are mediocre itself. And when you totally missed the point of the post other than to ridicule it just for the sake of it and for your own gain. It's pathetic showcase on your part.

The post really wasn't about "The View". It was more about an individuals thought process of "Men cannot hit women for ANY reason." And there are others who think this. No one should be putting their hands on anyone. Period. But if they do, you have the right to defend yourself.

You felt ridiculed, therefore you decided to criticize a post that I didn't write. I've made it clear over the series of my posts that I'm not solely talking about "The View." In my initial post, I use the term abstracted with a clear emphasis on the term being to draw or to stem with a conclusion that points that the intention is not to try to understand what's going on with the Salonje situation, but to rapidly jump on presumptions in order to offer personal opinions on a desired topic.

It may have been misleading that I provided a summary of the video explaining how the talk show hosts use the situation in order to enforce their own opinions on the matter. However, note that in the following post I draw a broader analogy to news channels and discuss how they exploit any situation to turn it into a means for them to push their own social commentary. This is the point that I'm making. That the Salonge incident is completely meaningless to furthering this discussion and is simply used as a trash topic for you to bait us into injecting your own opinions that could be completely irrelevant to the actual incident.

It's a given that men shouldn't hit women, shoot women, **** women, you name it. However, if you think that society suffers from a lack of an awareness that we simply don't know that hitting women, men, children, the elderly, the sick, or whoever else then you're out of touch with society. If you think that context is completely irrelevant when it comes to a man hitting another woman then you're out of touch with society. Presuming that men by iron clad law should never hit a woman irregardless of circumstances is demonstrative of willful ignorance.

I'm not showcasing or grandstanding. There are objectively better defined instances and pundits than Woopi and whatever intellectual power house they have @ the View regarding a topic as undefined as the Salonje incident. There are better ways of refuting a point then creating a straw-man out of it and then attacking it. There are more mature ways of discourse than using a profanity and there is a more accountable standard for behavior protocol than falling into somone else's ad hom fallacy. I don't believe I need to restrict myself to higher standards. However, it's interesting to know that the person trying to dictate a value, "Don't hit those women guys under any circumstances!!!" is quick to denigrate himself to profanities, ad-homs, and blatant misrepresentation in order to recoup damaged dignity.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'm not sexist - I will attempt to punch an attacker be they a man or woman.



You don't understand feminism in the slightest, and it would take me too long to explain all the false things you managed to put out. But if you knew what first-wave feminism was you'd see just how wrong you actually are. At best you paint a picture of casual radical feminists, which is by and large the minority (and by far the stupidest group of feminists). And you give men a bad name, because people read bullcrap drivel like this and assume all men think this way (you just gave them ammo).

Again, this is depressing to read. The first part is a byproduct of the patriarchy you seem to be arguing does not exist (at which point you should just open your eyes)... and feminists want more responsibility last I checked (we'll even use your stereotypes: "I wanna be the breadwinner and pay the bills and make the decisions so the stupid men can stay home and just take care of kids" or something like that.) Or a realistic example: First-wave feminist (which are all outdated because they succeeded): "I want the right/responsibility to vote to have a say in where the country goes."

As if I haven't heard this "First-Wave vs. radicals" excuse before. Check out the Honey Badger Brigade - I possess little influence regardless of what I put forward, being an innate member of the 'oppressive patriarchy'.

By the way, there's no substance in your response, attacks on my integrity are not counter-arguments.

Also, you should probably avoid the hypocrisy of framing yourself as 'not sexist' then immediately launching into a tirade attempting to justify the value of Feminism, a fundamentally sexist ideology.

You're male too, I get it, we're biologically driven to protect women, but if you view my attack on Feminism as an attack on all women then that's definitely a misunderstanding.

Both genders had their fair share of issues in the past. Feminism denies and misconstrues the experience of men, that is why I am against it.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

The first part is a byproduct of the patriarchy you seem to be arguing does not exist (at which point you should just open your eyes)

Women wield enormous power over men in issues of domestic violence law, **** law, family law, reproductive rights, gender studies, and anything involving recognition of victimhood. This may be a byproduct of the gendering of our perceptions of agency, but it substantially refutes the idea of patriarchy as pervasive male power over women.

and feminists want more responsibility last I checked

Unless that responsibility involves paying for children that they unilaterally chose to create.

 

[Sucumbio]

Women wield enormous power over men in issues of domestic violence law, **** law, family law, reproductive rights, gender studies, and anything involving recognition of victimhood. This may be a byproduct of the gendering of our perceptions of agency, but it substantially refutes the idea of patriarchy as pervasive male power over women.


Unless that responsibility involves paying for children that they unilaterally chose to create.

Just nitpicking but women can't even get their tubes tied without all kinds of stipulations so I'm not seeing them as necessarily having enormous power over reproductive rights.

 

[Thor]

As if I haven't heard this "First-Wave vs. radicals" excuse before. Check out the Honey Badger Brigade - I possess little influence regardless of what I put forward, being an innate member of the 'oppressive patriarchy'.

By the way, there's no substance in your response, attacks on my integrity are not counter-arguments.

Also, you should probably avoid the hypocrisy of framing yourself as 'not sexist' then immediately launching into a tirade attempting to justify the value of Feminism, a fundamentally sexist ideology.

You're male too, I get it, we're biologically driven to protect women, but if you view my attack on Feminism as an attack on all women then that's definitely a misunderstanding.

Both genders had their fair share of issues in the past. Feminism denies and misconstrues the experience of men, that is why I am against it.

You've GOT to be kidding me...

It's not an "excuse" it's a fact. There are feminists out there who call themselves feminists because they want to push for equal rights for women, instead of being denied rights to equal pay for equal work hours for equal jobs and equal (or often better) performance, being denied the right to vote (That would be the first-wave feminists), and being denied a job because they are more qualified except being a woman is a black mark so they're passed over. And it happens. And it's ********. Try again.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with that URL, except I did click on the "Why **** jokes?", and the logic behind their argument is just terrible. It's like saying we should just make Nazi jokes all the time about the concentration camps to show how stupid it is - you necessarily trivialize everything involved when you do so, which then makes the Jewish/gay/crippled/non-white experiences in those camps trivialized as well, because it's all one good joke. I don't think if you were ***** you'd be able to just have a good laugh about it, and the assumption that all people (men and women) should be able to is grossly ignorant of the damage **** can do to someone psychologically.

I didn't attack your integrity, I attacked your ignorance of feminism. Learn the difference.

There's zero point zero hypocrisy in what I say - you are begging the question in order to attack my character, which is laughable. And you haven't even described why it's fundamentally sexist except one incredibly vague statement.

I'm not "biologically driven to protect women" - if I am, then it must manifest itself as "biologically driven to protect people who are unfairly attacked" because I will also defend Jewish people, people who are not white, and people who gently show children certain parts of religion to teach moral values (ex: If you see someone injured, even if they are very different to you, you should help them - oh wait never mind we already discussed that if I see you like that I should kick you, shine my shoes on your pants, and keep walking).

Not all feminists deny and misconstrue the experience of men - there are many feminists who work to right the wrongs the casual radical feminists (the feminazis) argue for. There are women who understand that some men DO want to take care of kids, but can't because some assume the women will, or that men DO want to work, but they live in a relationship controlling enough to where they're forced to take care of the kids, and that NEITHER situation is fair.

For what it's worth, there's definitely some feminine aspects of feminism, but people always miss that because it's assumed to be offensive/etc. You'll probably just call me crazy/sexist/inaccurate term, but I can explain more (and link you to a TED talk).

You're painting things in such broad terms that you seem not to understand that there are good people out there who care, because there is no real substance to your claims that feminism is sexist. You're also making it incredibility difficult for me to understand exactly what bone you have to pick with feminists, but I can tell you you're mistaken if you're picking a bone with those who just want to prevent people from being treated differently on the basis of sex.

Here, I think it'll do you some good to read this article: http://www3.delta.edu/cmurbano/bio199/AIDS_Sexuality/BabyX.pdf

If that's not linking properly, use this one, and click on the phrase "Baby X." http://www3.delta.edu/cmurbano/bio199/bio199.Unit_sex.html

That's partly what I'm talking about - breaking down the normative assumptions we hold that are also baseless (fun fact - up until the 1940s, boys were supposed to wear pink and girls were supposed to wear blue, because it was the color most suited to each gender).

Unless that responsibility involves paying for children that they unilaterally chose to create.

XR ROFL YOU'VE JUST TROLLING AT THIS POINT A women can't "unilaterally" create a child, unless the woman ***** someone else and demands child support, at which point I agree with you fully. But if they've been *****, that's DEFINITELY not unilateral on their side, and if they're in a marriage it's going to be bilateral in nearly every situation. If the father then walks out, he should pay up for his mistakes, much in the way that a company doing environmental damage should pay up for their mistakes instead of leaving and saying "Not my problem."

Unless you want to explain to me further what you mean, but I think that's what you're saying and if so, that's completely incorrect and also offensive to imply that because someone is a woman, it's their sole responsibility to care for the child (that's also sexist).

 

[Claire Diviner]

A slap in the face is one thing. Any man can easily brush that off. But if anyone (let alone a man or woman) comes at another individual with the intent to inflict injury, then all bets are off.

As far as feminism goes, only the extremists aim for the extinction of men, the extinction of the trans community, and/or the allowance of equal pay with less work. True feminism is about being treated with respect, without our opinions being brushed aside because our thoughts "aren't as valuable as a man's", without having our bodies constantly sexualized, without having to worry about men ****** us and blaming us for the clothes we wear (hell, a woman can be naked and that still wouldn't warrant unwanted sexual contact). Anyway, that's for another debate, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[LarsINTJ]

It's not an "excuse" it's a fact. There are feminists out there who call themselves feminists because they want to push for equal rights for women, instead of being denied rights to equal pay for equal work hours for equal jobs and equal (or often better) performance, being denied the right to vote (That would be the first-wave feminists), and being denied a job because they are more qualified except being a woman is a black mark so they're passed over. And it happens. And it's ********. Try again.

Actually that's a lie. Women statistically earn less due to pregnancy/raising kids, that's a whole lot of time that they can't be generating value for a company. With all other factors being equal, women earn exactly the same amount as men for an equivalent amount of work. Check out Dr. Warren Farrell's books for more information on this (and most other relevant topics to do with gender issues).

I don't know what you're trying to prove with that URL, except I did click on the "Why **** jokes?", and the logic behind their argument is just terrible. It's like saying we should just make Nazi jokes all the time about the concentration camps to show how stupid it is - you necessarily trivialize everything involved when you do so, which then makes the Jewish/gay/crippled/non-white experiences in those camps trivialized as well, because it's all one good joke. I don't think if you were ***** you'd be able to just have a good laugh about it, and the assumption that all people (men and women) should be able to is grossly ignorant of the damage **** can do to someone psychologically.

Descriptions and analogies are not arguments.

I didn't attack your integrity, I attacked your ignorance of feminism. Learn the difference.

Denying an attack on my integrity by continuing to attack my integrity? Well done.

There's zero point zero hypocrisy in what I say - you are begging the question in order to attack my character, which is laughable. And you haven't even described why it's fundamentally sexist except one incredibly vague statement.

I never attacked your character by pointing out hypocrisy. My prior posts have already outlined why Feminism is sexist - if you have a problem with it, then explain to me how Feminism is not sexist. Oops, that's right, I'm just ignorant... so everything I say can be automatically dismissed without reason.

I'm not "biologically driven to protect women" - if I am, then it must manifest itself as "biologically driven to protect people who are unfairly attacked" because I will also defend Jewish people, people who are not white, and people who gently show children certain parts of religion to teach moral values (ex: If you see someone injured, even if they are very different to you, you should help them - oh wait never mind we already discussed that if I see you like that I should kick you, shine my shoes on your pants, and keep walking).

The entire history of men has been an endless struggle to shelter women while risking their own disposable a**es.

Not all feminists deny and misconstrue the experience of men - there are many feminists who work to right the wrongs the casual radical feminists (the feminazis) argue for. There are women who understand that some men DO want to take care of kids, but can't because some assume the women will, or that men DO want to work, but they live in a relationship controlling enough to where they're forced to take care of the kids, and that NEITHER situation is fair.

These 'Feminazis' are simply taking the ideas of Feminism to their logical conclusion.

"If all men are irredeemable sociopaths then they should be murdered" - "Men can be artificially replaced with modern bio-technology because they are only necessary for reproduction, right?"

There are no nice Feminists, they all choose to place themselves under the same banner of crazy. They do not have any core objections toward what the 'radicals' openly declare, it just makes them feel uncomfortable.

However, there are many people who identify as being Feminist, although misunderstand what the ideology actually entails. It really just boils down to a desire for conformity and social approval (especially when a male wants female approval).

For what it's worth, there's definitely some feminine aspects of feminism, but people always miss that because it's assumed to be offensive/etc. You'll probably just call me crazy/sexist/inaccurate term, but I can explain more (and link you to a TED talk).

If Feminism isn't purely about taking from men in order to prop up women for no reason other than gender, then please explain to me why it's called 'Feminism'. If they love 'equality' so much, then why is there no such thing as Masculinism?.

You're painting things in such broad terms that you seem not to understand that there are good people out there who care, because there is no real substance to your claims that feminism is sexist. You're also making it incredibility difficult for me to understand exactly what bone you have to pick with feminists, but I can tell you you're mistaken if you're picking a bone with those who just want to prevent people from being treated differently on the basis of sex.

I'm just a truncating moron speaking gibberish - dismiss everything I say.

 

[Thor]

Actually that's a lie. Women statistically earn less due to pregnancy/raising kids, that's a whole lot of time that they can't be generating value for a company. With all other factors being equal, women earn exactly the same amount as men for an equivalent amount of work. Check out Dr. Warren Farrell's books for more information on this (and most other relevant topics to do with gender issues).

There are some companies where women are still paid less because they are women. The 77 cents on the dollar thing is a joke, but I believe I've read that it's like 99 cents on the dollar to what men make. Which sounds low, but if you make $50,000 a year, you lose 1% of that = $500, which is a lot. And even if that stat is not correct, there are other ways women are disenfranchised - I don't feel like discussing that right now because this point is significantly less important than some stuff you said below.

Descriptions and analogies are not arguments.

Neither is a URL without explanation. And I'm pointing out why the logic doesn't hold up in a similar argument (And I pointed out why the original argument is bad too).

Denying an attack on my integrity by continuing to attack my integrity? Well done.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

Integrity: noun

firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility

I haven't attacked your integrity at all, you just don't understand what it means. And you just look stupid when you insist that calling someone ignorant is attacking their integrity. I'm not saying you're evil for not wanting equal rights, I'm saying you're ignorant to think all feminists are man-haters or whatever you've been trying to say, but been unable to articulate up until now.

I never attacked your character by pointing out hypocrisy. My prior posts have already outlined why Feminism is sexist - if you have a problem with it, then explain to me how Feminism is not sexist. Oops, that's right, I'm just ignorant... so everything I say can be automatically dismissed without reason.

*facepalm*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character?show=0&t=1408139165

Character

the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality

The only part of your character I attacked is your bigoted insistence on calling an entire group bad because you use the most extreme data points as a norm (do with a skin color and it's called racism). If that offends you, then I hope I offend you further, because I find it soothingly ironic when I can offend a bigot.

And you called me a hypocrite, instead of pointing out a contradiction that doesn't exist, which is an assault on my integrity (Which is downright laughable, really, for you to attack me on the basis that I'm not in favor of the morality of equality).

Now as to the actual stuff you said: NONE of what you have said has outlined why feminism is sexist:

Feminism in a nutshell: Hate and punish men because oppressive patriarchy... despite the fact that women select partners and raise children, thus possess way more collective power than men in guiding the future of society. Oh yeah, also reward all those tough single mothers for their terrible choices.

That's fundamentally NOT what feminism is - I don't know who you've talked to, but there are plenty of women who want equality, but still love men because they care too and are good people - you've painted feminism with the same brush you claim they erroneously use on men, which IS hypocritical (and also hilarious if you're being sarcastic, but you don't seem to be...).

Also, your claim that women "Raise children" and "Select partners" implies men don't raise kids and are simply lined up and picked out by women, which isn't how it works AT ALL... although in many parts of the world men do get to line up women and pick one... maybe not in the US, but elsewhere for sure patriarchy is alive and well and if you don't see it you need to open your eyes [as I've said before].

Also men are in most of the seats of Congress/House of Representatives and many MANY other governments - those are the people who have the armies and money that REALLY shape how society changes. Get real.

Tough single mothers? Well when the men walk out, despite promising otherwise [and it definitely happens], it's tough indeed, something you CLEARLY don't have any experience with.

Here's another word you definitely should learn, and if you know it, you should practice more of: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

These 'Feminazis' are simply taking the ideas of Feminism to their logical conclusion.

"If all men are irredeemable sociopaths then they should be killed" - "Men can be artificially replaced with modern bio-technology because they are only necessary for reproduction, right?"

There are no nice Feminists, they all choose to place themselves under the same banner of crazy. They do not have any core objections toward what the 'radicals' openly declare, it just makes them feel uncomfortable.

However, there are many people who identify as being Feminist, although misunderstand what the ideology actually entails. It really just boils down to a desire for conformity and social approval (especially when a male wants female approval).

I didn't even know it was possible, but you managed to inject retardedness in concentrated form into a discussion thread.

Men are NOT irredeemable sociopaths, and that has NEVER been a tenet of feminism. That conclusion is also illogical, but I'm not going into that now because there's so much other crap.

First, there ARE nice feminists, I'll link you to one right now, who also has a TED talk you should listen to: http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny

I consider myself a feminist (and you can scoff "That's impossible", but I exist, therefore you are wrong) because there are many problems with the way pregnancy is portrayed in the media, the way breast cancer campaigns are run, the way black masculinity is portrayed, the way the global care chain has extended and abuse of third-world women occurs daily in the US, and the way that people seem to think that because women can vote everything is fine and dandy.

I do have core objections to what radicals declare, namely that men are evil, that people can get along without men, that sexuality is a choice, and some other tenets I won't describe right now. They're all wrong. But at the same time, they hold the idea that women should not be treated differently (beyond biological accommodations, i.e. certain bathroom products and not really needing urinals) because they're not men. And yes, that's true.

I don't really care about social approval at all, other than what will inhibit me from [business] success.

It's not that feminists misidentify what the ideology entails, it's that you misunderstand what feminism entails (and I don't care about conformity - it's why I don't swear at all [which is a mark of conformity in small groups], why I'm unafraid to do things that look "Feminine" in public [a mark of conformity in public] and why I don't care to rate women [a mark of conformity in male circles]).

If you are going to disagree, then be pedantic with me - lay out the entire ideology of feminism and tell me what each tenet means - because clearly these sources aren't cutting it for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism

And tell me: As someone who supports the equality of women in political, cultural, social, and economic spheres, what am I?

If Feminism isn't purely about taking from men in order to prop up women for no reason other than gender, then please explain to me why it's called 'Feminism'. If they love 'equality' so much, then why is there no such thing as Masculinism?.

*rage quits*
*comes back*

Maybe, I dunno, cuz men have had all the rights for more than 95% of the years AD?

It's never been about TAKING, but GIVING. It GIVES them rights!

Oh wait, you're just salty because it TAKES some of the power a man's vote has because there's also going to be a woman diluting the voting pool, is that it?

There's no one out there with political power who's earnestly seeking to limit men's rights in any significant way. But there ARE people who are seeking to limit women's rights in significant ways. I'll tell you this, men certainly don't need to worry about losing rights in India, unless you count the right to martial ****, which oh yeah, the Supreme Court held up as legal anyway (at least at last check from me - I gave up reading it because I was disgusted).

You seem to not know then men could always vote, could always hold positions of government, didn't have to be viewed as awful for life for being divorced, weren't ruined if they weren't "pure" before marriage (who the **** even talks about pure men before marriage? No one, because it's an asymmetrical norm that disadvantages ONLY women who break it), that women have been systematically disenfranchised of rights men had throughout much of history.

At the point that people start trying to steal men's rights, you can be damn sure there will be plenty of people who are conservative who will make a vocal movement to claim back their rights (And there are already groups who are fighting to limit women's rights because they say they have too much power now). But there is no formal movement because there has never been any threat to men's rights in the US or in nearly every part of the world (I say nearly because I'm sure there's one small country I've never heard of).

But throughout history, men have always had the rights that women don't, not the other way around - since feminism is about making rights equalized for women, there is not masculinism movement because there aren't rights that women have that men don't.

Also, @ Sucumbio or anyone else, feel free to chip in on why "There's no masculinism ergo feminism isn't about equality" is a fallacious argument - I don't think I'm explaining it well enough.

I'm just a truncating moron speaking gibberish - dismiss everything I say.

At least you can see you're a moron. The problem is that you're unwilling to change, or else you wouldn't be a moron, merely misinformed.

There's also a reason most the other people have already dismissed what you said - they didn't bite the troll bait as hard as I did. But I make mistakes too, and I don't feel like deleting all this, so I'll post it anyway.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Just nitpicking but women can't even get their tubes tied without all kinds of stipulations so I'm not seeing them as necessarily having enormous power over reproductive rights.

Men have similar stipulations for getting vasectomies - doctors want to ensure they're serious before taking any risks.

Women can opt out of parenthood by birth control, morning-after pill, abortion, adoption, or abandonment (at a safe haven). They can coerce men and boys into parenthood by ****, lying, and/or sabotage yet still receive custody and child support.

if they've been *****, that's DEFINITELY not unilateral on their side, and if they're in a marriage it's going to be bilateral in nearly every situation. [...] that's completely incorrect and also offensive to imply that because someone is a woman, it's their sole responsibility to care for the child (that's also sexist).

I never claimed that all childbearing choices are unilateral or that women should always be responsible for childcare. Rather, when childbearing choices are unilateral (mostly outside of marriage), whoever makes the choice deserves the responsibility.

If the father then walks out, he should pay up for his mistakes, much in the way that a company doing environmental damage should pay up for their mistakes instead of leaving and saying "Not my problem."

The situation is very different if the man was forced into fatherhood by a woman who overruled his wishes. Are you saying it is a mistake for men to have sex before they're ready to be fathers?

 

[Sucumbio]

Well the difficulty is you mentioned "reproductive rights" which is a very specific (legally) realm of matters. Not only have women historically and currently still have had difficult getting birth control easily, many doctors feel as if a woman should not make the decision to undergo tubal ligation. Here in Mississippi doctors literally lie to their patients, stating "you have to be at least X age" (not true) or "you have to have at least Y number of children first) (also not true). Men on the other hand have a much easier go of it. They sit down w/their doctor and discuss the procedure (which is statistically easier to reverse) and then it is done, whereas several hospitals will actually refuse to do the procedure for women (Catholic hospitals, for instance). It's a double standard perpetuated by a culture of male-dominated legislation which believes that a woman's womb is too important to let someone "who is ruled by their emotions" to simply "throw it away."

Also, though not directed at me, yes men should be ready to be fathers if they have intercourse. And women. People - "should" be ready to be a parent if they are going to have sex. The only 100 percent foolproof way to avoid pregnancy is still abstinence. In some rare cases even surgeries have failed.

Lastly, **** is in itself an entirely separate issue for both men and women, and should not be used when discussing pure feminism. Though it's true some women will "trap" a male into bearing their child only to collect the child support, this practice is perpetuated by a social class of entitlement-hungry Americans, it is neither acceptable nor related to women's rights, which were fought for so valiantly because for so long women had so no say in anything - is it still necessary to be this way? No, not in all respects, though "the glass ceiling" still applies. Women managers outnumber male managers, true, and terrific, but past a certain level of leadership, you get back to male-dominated numbers, because that's "how the world works."

 

[Claire Diviner]

Thor wins. Seriously, I couldn't have been anymore clear or concise as your last post, and there really isn't anything to be added. If no one can understand every word posted, then they clearly have issues with understanding.

 

[LarsINTJ]

There are some companies where women are still paid less because they are women. The 77 cents on the dollar thing is a joke, but I believe I've read that it's like 99 cents on the dollar to what men make. Which sounds low, but if you make $50,000 a year, you lose 1% of that = $500, which is a lot. And even if that stat is not correct, there are other ways women are disenfranchised - I don't feel like discussing that right now because this point is significantly less important than some stuff you said below.



Neither is a URL without explanation. And I'm pointing out why the logic doesn't hold up in a similar argument (And I pointed out why the original argument is bad too).



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

Integrity: noun

firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility

I haven't attacked your integrity at all, you just don't understand what it means. And you just look stupid when you insist that calling someone ignorant is attacking their integrity. I'm not saying you're evil for not wanting equal rights, I'm saying you're ignorant to think all feminists are man-haters or whatever you've been trying to say, but been unable to articulate up until now.



*facepalm*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character?show=0&t=1408139165

Character

the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality

The only part of your character I attacked is your bigoted insistence on calling an entire group bad because you use the most extreme data points as a norm (do with a skin color and it's called racism). If that offends you, then I hope I offend you further, because I find it soothingly ironic when I can offend a bigot.

And you called me a hypocrite, instead of pointing out a contradiction that doesn't exist, which is an assault on my integrity (Which is downright laughable, really, for you to attack me on the basis that I'm not in favor of the morality of equality).

Now as to the actual stuff you said: NONE of what you have said has outlined why feminism is sexist:



That's fundamentally NOT what feminism is - I don't know who you've talked to, but there are plenty of women who want equality, but still love men because they care too and are good people - you've painted feminism with the same brush you claim they erroneously use on men, which IS hypocritical (and also hilarious if you're being sarcastic, but you don't seem to be...).

Also, your claim that women "Raise children" and "Select partners" implies men don't raise kids and are simply lined up and picked out by women, which isn't how it works AT ALL... although in many parts of the world men do get to line up women and pick one... maybe not in the US, but elsewhere for sure patriarchy is alive and well and if you don't see it you need to open your eyes [as I've said before].

Also men are in most of the seats of Congress/House of Representatives and many MANY other governments - those are the people who have the armies and money that REALLY shape how society changes. Get real.

Tough single mothers? Well when the men walk out, despite promising otherwise [and it definitely happens], it's tough indeed, something you CLEARLY don't have any experience with.

Here's another word you definitely should learn, and if you know it, you should practice more of: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy



I didn't even know it was possible, but you managed to inject retardedness in concentrated form into a discussion thread.

Men are NOT irredeemable sociopaths, and that has NEVER been a tenet of feminism. That conclusion is also illogical, but I'm not going into that now because there's so much other crap.

First, there ARE nice feminists, I'll link you to one right now, who also has a TED talk you should listen to: http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny

I consider myself a feminist (and you can scoff "That's impossible", but I exist, therefore you are wrong) because there are many problems with the way pregnancy is portrayed in the media, the way breast cancer campaigns are run, the way black masculinity is portrayed, the way the global care chain has extended and abuse of third-world women occurs daily in the US, and the way that people seem to think that because women can vote everything is fine and dandy.

I do have core objections to what radicals declare, namely that men are evil, that people can get along without men, that sexuality is a choice, and some other tenets I won't describe right now. They're all wrong. But at the same time, they hold the idea that women should not be treated differently (beyond biological accommodations, i.e. certain bathroom products and not really needing urinals) because they're not men. And yes, that's true.

I don't really care about social approval at all, other than what will inhibit me from [business] success.

It's not that feminists misidentify what the ideology entails, it's that you misunderstand what feminism entails (and I don't care about conformity - it's why I don't swear at all [which is a mark of conformity in small groups], why I'm unafraid to do things that look "Feminine" in public [a mark of conformity in public] and why I don't care to rate women [a mark of conformity in male circles]).

If you are going to disagree, then be pedantic with me - lay out the entire ideology of feminism and tell me what each tenet means - because clearly these sources aren't cutting it for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism

And tell me: As someone who supports the equality of women in political, cultural, social, and economic spheres, what am I?



*rage quits*
*comes back*

Maybe, I dunno, cuz men have had all the rights for more than 95% of the years AD?

It's never been about TAKING, but GIVING. It GIVES them rights!

Oh wait, you're just salty because it TAKES some of the power a man's vote has because there's also going to be a woman diluting the voting pool, is that it?

There's no one out there with political power who's earnestly seeking to limit men's rights in any significant way. But there ARE people who are seeking to limit women's rights in significant ways. I'll tell you this, men certainly don't need to worry about losing rights in India, unless you count the right to martial ****, which oh yeah, the Supreme Court held up as legal anyway (at least at last check from me - I gave up reading it because I was disgusted).

You seem to not know then men could always vote, could always hold positions of government, didn't have to be viewed as awful for life for being divorced, weren't ruined if they weren't "pure" before marriage (who the **** even talks about pure men before marriage? No one, because it's an asymmetrical norm that disadvantages ONLY women who break it), that women have been systematically disenfranchised of rights men had throughout much of history.

At the point that people start trying to steal men's rights, you can be damn sure there will be plenty of people who are conservative who will make a vocal movement to claim back their rights (And there are already groups who are fighting to limit women's rights because they say they have too much power now). But there is no formal movement because there has never been any threat to men's rights in the US or in nearly every part of the world (I say nearly because I'm sure there's one small country I've never heard of).

But throughout history, men have always had the rights that women don't, not the other way around - since feminism is about making rights equalized for women, there is not masculinism movement because there aren't rights that women have that men don't.

Also, @ Sucumbio or anyone else, feel free to chip in on why "There's no masculinism ergo feminism isn't about equality" is a fallacious argument - I don't think I'm explaining it well enough.


At least you can see you're a moron. The problem is that you're unwilling to change, or else you wouldn't be a moron, merely misinformed.

There's also a reason most the other people have already dismissed what you said - they didn't bite the troll bait as hard as I did. But I make mistakes too, and I don't feel like deleting all this, so I'll post it anyway.

You're confirming the ridiculousness of Feminism in that increasingly defensive (and empty) hostility. This typical misguided perspective is based on tiresome propaganda. Sensible thinkers who are confident in their arguments do not chuck hissy fits and project their own willful ignorance onto the opposition. If you have a problem with what I'm saying then show me how I'm wrong.

Why is it that Feminists - who've essentially had the political system by the balls for fifty years - still demand more legislation in their favor while insisting that the fictitious 'oppressive patriarchy' is as bad as ever? It's just like any other government program, an insatiable excuse for free money.

I've already said everything I need to say, it's not my fault you've ignored it and continue to demonize me simply because you're against the idea of thinking for yourself and desire easy social approval among others who can't think.

 

[Thor]

You're confirming the ridiculousness of Feminism in that increasingly defensive (and empty) hostility. This typical misguided perspective is based on tiresome propaganda.

Why is it that Feminists - who've essentially had the political system by the balls for fifty years - still demand more legislation in their favor while insisting that the fictitious 'oppressive patriarchy' is as bad as ever? It's just like any other government program, an insatiable excuse for free money.

I've already said everything I need to say, it's not my fault you've ignored it and continue to demonize me simply because you're against the idea of thinking for yourself.

You manage to ignore the entirety of the truth utilizing nothing but a baseless ad-hom. I responded to and refuted the entirety of what you said, because you're a ****tard who's full of bull**** and will continue to be full of bull****. Cue your "attacking my integrity" which is factually incorrect and also your attempt to dismiss the truth because you don't like it, much in the way that you dismiss how certain religious stories promote good morals - you hate the truth, so you ad-hom out instead of changing your mind.

Propaganda? There is no propaganda, except what you've managed to baselessly assert here. Women are oppressed in many parts of the world, where there is a focus on their purity, but not one on men, a focus on their beauty, but less so on men (numerous female beauty products, very few for men besides maybe gray hair stuff), a focus on women being well-behaved and docile, but not on men, as a means to power and control over women. These norms replicate themselves in our everyday lives. You can't see the patriarchy because A) it's underground and B) you don't want to, and it being underground makes it doubly easy. You're just the same as the people who claim that racism doesn't exist in America - it is not noticeably present on the surface, but look a little deeper and many people in the nation hold disturbing stereotypes about black people that they act out on.

I do think for myself, but you clearly don't, having been fed so much bull**** you can't discern what is and isn't bull****. And I know this, because I'm aware of it, and have to filter through a lot of it, having been on a debate team. You should probably learn to question your own beliefs - I though patriarchy was gone too, but when someone pointed out how facets of our society operate, it opened my eyes to how America really is in certain parts of life.

Two more things:

The fact that your analogy makes sense at all implies that the political system is inherently owned by MEN, not at all by women, which would invalidate your own claim. Not every woman is a money-grubber, but I guess all of them ARE vote-grubbers, which you also clearly hate.

And you manage to COMPLETELY ignore women in places like India and Iran, where there is oppression and you're blind to ignore it. There is "oppressive patriarchy" there, a point of my response that was 100% irrefuted, mainly because it's 100% true.

In essence, you realized you couldn't win so you just decided to try to quit with some dignity. But you've been exposed for the ****tard you are, and you have no dignity (or integrity, because you clearly had none to begin with) left. You'd have been much better off to apologize for asserting that there is no patriarchy in other parts of the world. But if you don't want to admit there are problems caused purely by misogyny, then you should keep your head in the sand and not stick it in forums like these.

And if mods try to infract me for inflammatory language, they damn well better infract LarsINTJ for his first post about "Feminism in a nutshell" because that's worse than anything I've said in any of my posts.

 

[LarsINTJ]

You manage to ignore the entirety of the truth utilizing nothing but a baseless ad-hom. I responded to and refuted the entirety of what you said, because you're a ****tard who's full of bull**** and will continue to be full of bull****. Cue your "attacking my integrity" which is factually incorrect and also your attempt to dismiss the truth because you don't like it, much in the way that you dismiss how certain religious stories promote good morals - you hate the truth, so you ad-hom out instead of changing your mind.

Propaganda? There is no propaganda, except what you've managed to baselessly assert here. Women are oppressed in many parts of the world, where there is a focus on their purity, but not one on men, a focus on their beauty, but less so on men (numerous female beauty products, very few for men besides maybe gray hair stuff), a focus on women being well-behaved and docile, but not on men, as a means to power and control over women. These norms replicate themselves in our everyday lives. You can't see the patriarchy because A) it's underground and B) you don't want to, and it being underground makes it doubly easy. You're just the same as the people who claim that racism doesn't exist in America - it is not noticeably present on the surface, but look a little deeper and many people in the nation hold disturbing stereotypes about black people that they act out on.

I do think for myself, but you clearly don't, having been fed so much bull**** you can't discern what is and isn't bull****. And I know this, because I'm aware of it, and have to filter through a lot of it, having been on a debate team. You should probably learn to question your own beliefs - I though patriarchy was gone too, but when someone pointed out how facets of our society operate, it opened my eyes to how America really is in certain parts of life.

Two more things:

The fact that your analogy makes sense at all implies that the political system is inherently owned by MEN, not at all by women, which would invalidate your own claim. Not every woman is a money-grubber, but I guess all of them ARE vote-grubbers, which you also clearly hate.

And you manage to COMPLETELY ignore women in places like India and Iran, where there is oppression and you're blind to ignore it. There is "oppressive patriarchy" there, a point of my response that was 100% irrefuted, mainly because it's 100% true.

In essence, you realized you couldn't win so you just decided to try to quit with some dignity. But you've been exposed for the ****tard you are, and you have no dignity (or integrity, because you clearly had none to begin with) left. You'd have been much better off to apologize for asserting that there is no patriarchy in other parts of the world. But if you don't want to admit there are problems caused purely by misogyny, then you should keep your head in the sand and not stick it in forums like these.

And if mods try to infract me for inflammatory language, they damn well better infract LarsINTJ for his first post about "Feminism in a nutshell" because that's worse than anything I've said in any of my posts.

What you have woefully failed to address:
Women are responsible for the end result of society since they're the ones choosing partners and raising kids. Feminists are blind to their own capacity for evil/irresponsibility toward children. They love to complain about the monsters created by their own negligence and play endless victim.

Nobody accepts Feminism if they have a great dad. Nobody considers women inferior if they have a wonderful mother.

We must call women out (just as we call men out) on their crappy decisions, not treat them like helpless victims of fate. It's all about equal responsibility.

I'm not responding anymore, you're clearly way too flustered. Try to cool off, go back and read through what I have to say properly.

 

[Thor]

What you have woefully failed to address:
Women are responsible for the end result of society since they're the ones choosing partners and raising kids. Feminists are blind to their own capacity for evil/irresponsibility toward children. They love to complain about the monsters created by their own negligence and play endless victim.

Nobody accepts Feminism if they have a great dad. Nobody considers women inferior if they have a wonderful mother.

I'm not responding anymore, you're clearly way too flustered. Try to cool off, go back and read through what I have to say properly.

I have responded to your points. The first one I addressed above [you've woefully failed to respond to it] is sexist, because it assumes women stay in the house and raise the kids - you've literally just proved my point that patriarchy exists with that statement (and refutation - men raise kids too, and men have a say in who they date/marry/have kids with, see my above post - if you don't know that get your head out of the sand). And many of these women raise kids in how to be anti-sexism to better the world. So this isn't a valid argument, and I said this in a post above. If you're not going to read my posts I'm questioning how much you actually care and how much you're just trolling.

On your second point: The most radical feminists believe sexuality is a choice, and they think the good women choose to love other women and not reproduce. Even those who don't make a conscious choice not to have any kids or date/love men.

Other people raise the monsters - that's like saying that white people complaining about racism raise all the racists - I know people who complain about racism and whose kids are anti-racist, but the neighbor or whatever is racist and their kids are too - the feminists don't usually reify the problem. And those that do are stupid, not the majority.

I accept feminism and I have a great dad, because he's told me that women deserve respect and equality, and nobody until 1900 had a great mom since people considered women naturally inferior as a general social norm. So this is factually wrong.

I'm not flustered, you're ignoring everything I say, which is laughable, saddening, and infuriating at the same time, because you are remaining hateful of a group of people who by and large are kind people who care for all sexes.

You also have yet to lay out the tenets of feminism - I provided some that you ignored while failing to offer others - we cannot contextualize this debate to any real meaning without an agreement as to what we are discussing - I can post an article by a person with the last name Shivley (sp?) about this if you want.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Fine, one more response.

I have responded to your points. The first one is sexist (men raise kids too, and men have a say in who they date/marry/have kids with, see my above post - if you don't know that get your head out of the sand). And many of these women raise kids in how to be anti-sexism to better the world. So this isn't an argument.

Men raise kids? I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians as well. I can tell you for a fact that men have absolutely no say in whether they're allowed to reproduce with a woman outside of being a rapist. How Feminists love to believe all men are rapists, it exempts them from responsibility.

On your second point: The most radical feminists believe sexuality is a choice, and they think the good women choose to love other women and not reproduce. Even those who don't make a conscious choice not to have any kids or date/love men.

Feminists deny the value of male sexuality, they deride and diminish it.

Other people raise the monsters - that's like saying that white people complaining about racism raise all the racists - I know people who complain about racism and whose kids are anti-racist, but the neighbor or whatever is racist and their kids are too - the feminists don't usually reify the problem. And those that do are stupid, not the majority.

Again, I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians. Women are by far the majority when it comes to raising children.

I accept feminism and I have a great dad, because he's told me that women deserve respect and equality, and nobody until 1900 had a great mom since people considered women naturally inferior as a general social norm. So this is factually wrong.

The root of the problem here is that you're making a distinction between two imaginary types of Feminism and believe that its truest goal encompasses social equilibrium. I say that's a load of garbage, prove me wrong, observations sure dictate otherwise.

I'm not flustered, you're ignoring everything I say, which is laughable, saddening, and infuriating at the same time, because you are remaining hateful of a group of people who by and large are kind people who care for all sexes.

You can stop projecting now.

You also have yet to lay out the tenets of feminism - I provided some that you ignored while failing to offer others - we cannot contextualize this debate to any real meaning without an agreement as to what we are discussing - I can post an article by a person with the last name Shivley (sp?) about this if you want.

Yes, that was something rather obvious from the start.

Feminism is just an extension of the never-ending failure Welfare State. It preys on societies' sentimentality in order to extract unearned wealth while sheltering adult-babies from the consequences of their own choices.

 

[Sucumbio]

Guess who ain't gettin' laid, like ever...

-.-

Nvm pay me no mind pls.

No really... pls.

 

[Thor]

Men raise kids? I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians as well. I can tell you for a fact that men have absolutely no say in whether they're allowed to reproduce with a woman outside of being a rapist. How Feminists love to believe all men are rapists, it exempts them from responsibility.

You don't understand **** about anything if you think there aren't families where the father stays home and takes care of the young ones while the mom has a job. And you're clearly a racist too - solid job being both sexist and racist at once. Men do have a say - there are women who choose not to have kids because the man says he's not ready, and there are men who look for a woman who wants a family.

Feminists don't believe all men are rapists - at this point you're simply stating things that are factually inaccurate.

Feminists deny the value of male sexuality, they deride and diminish it.

The radical ones do that, but not all - plenty of feminists appreciate that men have emotions and desires too, but when some men allow that to make them view women as nothing more than a body, it's a problem. And I was talking about female sexuality in that context, and my statement wouldn't have made any sense outside of that context anyway, because you said feminists don't take responsibility for the kids they raise - the ones who raise kids raise them well, and the others don't have kids.

Again, I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians. Women are by far the majority when it comes to raising children.

*facepalm*

You're misconstruing what I say in order to make an argument. In my quote:

Other people raise the monsters - that's like saying that white people complaining about racism raise all the racists - I know people who complain about racism and whose kids are anti-racist, but the neighbor or whatever is racist and their kids are too - the feminists don't usually reify the problem. And those that do are stupid, not the majority.

I was saying that there are many many families, and the ones complaining about sexism, etc., aren't raising the kids - the true feminists (not the fraudulent/radical ones) raise their kids well and complain when sexist women, or women who do not truly care about equality, raise kids in such a way that they do not value equality - and keep in mind that there are still people who already do not value equality.

Your response is just another misconstruction of what I said. I can't tell if you have low reading comprehension or if you're actually trying to derail the debate by mystifying my original argument to make it nearly impossible to understand.

The root of the problem here is that you're making a distinction between two imaginary types of Feminism and believe that its truest goal encompasses social equilibrium. I say that's a load of garbage, prove me wrong, observations sure dictate otherwise.

You hit the nail on the head, with only a single missed typo - your claims are a load of garbage, prove me wrong, observations sure dictate otherwise. There are plenty of books about why women deserve equality, just as there are the bat*** crazy books by feminazis - there is a CLEAR divide, and the main goal of feminism IS equality - that goes back to the definitions and articles I cited earlier.

You can stop projecting now.

You've been projecting the entire thread your fears about women actually being treated fairly and deriding feminists for it. The only one projecting is you here - I do care for men and women both, and I find inequalities sad and disturbing - but clearly you don't feel the same.

Feminism is just an extension of the never-ending failure Welfare State. It preys on people's sentimentality in order to extract unearned wealth while sheltering adult-babies from the consequences of their own choices.

I've said it before, that's fundamentally NOT feminism - that's opportunistic women looking to co-opt the movement, that you've identified as the mainstay - that's like identifying the civil rights movement in the 60s as entirely composed of black people looking for free money (it wasn't and it's not). Feminism is about ensuring the rights of every woman everywhere equality; the ability to vote, the ability to say no even in a marriage (martial **** is legal in various places), the right to decide not to have a child even if the man wants it. You can deny it all you want, but that's what it is, has been, and [I believe] will be.

Welfare State does exist, but feminism isn't propping it up - there are other groups that do it far better. And it doesn't protect adult-babies from the consequences of choices, unless you count it as guaranteeing them the right to fix their mistakes (abortions) at which point I think it's probably not a terrible idea to give them that protections.

P.S: In my previous post I also identified a few instances of patriarchy in society today, and others in the world as a whole. They are worth reading and considering.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Men raise kids? I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians as well. I can tell you for a fact that men have absolutely no say in whether they're allowed to reproduce with a woman outside of being a rapist. How Feminists love to believe all men are rapists, it exempts them from responsibility.

Are you out of your mother******* mind?! Of course men raise children as does women! That's the norm of what a familiy is supposed to be, at least in the major parts of the world. What in the hell do you think raising a child entails?! Staying at home, changing diapers, etc., isn't the only way to raise a child! A man that happens to go to work and bring home money to support the family, including children, is a form of raising a child! For the record, there are such a thing as stay-at-home dads, in case you didn't get the memo in whatever rock you must have been living in.

For your information, to say "how feminists love to believe all men are rapists" is a disgusting play on a stereotype exacerbated by media that covers the negative few, in much a way that clearly all black men "love to smoke weed and mug people", or how all Puerto Ricans are "lazy and won't do a damn thing".

Feminists deny the value of male sexuality, they deride and diminish it.

What feminists do you know? I can tell you that while I'm no feminist (though perhaps I ought to be), I have quite a few feminist friends who aren't man-hating, or deny any value of a man. They do what the true definition of feminism is supposed to entail:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Your constant obsession with feminism being all about female dominance over man is clearly what you want it to be, since you refuse to acknowledge that the true point of feminism and its goals is universal equality for both genders.

Again, I've heard there's such thing as tall Asians. Women are by far the majority when it comes to raising children.

How the f*** did you come to this conclusion? What, the stories you hear of single moms? Guess what, there are single fathers out there too, and in the case of couples, both parents do raise children, and this s*** is coming from someone (me) who was raised by my mom alone before I had a stepfather, and yes, stepparents do indeed count! And even if the father happens to be at work 8 hours a day, busting his a**, the fact he gives enough of a damn to provide for the family is enough to count toward raising a child - I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. In terms of parenting, there really are no stereotypes to be had.

The root of the problem here is that you're making a distinction between two imaginary types of Feminism and believe that its truest goal encompasses social equilibrium. I say that's a load of garbage, prove me wrong, observations sure dictate otherwise.

Clearly, your "observations" only focus on the negative light shined by the mainstream media. If you were to actually do research and find reputable groups of feminists, you'll find that the true meaning and goal of feminism is indeed equilibrium, so your half-baked bull**** is pretty much moot.

Feminism is just an extension of the never-ending failure Welfare State. It preys on societies' sentimentality in order to extract unearned wealth while sheltering adult-babies from the consequences of their own choices.

Excuse me?! Since when were feminist groups (or any other non-government group) part of the Welfare State? Last I checked, there hasn't been any report of a woman, or supposed feminist-successful acts that has caused the workplace to pay more money to women, or "extract unearned wealth" as you so put it! And what do you even mean by "adult-babies", and what consequences?!

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're a misogynist who's salty when you think of the idea that maybe, just maybe, a woman can be your equal.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Are you out of your mother******* mind?! Of course men raise children as does women! That's the norm of what a familiy is supposed to be, at least in the major parts of the world. What in the hell do you think raising a child entails?! Staying at home, changing diapers, etc., isn't the only way to raise a child! A man that happens to go to work and bring home money to support the family, including children, is a form of raising a child! For the record, there are such a thing as stay-at-home dads, in case you didn't get the memo in whatever rock you must have been living in.

For your information, to say "how feminists love to believe all men are rapists" is a disgusting play on a stereotype exacerbated by media that covers the negative few, in much a way that clearly all black men "love to smoke weed and mug people", or how all Puerto Ricans are "lazy and can't won't do a damn thing".




What feminists do you know? I can tell you that while I'm no feminist (though perhaps I ought to be), I have quite a few feminist friends who aren't man-hating, or deny any value of a man. They do what the true definition of feminism is supposed to entail:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Your constant obsession with feminism being all about female dominance over man is clearly what you want it to be, since you refuse to acknowledge that the true point of feminism and its goals is universal equality for both genders.



How the f*** did you come to this conclusion? What, the stories you hear of single moms? Guess what, there are single fathers out there too, and in the case of couples, both parents do raise children, and this s*** is coming from someone (me) who was raised by my mom alone before I had a stepfather, and yes, stepparents do indeed count! And even if the father happens to be at work 8 hours a day, busting his a**, the fact he gives enough of a damn to provide for the family is enough to count toward raising a child - I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. In terms of parenting, there really are no stereotypes to be had.



Clearly, your "observations" only focus on the negative light shined by the mainstream media. If you were to actually do research and find reputable groups of feminists, you'll find that the true meaning and goal of feminism is indeed equilibrium, so your half-baked bull**** is pretty much moot.



Excuse me?! Since when were feminist groups (or any other non-government group) part of the Welfare State? Last I checked, there hasn't been any report of a woman, or supposed feminist-successful acts that has caused the workplace to pay more money to women, or "extract unearned wealth" as you so put it! And what do you even mean by "adult-babies", and what consequences?!

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're a misogynist who's salty when you think of the idea that maybe, just maybe, a woman can be your equal.

Hey, would you look at that, there's a whole lot of pointless hostility, but no counter-argument. Oh I forgot, my argument is completely invalid because a grand total of two men happen to fill the role of housewife and there's this one guy you know who works in a preschool.

Feminism has nothing to do with the Welfare State? You definitely have no clue what Feminism is. Hint: it's not about fairies dancing with butterflies in a sparkling field of flowers.

It's so evil of me to support equal responsibility for both genders, that totally makes me a misogynist. I hate women so much that I grant them the same respect as a man *gasp* - men are so beneath women, how could I do such a thing? It's insulting!

 

[Claire Diviner]

Hey, would you look at that, there's a whole lot of pointless hostility, but no counter-argument.

We've done nothing but give counter-arguments. What's the matter with you?!

Oh I forgot, my argument is completely invalid because two men happen to fill the roll of housewife and there's this one guy you know who works in a preschool.

No, your argument is invalid because you keep trying to use negative stereotypes of feminism as a valid point of debate.

Feminism has nothing to do with the Welfare State? You definitely have no clue what Feminism is.

Speak for yourself. We've already told you what it is, and for Christ's sake, I gave you a definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. What more do you need?!

It's so evil of me to support equal responsibility for both genders, that totally makes me a misogynist. I hate women so much that I grant them the same respect I grant a man *gasp*.

You sure don't act like it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

We've done nothing but give counter-arguments. What's the matter with you?!

Yeah OK, if beating around the bush with a fallacious stick can be considered 'counter-arguments'.

No, your argument is invalid because you keep trying to use negative stereotypes of feminism as a valid point of debate.

Ah, so it's perfectly fine when you, as a woman, attempt to frame me as a misogynist because anyone against Feminism must hate women, right? ...but when I stand up against the rampant hate that Feminist ideology levels upon men, I'm just assuming unfounded stereotypes!

Speak for yourself. We've already told you what it is, and for Christ's sake, I gave you a definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. What more do you need?!

Feminism is a government program, government programs always achieve the opposite of their stated goals and thus persist without end, always demanding more sustenance, it's never enough. It grows, it grows, it grows.

 

[Sucumbio]

Lol I can't add nothing @ Thor except maybe that Michael Jackson pic with the popcorn...

 

[LarsINTJ]

AfungusAmongus linked one of Karen Straughan's videos before, I would like to link another.

 

[Thor]

Yeah OK, if beating around the bush with a fallacious stick can be considered 'counter-arguments'.

Ah, so it's perfectly fine when you, as a woman, attempt to frame me as a misogynist because anyone against Feminism must hate women, right? ...but when I stand up against the rampant hate that Feminist ideology levels upon men, I'm just assuming unfounded stereotypes!

Feminism is a government program, government programs always achieve the opposite of their stated goals and thus persist without end, always demanding more sustenance, it's never enough. It grows, it grows, it grows.

There's no fallacies here except your own, which is that you HEAVILY beg the question to make your arguments - we've attacked the root of you claims, but you dismiss our very valid concerns as self-evidently wrong (hint: they're actually self-evidently correct) then use the main point we contest to dismiss all our arguments. I define this in case you don't know what begging the question is, because you continue to do it even as I point it out. I can also link you to a site that will tell you what it is and why it's a fallacy.

Um, yes, because you are clearly acting misogynistic and saying misogynistic things, and there is no rampant hate leveled upon men. I would know - I've read a lot of literature, by various feminist authors including Irigaray and Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, and only the completely bat**** crazy stuff is man-hating in the slightest. The rest isn't man-hating at all - at worst it doesn't care for DWEMs, who did a lot of messed up stuff anyway.

And calling feminism a "Government program" is downright laughable, unless you are making an analogy, and it's because of pig-headed men like you that feminism hasn't "ended", because people think, "ooh yeah women stoned to death in Iran for having a boyfriend and the boyfriend is let off, that's clearly not patriarchy, it's just fair." [Hint: never has been fair, that action never will be fair - it can only be stopped.] And not all government programs do that you idiot - the program to build a nuclear bomb was quite successful (Manhattan Project), and the programs to build infrastructure in the 60s by Eisenhower successfully made a continental (more or less) high-way system that planes could land on - two very successful projects. And yeah they have to spend more on infrastructure - it wears out, that's life, and why people also buy new gamecube controllers; that doesn't make buying Gamecube controllers a "government program" though.

Also, @ Sucumbio , I can upload a file of that pic if you want via PM, then you can post here if you want, since I've seen that before elsewhere.

I'll watch the video and read other stuff later, it's too late right now for me to watch 16 minutes and reflect on what it says.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Ah, so it's perfectly fine when you, as a woman, attempt to frame me as a misogynist because anyone against Feminism must hate women, right? ...but when I stand up against the rampant hate that Feminist ideology levels upon men, I'm just assuming unfounded stereotypes!

Because you ARE going by unfounded stereotypes! Feminist ideology isn't about hating men, or the supposed destruction thereof, it's about equality. How am I not clear on this?! How are WE not clear on this?! You may as well say all Christians are oppressive gay-hating bigots, black people are gang members who deal drugs, Muslims are bomb-strapping American haters, and Asians are great at math but can't drive worth a s*** while you're at it.

You're an unimaginable troll at this point, and yes, you are clearly misogynistic if you have an unfounded belief that A) Feminism is a government program: Why the f*** do we not have more women in positions of power compared to men then? And B) Feminism was, and has always been about chopping off your junk and destroying you in the process to create a world of Amazons! Get real, get a clue, and get out.