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

[LarsINTJ]

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.

Don't bother responding if you're not going to make any valid arguments or apologize for your insulting self-righteous hostility. This thread is already over-saturated with empty sophistry as it is and I'm not going to continue wasting time with people who have proven themselves unable to think critically.

So yeah, wish granted.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Thor nah that's ok I will admit I want to troll real hard but this being the DH I will behave If you hadn't noticed I pretty much play devil's advocate in just about every thread I post in anyway, I've even said exact opposite things from one topic to another, lol I just like to argue :D

@ Claire Diviner I'm from Arlington, originally, just thought I'd mention seeing as how you're from Springfield. Living in mississippi is SO different than liberal mass, sometimes I envy those who still live in civilization.

@ LarsINTJ thanks for sharing that video, I have a better understanding of your position now that I've watched it.

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.

The "disposable male" archetype is a calling card for the Men's Movement. One of the movement's "handbooks," The Myth of Male Power, uses it as its thesis. More on this in a sec...

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.

Some men are larger. The average height and weight of Men is larger than the average height and weight of women, true, but it depends on the region if we're speaking of evolution. The image of male you're referring to is most common in selective time periods and areas. It's actually quite fascinating looking at the various origins of what would become homo sapiens. But I digress.

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.

Well to be fair, there have been (and continue to be) several separate feminist movements and in their heart of hearts are meant to uphold social equality. In math to make one side equal to another we have to add or subtract. If Male > Female in terms of rights (the right to vote, for instance) then logic would dictate that you'd subtract the right to vote from males so that both sides would be equal. Except then no one could vote! SO instead, we add the right to vote to the Female side, and they are then equal. Applying this balancing act to other various social norms, laws, policies, etc. is what the challenge has been. Some were very difficult. Men really didn't think women needed to vote. Men didn't think women needed to work, either. Right up until the 60's when tons of movements took place. The typical brady bunch family - the icon of the american home - dad works, mom and her trusty maid raising the kids. What if Carol was a better architect than Mike? Sure he was good, that was a nice house, but had she been better, what then? (On a side note, I look forward to retiring once my wife's out of law school and making bank so I can be a stay-at-home-dad).

Feminism in a nutshell: Hate and punish men because oppressive patriarchy...

Eh, only if you're a hateful person. Most intelligent people utilize the tools at their disposal to achieve change. But of course, way back when was different. At least today women actually have something they can use to exact change. Votes. Maybe one day women and men really will be equal on all fronts, though I think it's still a ways off. Women, for instance, cannot engage in combat, they are still relegated to support positions in our military.

...despite the fact that women select partners and raise children, thus possess way more collective power than men in guiding the future of society.

... okay... hm. I think the partnering process is a two-way process. It's not as if women go to Wal-mart and buy the man of their choice. Men and women both project what they think is desirable to attract what they themselves desire, and like magnets two people gravitate to one another and babies happen. The babies themselves are -birthed- by the mother, the woman, but ... that's not to say that the woman is solely responsible for the rest... the world in which you describe, specifically 50's era US, Donna Reid, or The Brady Bunch to an extent, those days are gone, man. Most families can't afford to live that way anymore, dads AND moms have to work. "raising" children has become something of a conglomeration of tactics ranging from relying on schools, day-cares, baby-sitters, on and on. It's actually changed so much so quickly that recent generations are TOTALLY different in their ways of thinking. Generation X (my generation) are the last children of that bygone era. My mother did quit her job so she could raise me, while my dad toiled in construction to pay the bills. My mother did raise me, my dad just beat me if I bothered him. Sometimes he'd have time off and we'd go fishing, or whatever. 3 hours of standing in silence holding a fishing pole. We'd sit as a family and watch TV together. We went on family vacations together. It was all very a-typical. Dinner at 5 bed by 9 take the phone off the hook mother call the people and make the appointment don't expect me to take you grocery shopping you have all day to do that while I work 12 hours a day to feed your sorry ***.

Yeah, it's different now. Women got tired of that life (wouldn't you?) And Men did too... Role reversal. Like I said, I'm looking forward to it, this working ****'s for the birds, lol.

Oh yeah, also reward all those tough single mothers for their terrible choices.

I remember my first real girlfriend sang "I will survive" with a staunch look of defiance on her face, virtually spitting the words out into my eyes. She was proud her mother had raised her after her father had walked out (got caught cheating, so left) ... "I don't NEED a man." This sentiment... it absolutely stirs negative emotions in people. It's also not the reason why America has such a high divorce rate. Why there are so many "*******" kids out there. Why so many single parent family homes. The reason, is the institution. And this I suppose is where you're getting "feminism is a government program" idea... Feminism is not synonymous with The institution however. And the institution cannot be dismantled. Instead, we have to fight against the urge to use it. And the only way to do that, is through education. I know, how terribly liberal of me. I must be a democrat (yep). See, -I- grew up in terror of knocking up a girl. Of getting involved with a someone who may try to trap me. I stayed a virgin until I was 18. By choice. Through fear. But it's different now... just as the Brady Bunch household is gone, so too are a lot of fears and stereotypes along with it. What this means is, education has to change too... it's not enough to just teach "health class". Kids have to be made aware at the school level that social programs like Welfare are NOT a goal, but a LAST RESORT. I realize there may be a conflict of interest given that many kids are on assisted lunch programs... but it can be done.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Lars: remember that feminism is mainstream. I know it's irritating but we have the burden of proof to show that men's rights issues are legit, so we need to conduct ourselves with higher standards of evidence and logical argument than we expect from our fellow debaters.

Well the difficulty is you mentioned "reproductive rights" which is a very specific (legally) realm of matters.[/q 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."

Vasectomy is safer, effective, less costly and fast[er] recovery time than tubal ligation. Vasectomy is "much safer and easier than tubal ligation". You noted that vasectomy is also easier to reverse than tubal ligation. So obviously doctors should prefer vasectomies and try to avoid ligations when advising heterosexual couples, mainly for patient safety and to avoid malpractice lawsuits. Your last sentence blaming misogynistic culture for this "double standard" is total speculation. Catholic hospitals discriminate against women because Catholicism is patriarchal in a way that doesn't represent American culture overall.

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.

Ideally yes it'd be great if people were prepared to live with all the risks they take. But when the risk is sufficiently small the benefits just outweigh it. Is it a mistake to drive before you're ready to be paralyzed in a car wreck? The only 100 percent foolproof way to avoid auto wrecks is still abstinence (from driving/riding)! If a mechanic breaks your brakes, causing a crash, it's his mistake because he was supposed and equipped to prevent, detect, and fix the problem. It may be partly your fault if you picked a bad mechanic who routinely fails to minimize risks, or if you were driving badly that day, but otherwise you're a victim and you shouldn't be liable for damages. You're not at fault, even though driving carries the inherent risk of crashing, because it was your mechanic who failed to mitigate the risks. Right?

Lastly, **** is in itself an entirely separate issue for both men and women, and should not be used when discussing pure feminism.

I'm confused what you could mean by this. Evidently you're attempting to distance (using a no-true-Scotsman fallacy) "pure" feminism from academic and organised feminism in order to disown gender bias (e.g. the 'penetration' definition of ****, women-only resources for victims). Groups and thinkers calling themselves feminist have lobbied and published for decades yet somehow failed to address these issues, as though the focus was on something other than equality...

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

The beneficiaries of gender-biased American family courts and laws are, of course, American women. It is unclear what American social class you are calling "entitlement-hungry" given that rich and poor alike seem to want tax breaks, loopholes, handouts, etc. Anyways, the very groups claiming to support women's rights (NOW) consistently oppose reforms (such as presumption of shared parenting) that would help remedy the imbalances.

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."

How much of this is due to sexism rather than, say, personality and priorities? Besides, you don't need to deny women's problems in order to recognize men's.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I do appreciate the civil response, Sucumbio.

If somebody calls themselves a Feminist while opposed to patriarchy theory then they're using the wrong label, that is to be grouped together with all the psychos under the same banner. There are certainly different degrees of Feminism, but not different types.

Being Feminist does not imply an advocacy for equal responsibility. Feminism is and always has been an excuse to transfer wealth from men over to women as a form of fictitious compensation.

To support equal accountability for both genders is to be decent human being, there's no need for special labels.

Afungus, that is true, although many find it rather easy to dismiss statistical evidence while recoiling from any rational argument which threatens their existing belief structure. Less than 1 in 200 people will alter their beliefs in the face of opposing reason and evidence because present ideology is most often the foundation of one's existing social sphere.

 

[Sucumbio]

Vasectomy is safer, effective, less costly and fast[er] recovery time than tubal ligation. Vasectomy is "much safer and easier than tubal ligation". You noted that vasectomy is also easier to reverse than tubal ligation. So obviously doctors should prefer vasectomies and try to avoid ligations when advising heterosexual couples, mainly for patient safety and to avoid malpractice lawsuits. Your last sentence blaming misogynistic culture for this "double standard" is total speculation. Catholic hospitals discriminate against women because Catholicism is patriarchal in a way that doesn't represent American culture overall.

Fair enough. I've no doubt that vasectomy is proven to be safer. The problem here lies in that not all women (or men) choosing to be sterilized are in permanent, or expect to remain in, permanent relationships. A woman who gets her tubes tied can feel confident that regardless of who she sleeps with, or in the unfortunate circumstance of ****, she will still not be impregnated. I find it interesting to note that sterilization is classed as the most used form of birth control (30-40 percent depending on the study) and yet there are no numbers on how that demographic is broken down in terms of committed relationships, single people, etc.

Ideally yes it'd be great if people were prepared to live with all the risks they take. But when the risk is sufficiently small the benefits just outweigh it. Is it a mistake to drive before you're ready to be paralyzed in a car wreck? The only 100 percent foolproof way to avoid auto wrecks is still abstinence (from driving/riding)! If a mechanic breaks your brakes, causing a crash, it's his mistake because he was supposed and equipped to prevent, detect, and fix the problem. It may be partly your fault if you picked a bad mechanic who routinely fails to minimize risks, or if you were driving badly that day, but otherwise you're a victim and you shouldn't be liable for damages. You're not at fault, even though driving carries the inherent risk of crashing, because it was your mechanic who failed to mitigate the risks. Right?

But if the risk is so small, then why are there so many "unwanted" pregnancies?

By the way I do agree that men have a harder time with custody battles than women, but this is due to legislation and institution that was formed largely before women could even vote. Men have the right to roam the country and make kids. Women are then expected to halt their lives and raise them. Women serve as nothing more than vessels for men's sperm. Blah blah blah. These ideas though laughable now, were really the status quo back in the day. Legislation needs to be updated, for sure, and I agree that for every lobby that exists to keep it the way it is, there needs to be one that tries to fight it.

I'm confused what you could mean by this. Evidently you're attempting to distance (using a no-true-Scotsman fallacy) "pure" feminism from academic and organised feminism in order to disown gender bias (e.g. the 'penetration' definition of ****, women-only resources for victims). Groups and thinkers calling themselves feminist have lobbied and published for decades yet somehow failed to address these issues, as though the focus was on something other than equality...

Uh... no. Okay, sorry if I confused you, let's try this - a thought exercise:

"If a man ***** a woman, he's a criminal. If a woman ***** a man, he just got lucky."

Dissect that for me if you will, and we'll see where that leads us, I'd be interested to understand your thinking on this joke.

I made my previous comment because you said men and boys are ***** into having to pay child support. I just... I don't understand how that's possible on a large enough scale so as to compare it to the large numbers of women who have been ***** by men over the years. I think it's gotta be 1 to 10,000 or worse, no? I just wouldn't hedge my bet is all... seems like if I were a congressman I'd be far less likely to make changes to laws based on this argument. If anything to me it sounds like just another clever way men have come up with to get OUT of paying child support. Remember child support -ideally- is not for the mother, but the child... it's meant because it takes TWO to make a baby, so whether either of them wanted it or not, once the kid's there, they're there... and BOTH have to pay. The patriarchal institution is to blame for expecting those payments to be divided into woman does the raising, man does the working/paying.

It is unclear what American social class you are calling "entitlement-hungry" given that rich and poor alike seem to want tax breaks, loopholes, handouts, etc.

Low-income (or no-income) families in rural red states like this one (Mississippi). As I was saying to Lars, our populace has some 30-40% on assistance, myself included. It's gotten to where the institution perpetuates itself, and there's no end in sight, short of cutting it ALL off, and starting over (which would mean about 20-30 years or 1 to 2 generations of straight up depression-era poverty before getting better).

 

[Thor]

@ LarsINTJ

Here are the points in the debate you have woefully failed to address, and until you address them, every argument you make is irrelevant because it begs the question and those foundations have no defense, making them invalid:

Feminism is an ideology dedicated toward social, political, economic, and cultural equality. I have sourced out three different definitions/articles that all conclude the same thing. You have given ZERO evidence. You must provide a source of evidence to back up your definition, not something you pulled out of the air.

There are two separate groups of feminists - feminazis, the one we both acknowledge exist, and those who are like Luice Irigaray and Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley [and myself], who simply want to make a society where women are not made inferior to men because they are not men. I have cited authors who fundamentally can't exist under your paradigm. You must either give, in no uncertain terms, proof that they are exactly the same as the others, or show how their "logics" are to be logically extended. And no Illuminati-style conspiracy, I want cold hard facts, because without this explanation, every single thing you say falls apart.

Normative statements that apply only to men and women exist in society at large, about purity, beauty, and docility of women as desirable, that are patriarchal in nature because they objectify the body and are asymmetric (who gives a **** if a man is pure? No one). This has been shown, and it's proof that patriarchy exists in hidden form.

These normative statements are NOT natural (that would be the baby X article, and the fact that in the 1930s, blue was the color of choice for girls, and pink the color of choice for girls). Therefore none of those norms are biologically driven but socially constructed, which is an example of patriarchy existing today.

Patriarchy in more obvious forms (martial **** in India, stoning to death women in Iran, etc.) exists worldwide, and feminists seek to right these wrongs by making things more equal for these women with legal protections from martial **** and symmetrical punishments for adultery. In this feminists do a good thing.

Men and women each have a say in who raises children and whether or not to have kids. The nuclear model of the family is vastly decayed and not the norm. However in parts of the world men do choose the partners in a line-up fashion and raise the kids without mom's influence, which is blatant sexism and objectification of women.

Men are, for the most part, in control of all the governments of the world (There are a few female reps, yes, a small minority), and they are the ones who shape how society moves forward.

Men abandon women, just as women abandon men - for men who make mistakes, they should be forced to own up to them, just as when a man made no mistake or was tricked, he should pay nothing.

Tenets of feminism: men and women should be treated equally, and not held to social norms that dictate social locations for each group, but that is not how society is today, so there should be more legal, social, cultural, and political rights for women until each group has the same set of rights (arguably, a man doesn't need the right to get an abortion, because he can't be pregnant, but details details...). You have argued other tenets exist - provide me proof of their existence in STANDARD feminism.

*this next paragraph is long, so if you're somehow pressed for time, ignore it for now*
There are many problems with the way pregnancy is portrayed in the media, the way breast cancer campaigns are run, and the way black masculinity is portrayed. Pregnancy is usually shown as only dealing with white women who are always virtuous and kind (Knocked Up, Juno, and Waitress are three examples) even if the pregnancy is undesired, with abortion viewed negatively. Breast cancer campaigns are terribly ineffective at raising money and there is very little understanding of where the money goes, or even what raising "awareness" means. There is also a clear problem with the rhetoric of "winning" against breast cancer because almost 60,000 people die from it each year (I believe in the US alone) - if that's true, did they just not fight hard enough? There is also the problem that it is always shown as optimism, when women should be very, very angry about breast cancer and how movements are run as a whole. Black men are shown to be violent in nearly all the media, and black masculinity has almost always been shaped by white men, former slave-owners and people today reinforcing stereotypes in the media. It leads people to reify stereotypes that exist (and I wrote an about 6-page paper on it, I can post here if you want). Feminists want to change all of these things as well.

You never answered a question that's very relevant to understanding how these words are contextualized: As someone who supports the equality of women in political, social, economic, and cultural sphere, what am I? Is there a label for me, and if so, what is it?

The people you identify are also opportunistic pieces of white trash (or other undesirable terms for other races that I'm sure will be censored out by SWF), NOT the mainstream movement. You need to provide me evidence that all significant leaders of the feminism movement are simply people looking to exploit the system.

inb4: "You're flustered/don't project/[other ad-hom]": Here's the definition of flustered (since your command of English appears low, as already demonstrated by your misuse of the terms "integrity" and "character", as well as your inability to understand "empathy" shows):
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluster
fluster:
to put into a state of agitated confusion : upset

And here's the problem; someone who's confused won't lay out their arguments in a logical manner. They'll try to assert that something is so obvious that it doesn't need to be refuted. The only person who has done that here is you. I have taken time to write up coherent responses that everyone [except apparently you] can understand, and you have dismissed all of them as wrong.

You tried to take control of the debate when you told me I didn't address certain things [despite completely ignoring posts I have, and using various ad-hominem arguments as you called me an ad-hominem user, a clear example of hypocrisy], and I have addressed them thoroughly. I'm holding you to the same standard here - source out certain arguments, provide me stories or strong analysis that make your points, and refute what I say point by point. If you fail to do so without using logical fallacies as the basis of your arguments, you are indicating to me that you have an inability to understand how to defend your beliefs, and that you simply assert things axiomatically, despite having your axioms questioned, which isn't how a debate should be run ever. It would also suggest to me that you are not ready to actually debate, but only try to tell people they are wrong without explanation, which is a TERRIBLE way to discuss things.

I'm done letting you beg the question. Either prove your assumptions or admit you are wrong - you can't assume you are right as proof of being right anymore.

And I'm not using your language in various ways throughout this post because I don't have anything creative to say, I'm using it because I assume you understand what you type, and I want you to understand exactly what I am demanding as you (as I understood what you demanded of me earlier). If what I am asking is still unclear, I will try to simplify it further.

Lars: remember that feminism is mainstream. I know it's irritating but we have the burden of proof to show that men's rights issues are legit, so we need to conduct ourselves with higher standards of evidence and logical argument than we expect from our fellow debaters.

The standards of debate are more or less the same - the problem is that LarsINTJ is providing NOTHING in terms of sources that he uses for his information and dismisses what we provide, turning it into a she-said/he-said debate that will NEVER find any sense of resolution. I think some places have legitimate men's rights issues (child custody, not being forced to give a woman too much [or anything] in a divorce when she was cheating/abusive/etc. while he was the one holding down a job and she did nothing), but those issues pale when compared historically to issues women have faced (those same issues as well as voting, equal pay, not being refused jobs for being a woman, etc.).

I will also state that nothing I have posted is illogical - point out to me what I have said is illogical, I'll defend it or else change my mind when new information is revealed to me. Unlike LarsINTJ and his belief that everyone' s part of a nuclear family, I will change my views if I learn something new (As a result, I used to believe global warming was a lie cooked up for research money - now I believe it is all too real).

Ideally yes it'd be great if people were prepared to live with all the risks they take. But when the risk is sufficiently small the benefits just outweigh it. Is it a mistake to drive before you're ready to be paralyzed in a car wreck? The only 100 percent foolproof way to avoid auto wrecks is still abstinence (from driving/riding)! If a mechanic breaks your brakes, causing a crash, it's his mistake because he was supposed and equipped to prevent, detect, and fix the problem. It may be partly your fault if you picked a bad mechanic who routinely fails to minimize risks, or if you were driving badly that day, but otherwise you're a victim and you shouldn't be liable for damages. You're not at fault, even though driving carries the inherent risk of crashing, because it was your mechanic who failed to mitigate the risks. Right?

That analogy doesn't hold up under inspection... I am prepared to live with the risk to die by being on this planet, breathing air that may be toxic instead of living in a filtered tube with food delivered to me. And you could still be paralyzed in a car wreck by getting hit by a car that wrecks on a tree or something because you are on the sidewalk. Those are risks that are inevitable, that can NEVER be reduced to zero (a car could drive through your house and kill you, or a meteor could hit you [and people HAVE died from it]). But you CAN reduce the risk of pregnancy to zero percent, so that is a risk one should be prepared to live with, because it is one that can be fully eliminated.

How much of this is due to sexism rather than, say, personality and priorities? Besides, you don't need to deny women's problems in order to recognize men's.

I personally know men AND women face problems today, but I find the idea that men's problems are significantly greater than women's problems to be a joke when one looks at countries like India and Iran (as I've CONSISTENTLY cited in this thread). If it is true in America, I'm curious - what are these problems? I'd like them to be laid out to me, because I don't know what they are, having never really noticed them myself (besides some women thinking I only value them for their body, which is a byproduct of a stereotype that was introduced by patriarchy, and at worst a minor inconvenience once I demonstrate through words and actions otherwise).

Also, LarsINTJ, there are Tall Asians, in fact there is one that is only shorter than 30 other people on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Ming

 

[LarsINTJ]

@ LarsINTJ , there are Tall Asians, in fact there is one that is only shorter than 30 other people on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Ming

This tells me everything I need to know regarding your level of misinterpretation and inability to think.

I affirm that women are almost exclusively responsible for raising kids, thus possess significantly more power than men in forging the direction society takes. Feminists utterly ignore this glaring fact, they exempt themselves from responsibility. Of course, it's not their fault, women aren't capable of evil, they're the perfect gender. It doesn't matter if a woman abuses their child or selects an abusive husband, they're just helpless victims.

...then all you have to put forward is some extreme minority notion that some men raise kids too as if it is a flawless counter-argument which invalidates the exclusive responsibility of women.

 

[Thor]

This tells me everything I need to know regarding your level of misinterpretation and inability to think.

I affirm that women are almost exclusively responsible for raising kids, thus they possess significant power in forging the direction society takes. Feminists utterly ignore this glaring fact, they exempt themselves from responsibility. Of course, it's not their fault, women aren't capable of evil, they're the perfect gender. It doesn't matter if a women abuses their child or selects an abusive husband, they're just helpless victims.

...then all you have to put forward is some extreme minority case that some men raise kids too as if it is a flawless counter-argument which invalidates the exclusive responsibility of women.

I was making a joke and refuting a racist statement - you don't understand sarcasm [because proving a tall Asian exists doesn't necessarily refute your statement]. Trying reading my post, understanding that I was mocking your racist statement.

I've already responded to your "glaring fact" so I won't really waste much time repeating myself, except to state you're wrong and cite another source.

It's also not an extreme minority case - it's about 16% nowadays, or at least was in 2012:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/06/05/growing-number-of-dads-home-with-the-kids/

You have also managed to provide zero evidence for all of your positions posited.

You have an inability to defend what you state with any form of evidence, only make axiomatic statements (which I already pointed out) and get offended when someone disputes your axioms.

You don't belong in the debate forums, because stating axioms and getting pissy when people dispute them isn't how any functioning debate works.

You're also sexist, and bigotry doesn't have a place in the debate halls either - forensics is the science of finding truth (NFL = National Forensics League = most of the real debate community), and you are unable to find truth when you do not question basic assumptions or allow yourself to be open to new information. It's because people like you shut themselves off to anything they don't already "know" because it contradicts what they "know" that bigotry exists.

And forcing people to conform to your beliefs of how society should be run is the definition of oppression (more or less) - the fact that you do so by putting men in the helm of the house, with women in the back behind the scenes caring for kids, is patriarchy (man-dominated) - if oppressive patriarchy doesn't exist, you certainly seem to want it to.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Even if we accept that men are equally as responsible as women for raising kids in the present, it doesn't change the fact that women exclusively raised kids for the vast majority of human history leading up to this point.

Which do you think is more common, Thor? Single mother or single father households?

Either way, raising a child without both parents is absolutely disastrous for their future prospects. Who's fault is it for agreeing to create a new life in such an irresponsible environment? Oh right, the woman chooses what goes in and out of her vagina.

 

[Thor]

Even if we accept that men are equally as responsible as women for raising kids in the present, it doesn't change the fact that women exclusively raised kids for the vast majority of human history leading up to this point.

Which do you think is more common, Thor? Single mother or single father households?

Either way, raising a child without both parents is absolutely disastrous on their future prospects. Who's fault is it for agreeing to create new life in such an irresponsible environment? Oh right, the woman chooses what goes in and out of her vagina.

The reason women raised kids for the vast majority of history was part evolutionary (hunter-gatherers) and part patriarchy - women are incompetent and couldn't do anything but raise kids, as the line of thinking went.

Single mother households are more common because of societal/patriarchal norms ["mom has kids, dad doesn't want kids and that's all she's good at/what she's best at/better at than dad, so they should be hers" (or something like that)], not necessarily because there should be single-parent homes or because fathers are incompetent.

Once again, there are men who walk out because they weren't prepared for pregnancy, as Sucumbio, AfungusAmongus, and (to a lesser extent) I have discussed parallel to this discussion. But it's the job of both parties to prepare for any consequences, so while the woman may be partially at fault for saying yes, it's the man's fault, and his alone, for participating and saying yes, because both parties [should] always have the ability to say no. The man agreed too, and both parties need to pay the price for their actions - that's what equality, in punishment and rights, is all about.

I can't say current punishments are symmetrical, but the goal of feminism is to make those punishments symmetrical. Many feminists believe that raising a kid and trying to live single is much harder than current payment laws that exist, which is why they want child support to be a larger sum, but this then isn't extortion [as you've portrayed it] but attempting to right a perceived wrong. if you don't believe it's fair/that punishments are symmetric already, fine, but you should understand that it's not attempting to extract wealth but make a situation equally burdensome to both parties, which would indeed be fair and equal. This then becomes a question of what is fair and equal, not a question about the intentions of the parties involved.

This also has very little to do with my questioning of your assumptions of feminism [besides one trivial point], as you previously questioned mine. You're beating around the bush instead of providing evidence and explaining to me why the things I have stated are wrong.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The reason women raised kids for the vast majority of history was part evolutionary (hunter-gatherers) and part patriarchy - women are incompetent and couldn't do anything but raise kids, as the line of thinking went.

Oh OK! Raising kids properly is totally unimportant and just so easy! Let us diminish effective child-rearing by invoking patriarchy theory. It's not the women's fault for nurturing a rotten society, it's those damn oppressive men who were raised by the women! They just love to stamp out the egalitarian feminist paradise where there's a 100%/0% balance between male and female accountability.

Single mother households are more common because of societal/patriarchal norms ["mom has kids and that's all she's good at, so they should be hers" (or something like that)], not necessarily because there should be single-parent homes or because fathers are incompetent.

I see! So those damn pig patriarchs just dump their kids onto the mothers and leave - that's how it works! It's all the men's fault!
...again, it's the women who decide to have kids with A-holes in the first place.

I suggest you watch the documentary 'Divorce Corp', there are plenty of cases where monstrous women use the family court system to withhold their children from the father while still demanding compensation such as alimony and child-support.

This is quite potentially part of the reason Robin Williams ended up committing suicide, being forced to pay off two ex-wives (ridiculous sums) while facing jail-time through his increasing inability to do so when he should have been settling down and getting ready for retirement. It also didn't help that he was being 'treated' for depression.

EDIT: There is some speculation that Robin Williams did not actually commit suicide and that his death was accidental caused by auto erotic asphyxiation. There isn't exactly enough evidence for us to reach a solid conclusion.

Once again, there are men who walk out because they weren't prepared for pregnancy, and Sucumbio, AfungusAmongus, and (to a lesser extent) I have discussed parallel to this discussion. But it's the job of both parties to prepare for any consequences, so while the woman may be partially at fault for saying yes, it's the man's fault, and his alone, for participating and saying yes, because both parties [should] always have the ability to say no. The man agreed too, and both parties need to pay the price for their actions - that's what equality, in punishment and rights, is all about.

I don't have to repeat myself. Women will always have the final say in deciding to have kids and it is still 100% their fault for allowing any incompetent rod into their hoohoo. Even if we raise the issue of ****, it's still up to the women as to whether the child is aborted or given up for adoption.

I can't say current punishments are symmetrical, but the goal of feminism is to make those punishments symmetrical. Many feminists believe that raising a kid and trying to live single is much harder than current payment laws exist, which is why they want child support to be a larger sum, but this then isn't extortion [as you've portrayed it] but attempting to right a perceived wrong. if you don't believe it's fair/that punishments are symmetric already, fine, but you should understand that it's not attempting to extract wealth but make a situation equally burdensome to both parties, which would indeed be fair and equal.

This isn't about equal punishment, it's about equal accountability. Men are completely accountable for their actions, women should be too. Once again, I recommend the documentary 'Divorce Corp'.

Providing excuses for women is utterly disrespectful, this is the ironic nature of Feminism/White-Knighting.

 

[Thor]

Oh OK! Raising kids properly is totally unimportant and just so easy! Let us diminish effective child-rearing by invoking patriarchy theory. It's not the women's fault for nurturing a rotten society, it's those damn oppressive men who were raised by the women! They just love to stamp out the egalitarian feminist paradise where there's a 100%/0% balance between male and female accountability.

You literally just made no argument. Raising a child takes a considerable amount of love, nurturing, and care, which is something not all people are prepared to provide. But there are fathers/men who can do it better than some women, just as there are women who are better people than men.

And it's not that women nurtured a rotten society, it's that men decided that women are inferior at some point, and then whenever this idea was questioned by women, their arguments were dismissed because they were "too emotional" and "incapable of logic and faking it" or whatever. Believe me, some women try to raise their kids to be accepting people, and they end up pieces of trash anyway. It's also not really possible when the father is always sending signals to young boys that women are naturally inferior, and mom has been coached by society to have to deal with this. Times are changing now but this is how it was.

You also act like you can stomp this out in a generation or something - it took time for this viewpoint to cement, since there was a time when men and women were equal, and it will take time to stamp it out. Racism wasn't stomped out in a generation either (and that's still around, whether you want to believer or not).

Feminists want equal accountability - what on earth makes you think otherwise?

I see! So those damn pig patriarchs just dump their kids onto the mothers and leave - that's how it works! It's all the men's fault!
...again, it's the women who decide to have kids with A-holes in the first place.

I suggest you watch the documentary 'Divorce Corp', there are plenty of cases where monstrous women use the family court system to withhold their children from the father while still demanding compensation such as alimony and child-support.

This is quite potentially part of the reason Robin Williams ended up committing suicide, being forced to pay off two ex-wives (ridiculous sums) while facing jail-time through his increasing inability to do so when he should have been settling down and getting ready for retirement. It also didn't help that he was being 'treated' for depression.

... You don't even read what I say, do you? There are men who say they will stand by, but they're crossing their fingers behind their backs and walk out when they get pregnant. It's called LYING, it happens because there are men who don't act like they're using her in public, but they WILL leave if there is a pregnancy, and those who act like that deserve half the responsibility and should do what they have to in order to provide for the child.

'Divorce Corp' is the ULTIMATE example of "some extreme minority notion" [as you put it above] that women abuse the system - FYI, that's not how the real world works, it's footage that's dramatized, lived up, and made for-profit to sell to people like you, just like Cops [all the people on the show must sign release waivers authorizing their faces to be put on TV]. That's not at all the vast majority of child support cases, and many of them are the results of divorces. And women keeping the children is a result of patriarchy anyway - patriarchy has left things where women are expected to care for kids and stay at home, cooking and cleaning, while the men do the "real" work and are breadwinners, so in a system where there is a conflict, the women are clearly more suited to raising kids and so get them (and ironically enough, you have insisted throughout much of the thread that it is the woman's job to raise the kids, so a woman keeping the kid would seem to be what you want...).

Feminists also want to fix the system to make it fair, for what it's worth, though you doubtless disbelieve this.

Your last thing isn't even an argument.

I don't have to repeat myself. Women will always have the final say in deciding to have kids and it is still 100% their fault for allowing any incompetent rod into their hoohoo. Even if we raise the issue of ****, it's still up to the women as to whether the child is aborted or given up for adoption.

You just want men to escape responsibility for their mistakes. Men will ALWAYS have the final say in not risking having kids, and it's up to them to be ready to pay the price for their actions. Anyone who can't isn't ready, as Sucumbio and I have discussed above.

This isn't about equal punishment, it's about equal accountability. Men are completely accountable for their actions, women should be too. Once again, I recommend the documentary 'Divorce Corp'.
Providing excuses for women is utterly disrespectful, this is the ironic nature of Feminism/White-Knighting.

Men aren't completely accountable for their actions unless they do their part to care for a child in the case of an accidental pregnancy with a women who is morally against abortion and giving up the child for adoption. And if the woman decides to keep the child, they shouldn't have made the mistake in the first place, and they have to pay up anyway - it's their fault for not discussing the "what ifs" beforehand, so they need to be held responsible for their carelessness and pay the price. That's how life works.

There's no excuse-providing going on by anyone but you, trying to make it look like it's ok for men to go around doing whatever the hell they want but woman can't throw out their bodies the same way - that's an asymmetric right women DON'T have, which is why feminists want more access to stuff like Plan B to women who wouldn't want an abortion. And if the woman lies to the man about these subjects, then yes, he should be able to walk away scot-free - but that's also an extremely minority occurrence.

I'm not white-knighting either, but I don't need to explain why - it should be obvious, based on a few different things I've said previously (including my very first sentence in this forum).

You also have not given me a single argument where you actually give me a source [besides one documentary about one argument without a way to access that documentary] that anything you say isn't something you made up in your head - I've provided sources to the contrary throughout this forum (you'd have to go look at them though, and that seems to be too much work). And you've ignored the vast majority of what I said because of one comment you didn't understand as being sarcastic/mocking of something you said earlier. Until you address the things I put in that post, you're grasping at straws, and pretty much all of your arguments are simply invalid because of how begging the question works.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Thor, projection seems to be a bad habit of yours. Get your head out of the incompetent null-brain a** of mainstream culture and you might learn something about yourself and the people around you.

Clearly it does not matter what I say - me, adversary to all that is good, vile anti-feminist, evil patriarch. Women should be accountable for their actions like men are? Intellectual skulduggery!

I don't care if you believe Feminism is nice and for the good of society, what does that even mean? Utilitarian nonsense. I prefer not to throw cliches, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

They're so sure of themselves in what they think is best for all, yet persistently shaft men (and children) given any opportunity. Men eventually snap too, unjust treatment takes its toll, how do the Feminists react then? They play victim, quivering in a corner pointing fingers, then everyone rushes to their aid and condemns men once again. It's only going to get worse.

If Feminism is a solution to anything, then you would expect the movement to die down over time as the issues are resolved, but NOPE. Feminists still insist that the 'patriarchy' is as bad as ever after 50+ years of significant influence within the political system. Whatever they've been doing for the last half-century is completely ineffectual and perhaps anti-productive by their own standards.

Feminism has successfully driven more women into the workforce, that's such a great thing, right? Consider the fact that government has essentially doubled taxation in response to the expectation of two breadwinners within each household, now many women are compelled to earn an additional income just to sustain their family. Where do the kids fit in to all of this? They're dumped in filthy day-cares while both parents are out not spending time with them. Does anyone seriously believe that this is healthy for the future of society? Being a parent is a full-time occupation, children need constant parental guidance, attention and protection if they are to consistently avert potential disasters which may befall them as adults ('constant' until their primary developmental years are over, ~0-5). Neglect is child abuse.

Spoiler

Feminists strive to monopolizes the support structures within society, it leaves men with no assistance for their own domestic victimization because men aren't capable of being victims. Furthermore, they ignore the plight of lonely neglected children, an issue fed by blind self-righteousness.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

The problem here lies in that not all women (or men) choosing to be sterilized are in permanent, or expect to remain in, permanent relationships. A woman who gets her tubes tied can feel confident that regardless of who she sleeps with, or in the unfortunate circumstance of ****, she will still not be impregnated.

91% of US gynecologists will perform tubal ligation if you insist; religion makes a doctor up to 3x more likely to try to discourage you (depending on your age), but the sex of the doctor is irrelevant (2010 survey of 1800 US gynecologists). Marriage has no effect on probability of having a tubal ligation compared to unwed cohabitation; and single women are just 25% less likely (1995 survey of 10,000 US women). Looks like your story about men in power stopping women from getting their tubes tied misrepresents the overall situation in America.

But if the risk is so small, then why are there so many "unwanted" pregnancies?

Same reason there are so many car wrecks - millions of people each taking small risks.

"If a man ***** a woman, he's a criminal. If a woman ***** a man, he just got lucky."

Dissect that for me if you will, and we'll see where that leads us, I'd be interested to understand your thinking on this joke.

"woman ***** a man" it's funny cus wimmen aint got dingalings lolol

But seriously the 1st conditional is obviously true and the 2nd is false, sexist, and unfortunately believed by many men and women. In the 2nd conditional the word '****' is used to mock **** of men, suggesting that it's harmless, therefore not criminal. Most Americans would probably go a step farther and say that it's not actually '****' unless the woman physically restrains him. Most academic feminists would go another step and deny that it is **** if she ties him up and rides him as he says 'no' and calls for help, unless she also puts things up his butt (this is the 'penetration' definition).

I made my previous comment because you said men and boys are ***** into having to pay child support. I just... I don't understand how that's possible on a large enough scale so as to compare it to the large numbers of women who have been ***** by men over the years. I think it's gotta be 1 to 10,000 or worse, no? I just wouldn't hedge my bet is all... seems like if I were a congressman I'd be far less likely to make changes to laws based on this argument.

I already showed that men are ***** almost as often as women. The vast majority of these men are "made to penetrate", and 79% of them are ***** only by women (CDC p24). So the ratio of men to women ***** is 50:50, and the ratio of men to women heterosexually ***** is 45:55. **** of men by women is a huge problem made even worse by the fact that women can **** a man (without it being called ****) and then take his money. Why are you trying to compare men who have been ***** physically AND financially vs. all women who have been *****? The fact that women can receive custody and child support after ****** a guy just shows the massive female bias in our family court system.

The patriarchal institution is to blame for expecting those payments to be divided into woman does the raising, man does the working/paying.

The very groups claiming to support women's rights (National Organization for Women) consistently oppose reforms (such as presumption of shared parenting) that would help remedy the imbalances.

If anything to me it sounds like just another clever way men have come up with to get OUT of paying child support. Remember child support -ideally- is not for the mother, but the child... it's meant because it takes TWO to make a baby, so whether either of them wanted it or not, once the kid's there, they're there... and BOTH have to pay.

If a woman messes up her birth control, causing a pregnancy, it's her mistake because she was supposed and equipped to prevent, detect, and fix the problem. It may be partly your fault if you picked a bad woman who routinely fails to minimize risks, or if you poked holes in your condom that day, but otherwise you're a victim and you shouldn't be liable for child support. You're not at fault, even though sex carries the inherent risk of pregnancy, because it was your partner who failed to mitigate the risks. Right?

Low-income (or no-income) families in rural red states like this one (Mississippi). As I was saying to Lars, our populace has some 30-40% on assistance, myself included. It's gotten to where the institution perpetuates itself, and there's no end in sight, short of cutting it ALL off, and starting over (which would mean about 20-30 years or 1 to 2 generations of straight up depression-era poverty before getting better).

I'd argue that gradual tapering off is better than going cold turkey. And I'm optimistic that cultural focus on (and financial support for) education can reduce poverty. But that's another debate!

@ Thor : I'm not ignoring you, I'm just kinda burnt out on this atm. I promise to reply asap!

 

[Thor]

I already showed that men are ***** almost as often as women.

How does this show that men are ***** more often than women? I read the "key finding" and it says "Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been ***** at some time in their lives...". Since there isn't a massive gender imbalance in the population of the US, that would suggest to me that women are more than 10 times more likely to be ***** than men...

Furthermore, "13% of women and 6% of men have have experienced sexual coercion... and 27.2% of women and 11.2% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact."

This article DOES assert that such violence by an intimate partner is close to equally likely (35.6% women, 28.5% men), but every statistic in their key findings indicates that men are substantially less likely to be ***** than women.

You'll need to explain to me how this article proves your point, and the page number it's on, because I don't really have time to read the whole thing (it looks fairly dense), but in reading 2 pages, your statement has been decimated and it looks like you are ripping things out of context.

And I say that because there is one more, truly damning statement in the key points: "Male **** victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly females."

So EVEN IF men are victims of some form of sexual abuse as much as women are, males are the ones doing most of the ******, to women AND men. You have a high burden of proof to show A) why this source proves your point and B) why this source doesn't contradict itself, given the things I have cited from your same source. Because this source has said that women ****** men is NOT the most common form of male ****, AND that men are 10 times LESS likely to be the victim of **** in their lifetime.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

How does this show that men are ***** more often than women? I read the "key finding" and it says "Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been ***** at some time in their lives...". Since there isn't a massive gender imbalance in the population of the US, that would suggest to me that women are more than 10 times more likely to be ***** than men...

Furthermore, "13% of women and 6% of men have have experienced sexual coercion... and 27.2% of women and 11.2% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact."

This article DOES assert that such violence by an intimate partner is close to equally likely (35.6% women, 28.5% men), but every statistic in their key findings indicates that men are substantially less likely to be ***** than women.

You'll need to explain to me how this article proves your point, and the page number it's on, because I don't really have time to read the whole thing (it looks fairly dense), but in reading 2 pages, your statement has been decimated and it looks like you are ripping things out of context.

And I say that because there is one more, truly damning statement in the key points: "Male **** victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly females."

So EVEN IF men are victims of some form of sexual abuse as much as women are, males are the ones doing most of the ******, to women AND men. You have a high burden of proof to show A) why this source proves your point and B) why this source doesn't contradict itself, given the things I have cited from your same source. Because this source has said that women ****** men is NOT the most common form of male ****, AND that men are 10 times LESS likely to be the victim of **** in their lifetime.

The CDC and virtually all official surveys and statistics use the penetration definition of ****. As I noted, you have to include "made to penetrate" to get unbiased statistics.

 

[Thor]

"Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) report that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime." Meanwhile women have approximately 1 in 5 odds (as I stated above), so if you include made to penetrate, women are still about 3 times as likely as men to be ***** (18.3%/[4.8%+1.4%] = 2.95...). Also know that since you claim it doesn't include made to penetrate, the odds of a man being forced to care for a child against his will compared to a woman being ***** into having a kid are almost 4 times less likely (18.3%/4.8% = 3.81...).

So using these figures, men are still 3 times less likely to be *****, and have 1 in 4 odds in **** pregnancy cases of being forced to care for the child despite being *****. Those odds are not something to play around with by any stretch, but it's not true that men are just as likely as women to be *****, and men are not frequently ***** into caring for the child [though it may be more prevalent than Sucumbio or I first realized]. Or else point out more numbers to me, because I used the "made to penetrate" statistic included there and women are still about 3 times more likely then men to get *****.

Please also note that I assume that men are made SOLELY here to penetrate women - if men are made predominantly to penetrate other men, or even if the spread is 2 to 1 women to men, the odds of being ***** into a pregnancy still drop rather substantially. However those numbers for now appear much closer than what the key points originally stated based on a more general definition of ****, I will say that much is true.

Sucumbio may also have a different take on these statistics, so he may dispute what you or I have stated.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Lifetime totals are distorted since women are more likely to view themselves as victims and remember the events years later. Annual numbers are more accurate and up-to-date.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I think some places have legitimate men's rights issues (child custody, not being forced to give a woman too much [or anything] in a divorce when she was cheating/abusive/etc. while he was the one holding down a job and she did nothing), but those issues pale when compared historically to issues women have faced (those same issues as well as voting, equal pay, not being refused jobs for being a woman, etc.).

Since you wanna get historical, consider the hundreds of millions of men hacked and blasted to pieces in battle, and the millions more who toiled to their deaths in mines and labor camps. What makes you so sure the fairer sex has suffered more?

That analogy doesn't hold up under inspection... I am prepared to live with the risk to die by being on this planet, breathing air that may be toxic instead of living in a filtered tube with food delivered to me. And you could still be paralyzed in a car wreck by getting hit by a car that wrecks on a tree or something because you are on the sidewalk. Those are risks that are inevitable, that can NEVER be reduced to zero (a car could drive through your house and kill you, or a meteor could hit you [and people HAVE died from it]). But you CAN reduce the risk of pregnancy to zero percent, so that is a risk one should be prepared to live with, because it is one that can be fully eliminated.

No you CANNOT reduce pregnancy risk to zero, because you could be ***** anytime, just as you could be struck by a car at any time. Abstinence (from sex or driving) significantly reduces your risk, but it is bossy to tell everyone to abstain regardless of the rewards. Most good things require trust, and it's not always fair to blame someone when their trust is broken.

I personally know men AND women face problems today, [...] If it is true in America, I'm curious - what are these problems?

-The draft.
-Family court.
-Ignoring/trivializing male victims; men excluded and ridiculed when seeking help.
-Men receive harsher sentences than women for the same crimes.
-Men accused of **** are judged using lower standards of proof, especially at colleges.
-Gay men seen as disgusting (moreso than lesbians).

 

[Thor]

Since you wanna get historical, consider the hundreds of millions of men hacked and blasted to pieces in battle, and the millions more who toiled to their deaths in mines and labor camps. What makes you so sure the fairer sex has suffered more?

That they were oppressed by their own gender, not women? That wouldn't be an issue of rights from the perspective of men/women divide that LarsINTJ is so keen on [and that's "men's rights" implies], but general human rights (which are also very important). I'm not saying women have suffered more, I'm saying women have faced more obstacles and been more oppressed due to their gender and by the opposite sex than men have. And women not going to fight/toil was because they were considered "too weak" to do those things - that may be a convenient excuse for them to get out of certain things, but it also locked countless other doors, stopping the vast majority of women from opening their own stores or doing what they want to do, because while men had countless options, women were by and large made to stay at home and make food and raise kids.

I was focusing on gender-specific issues since you mention men's rights versus women's rights - no doubt both groups have had countless hardships, but most of men's hardships weren't because women restrained them or told them they couldn't do certain things, yet a large portion of women had to be told just that by men.

No you CANNOT reduce pregnancy risk to zero, because you could be ***** anytime, just as you could be struck by a car at any time. Abstinence (from sex or driving) significantly reduces your risk, but it is bossy to tell everyone to abstain regardless of the rewards. Most good things require trust, and it's not always fair to blame someone when their trust is broken.

Your attack on my analogy fails from a legal/illegal distinction: You can't reduce the risk of a driving accident induced by someone else who is there legally and makes an accident (ex: they miscalculate) to zero, but you can reduce the risk of pregnancy via legal means but there is an accident to zero. Similarly, there's nothing illegal about a meteor killing you, but there is something illegal about a person ****** you (they're ****** you). You can reduce the risk of a pregnancy that occurs in a fully legal manner to zero, but you can't reduce the risk of dying via meteor to zero.

-The draft.
-Family court.
-Ignoring/trivializing male victims; men excluded and ridiculed when seeking help.
-Men receive harsher sentences than women for the same crimes.
-Men accused of **** are judged using lower standards of proof, especially at colleges.
-Gay men seen as disgusting (moreso than lesbians).

Fair enough. I can name reciprocal problems for at least half of those, and also other problems women face, but I admit there are some issues that need tackling [even though, ironically enough, assumptions that men are tougher (patriarchy at work) causes some of those].

 

[Sucumbio]

Lifetime totals are distorted since women are more likely to view themselves as victims and remember the events years later. Annual numbers are more accurate and up-to-date.

Can we not make generalizations and point fingers at women in a debate that's trying to parse the difference between radical feminism (man haters) and normal feminism (the kind that led to women being able to vote)? There's even feminists who outright state their love of men... only an idiot thinks the human race should be a single sex race, or that men would be better off in chains. As for the census data, Thor summed up what I was going to say. The statistics don't support your theory.

...women exclusively raised kids for the vast majority of human history leading up to this point.

1.) Did you have a dad growing up or were you raised in a single family household by your mom or just your dad?
2.) What is the definition of "raising" to you?
3.) If a man decides to walk out on a woman, why must it be the woman's fault?

The first question I ask because throughout this thread I've noticed a certain vitriol directed toward women. Not just feminists, mind you... but all women. So I'd like to know if there's some personal agenda you're trying to wade through in all this. It'd hurt your objectivity is why I ask, I have nothing personal against people raised in single parent homes.

The second question I ask because I cannot comprehend what you could possibly mean. It is true that women exclusively give birth and breast feed. But just to use myself as an example, both my parents took turns bathing me, clothing me, feeding me, playing with me, teaching me, transporting me, nurturing me, etc. etc. etc... most couples who raise kids - couples mind you, not male/female, but all couples gender aside - share in the responsibility of raising a child. To me it sounds as if you believe the woman's role is somehow paramount. But historically speaking, men were the bread winners, meaning it was their dollars that paid for military school, private school, boarding school, etc. It was their dollars that paid for the food that the family ate. It was their toil and hard work. Women historically stayed at home to tend to the home itself, keeping it orderly, preparing the meal, watching the children to ensure they were safe. This is still considered a partnership of responsibility, you see? And the fact remains that children both adore and emulate their parents specifically the ones whose gender they share. Meaning, boys grew up to be like their fathers, women, their mothers. Boys learned at an early age to utilize a trade, or were in training at academy to become "masters of the world." Girls learned how to tend to the home. Cooking, sewing, child rearing, etc. So this idea that somehow because women spend more time with children historically that they must somehow have "controlled" the destiny of mankind, is fallacious.

The third question I ask because you've said it more than once... that the woman should not make "bad decisions" in whom she mates with. The thing is, more often than you'd think, men just... walk out. They do that. They may seem great and BE great for YEARS, but ... just... boom. Gone. And now what? Mother's always relied on the father to provide, and now she has nothing. Assistance is provided by the government to help women in this case. It's not their fault that -other- women do choose to abuse the system. One bad apple need not spoil the whole bunch in this case.

Either way, raising a child without both parents is absolutely disastrous for their future prospects.

In point of fact two of best friends in high school were raised by single parents, and they both lead very good lives. One is a nurse, the other is an database specialist who travels all over the world. They both have their issues, as all people do, but the "future prospects" aren't dictated by how many parents they had. I had 5 people raising me if you want to get technical, I'm not suddenly a billionaire because the odds were stacked so well in my favor.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Can we not make generalizations and point fingers at women in a debate that's trying to parse the difference between radical feminism (man haters) and normal feminism (the kind that led to women being able to vote)? There's even feminists who outright state their love of men... only an idiot thinks the human race should be a single sex race, or that men would be better off in chains. As for the census data, Thor summed up what I was going to say. The statistics don't support your theory.

This isn't about generalizations and finger-pointing, it's about recognizing male victimization as a real problem. Thor's lifetime numbers are less reliable partly because memories decay over time, and women are more likely to remember emotional childhood events.

Five studies were conducted, and results revealed that females consistently recalled more childhood memories than males did and were generally faster in accessing the memories recalled. Furthermore, the gender difference observed was specific to memories of events associated with emotion

The lifetime numbers do reflect the fact that more girls than boys are ***** - One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18. But neither of you have disputed the annual numbers showing that when an adult is ***** (including "made to penetrate"), 50% of the time the victim is male. And even if you're correct that men are ***** 1/3 as often, would that justify the way our society treats male victims?

That they were oppressed by their own gender, not women? That wouldn't be an issue of rights from the perspective of men/women divide that LarsINTJ is so keen on [and that's "men's rights" implies], but general human rights (which are also very important). I'm not saying women have suffered more, I'm saying women have faced more obstacles and been more oppressed due to their gender and by the opposite sex than men have. And women not going to fight/toil was because they were considered "too weak" to do those things - that may be a convenient excuse for them to get out of certain things, but it also locked countless other doors, stopping the vast majority of women from opening their own stores or doing what they want to do, because while men had countless options, women were by and large made to stay at home and make food and raise kids.

I was focusing on gender-specific issues since you mention men's rights versus women's rights - no doubt both groups have had countless hardships, but most of men's hardships weren't because women restrained them or told them they couldn't do certain things, yet a large portion of women had to be told just that by men.

Patriarchy theory greatly oversimplifies the historical facts. Gender roles are enforced collectively by all of society, including women. For example, women shamed men for cowardice during WWI. To adapt Succumbio's phrase, why do you make generalizations and point fingers at men in a debate that's trying (from my perspective) to acknowledge male victimhood? And regardless of who enforced gender roles, multitudes of men mutilated in wars and workplaces throughout history refute the theory that these roles primarily oppressed women.

Your attack on my analogy fails from a legal/illegal distinction: You can't reduce the risk of a driving accident induced by someone else who is there legally and makes an accident (ex: they miscalculate) to zero, but you can reduce the risk of pregnancy via legal means but there is an accident to zero. Similarly, there's nothing illegal about a meteor killing you, but there is something illegal about a person ****** you (they're ****** you). You can reduce the risk of a pregnancy that occurs in a fully legal manner to zero, but you can't reduce the risk of dying via meteor to zero.

My analogy (driving vs. sex) depends on both being risky (because you have to trust others to do their part) but worthwhile. The risk for abstainers is pretty low in both cases, partly because it's illegal to run them over or **** them. Your argument is: the pregnancy risk for abstaining from sex would be zero if everyone behaved legally, therefore we should all abstain from sex until parenthood. This argument is fallacious for two reasons:
1) What matters for abstainers' risk is the frequency of ***** in reality, not in some idealized utopia where laws are never broken.
2) Even if you COULD reduce risk to zero, that wouldn't mean you always SHOULD. The benefits to driving/sex sometimes outweigh the risks, at least for some people.

Fair enough. I can name reciprocal problems for at least half of those, and also other problems women face, but I admit there are some issues that need tackling [even though, ironically enough, assumptions that men are tougher (patriarchy at work) causes some of those].

Men's issues were partly due to patriarchal tradition but today men and women are both doing their part to downplay and justify and perpetuate these injustices.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay, but that's not what you said... you said and I quote "women are more likely to view themselves as victims." I think that if any woman say, here at SWF read that, they'd be offended. =I'm= offended and I'm a guy! Women aren't weak or inferior, which is what victimization syndrome suggests. I realize that some people do in fact play the pity party all their life, try to garner sympathy in everything they do, etc. But that's not EVERY WOMAN.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Okay, but that's not what you said... you said and I quote "women are more likely to view themselves as victims." I think that if any woman say, here at SWF read that, they'd be offended. =I'm= offended and I'm a guy! Women aren't weak or inferior, which is what victimization syndrome suggests. I realize that some people do in fact play the pity party all their life, try to garner sympathy in everything they do, etc. But that's not EVERY WOMAN.

"More likely" is key here. How exactly did you interpret that as 'all women view themselves as victims'? Do you believe women are so fragile as to be offended by statistical suggestions? Ironically, if group X were to be offended by statistics which suggest they're more likely to view themselves as victims compared to group Y then they would become an affirmation of self-victimization through example.

Here's how to call yourself out on sexism, simply invert the genders within any given statement and compare your immediate emotional response.

'Women are often kind, noble, caring and generous'

'Sociopaths are more likely to be male than female'

Ignore any statistical facts or prior knowledge, does your reaction differ solely by gender?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Okay, but that's not what you said... you said and I quote "women are more likely to view themselves as victims." I think that if any woman say, here at SWF read that, they'd be offended. =I'm= offended and I'm a guy! Women aren't weak or inferior, which is what victimization syndrome suggests. I realize that some people do in fact play the pity party all their life, try to garner sympathy in everything they do, etc. But that's not EVERY WOMAN.

It's a fact that women are more likely to view themselves as victims. Male victims do not freely admit being victims of intimate partner violence at the hands of females.

Women’s violence against male intimates is judged less
harshly than men’s violence against female intimates. This
conclusion, arrived at by multiple research studies, is ev-
idenced in action. Fewer women are incarcerated in the
U.S. than would be expected by their offending rates (Daly
&Tonry, 1997). Even when controlling for confounding
factors, men are 8 to 26% more likely than women to re-
ceive prison sentences (Daly & Bordt, 1994). When ap-
pearing in court under similar circumstances, men are sent
to prison for longer terms than are women (e.g., Jeffries,
Fletcher, & Newbold, 2003)—about 12 months longer ac-
cording to some research (Daly & Bordt, 1994). Thus, our
findings about societal perceptions of intimate partner vi-
olence by women is consistent with findings about how
women are treated in the criminal justice system

SOURCE

 

[Sucumbio]

"More likely" is key here. How exactly did you interpret that as 'all women view themselves as victims'? Do you believe women are so fragile as to be offended by statistical suggestions? Ironically, if group X were to be offended by statistics which suggest they're more likely to view themselves as victims compared to group Y then they would become an affirmation of self-victimization through example.

The subject of a sentence can be modified in many ways, but with no modifier there are only a few ways to read it. By saying Women are more likely, the more likely part is NOT the important part, the "Women are" is. If he'd wanted to state what you've said, he'd have had to say "[Most] women" or [some] women or Women [in general] or Women [rarely]. But he didn't so of course the meaning of sentence is read "[All] women are more likely to view themselves as victims." And that's a problem. Because it's not true. And he knew that saying it correctly would be labeled untrue, which is why he tried to hide the fact... and I called him out on it. Also, the whole statement is actually non sequitur. 3rd grade grammar, yo, get on my level.

It's a fact that women are more likely to view themselves as victims. Male victims do not freely admit being victims of intimate partner violence at the hands of females.

No, it's fact that MOST women are more likely to ADMIT to BEING victims. Tsk tsk. Shame on you, you know the implications of speech, especially on a message board. I may sound like a grammar nazi but the fact of business is that without precision words mean nothing. And I would rather say nothing than make a post for all to see for all time that was in whole or in part inaccurate. And the irony is that you then follow up with a study which DOES make the correct distinctions as if you're okay with the two sentences being the same when they're clearly not. And I dunno what neighborhood you live in, but really you can just watch Cops, chicks cut dudes almost as much if not more than the other way around, it's the highlight of the show!

 

[AfungusAmongus]

No, it's fact that MOST women are more likely to ADMIT to BEING victims. Tsk tsk. Shame on you, you know the implications of speech, especially on a message board. I may sound like a grammar nazi but the fact of business is that without precision words mean nothing. And I would rather say nothing than make a post for all to see for all time that was in whole or in part inaccurate. And the irony is that you then follow up with a study which DOES make the correct distinctions as if you're okay with the two sentences being the same when they're clearly not. And I dunno what neighborhood you live in, but really you can just watch Cops, chicks cut dudes almost as much if not more than the other way around, it's the highlight of the show!

My emphasis was off, but the point is that women's and men's different self-images bias their memories and reports of childhood abuse so that lifetime numbers falsely inflate the female/male **** victim ratio.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Everyone is already well aware of how women can face significant issues within society, it's common knowledge at this point.

Now it's time for society to also recognize the equally valid plight of men rather than act as if they're somehow privileged because 'patriarchy' and blame them for everything that goes wrong.

Compare the general suicide rate between men and women, it's absolutely staggering.

By the way, nobody appreciates nit-picky patronizing condescension, it's a cheap trick used to misdirect an audience and dismiss the opposition without providing any counter-arguments by shifting the focus upon their integrity.

 

[Octillus]

The fact is, being male leads you into being in a position of power and privilege simply by existing. Rather than focusing on male rights (and let's be honest, often associated with white male rights), perhaps the better idea is to focus on issues like the societal stigma against depression (I would know, as I was just fired due to my depression! YAY!) or the stigma against loneliness.

The reality is that we live in a world that is unsafe for women. There's a distinct difference between self-harm and inflicted harm, and women are fearful of their lives, and basically violence that is inordinately being caused against women. You can cite small sample data if you want to talk about women's prisons or other scenarios, but ultimately the overwhelming majority of violent acts committed against women are by men, and you cannot deny this.

There are a lot of pent up voices that have been kept silent for a long time, and they're finally starting to be heard.

Things suck about being young and alive right now - such is the world and socioeconomics. But it doesn't matter because you, as a heteronormative male living in the west have privileges that other people do not. Learn to accept that, and learn to accept that the world does not revolve around you and your struggles are not greater than those who are murdered, persecuted and simply less accepted than being just a dude.

There is a job imbalance, but this is mostly due to the dissolution of the labor class which has historically been male dominated which isn't inherently necessarily a problem. You want to talk about there being more unemployed men? Then stop buying cheap products manufactured outside of the west. As a consumer economy we have less production work, but a larger population - there is your imbalance.

 

[Thor]

By the way, nobody appreciates nit-picky patronizing condescension, it's a cheap trick used to misdirect an audience and dismiss the opposition without providing any real counter-arguments by shifting the focus upon their integrity.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You just set off both my fraud detection and hypocrisy alert given how you behaved for like the first 75% of this entire forum.

And you still haven't figured out how to properly use the word "integrity", and neither you nor AfungusAmongus have addressed any of the points I raised earlier in this forum [although I doubt AfungusAmongus disagrees with most of it].

The lifetime numbers do reflect the fact that more girls than boys are ***** - One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18. But neither of you have disputed the annual numbers showing that when an adult is ***** (including "made to penetrate"), 50% of the time the victim is male. And even if you're correct that men are ***** 1/3 as often, would that justify the way our society treats male victims?

Actually I have - that would be the ***** "1/3 as often" that you lampshade but do not quote. You just kind of state that memories are distorted, but that doesn't mean that totals don't change year-to-year, and given that the totals cited there are still showing women are ***** more often than men, we'll have to wait a few more years and compare numbers, or else you'll need to pull a lot more data than one year from the study.

And if one man or one woman is *****, it's a travesty and they should be treated with utmost care - I wouldn't argue anything else. But you act like men have this massive problem with being *****, yet last I checked, they aren't quizzed in court on what they were wearing, and don't usually receive catcalls from random creeps as they walk down the street if they look good.

Patriarchy theory greatly oversimplifies the historical facts. Gender roles are enforced collectively by all of society, including women. For example, women shamed men for cowardice during WWI. To adapt Succumbio's phrase, why do you make generalizations and point fingers at men in a debate that's trying (from my perspective) to acknowledge male victimhood? And regardless of who enforced gender roles, multitudes of men mutilated in wars and workplaces throughout history refute the theory that these roles primarily oppressed women.

Gender roles are enforced, but they by-and-large disadvantage women more than men, as I've already pointed out.

And maybe because [white], straight, able-bodied, right-handed men (like me, except for the right-handed part - I'm a lefty) have been the most privileged people in history, and were oppressing others along the way? Yeah men have problems too, but the problems others face for being not-white men are often significantly greater - if, like me, you think the playing field should be leveled, so that people are victimized less and treated more fairly as a whole, with everyone's problems addressed equally, you definitely don't start with how badly men are treated, especially in America.

I don't know how I'm pointing fingers at men, but I've already acknowledged male victimhood - it's present, but it's not nearly as bad for men in America as it is for a wide variety of groups elsewhere.

Also, when women spoke out or fought against gender roles, they were ignored or repressed - it's not like they were able to just all stop and change the roles, it took a long time just to get women the right to vote in the US, and that's a simple law, not an entire set of beliefs and values about how women and men acted and behaved.

Men still had a choice where to work - the multitudes of women beaten at home by men for trivial things (or at all) was certainly no less prevalent - and workplace accidents are tragic, but accidents, not intentional, and men still had at least something of a choice in where they worked - women never had that freedom.

 

[LarsINTJ]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You just set off both my fraud detection and hypocrisy alert given how you behaved for like the first 75% of this entire forum.

And you still haven't figured out how to properly use the word "integrity", and neither you nor AfungusAmongus have addressed any of the points I raised earlier in this forum [although I doubt AfungusAmongus disagrees with most of it].

Do you even understand what projection is? Clearly not, so don't attack my integrity by pretending to know what integrity means. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, you quoted it.

You've only managed to provide another example of sophistry, an incredibly immature one at that.

...

 

[Thor]

Do you even understand what projection is?

You've only managed to provide another example of sophistry, an incredibly immature one at that.

Also, I don't have to repeat myself, you quoted it.

Here are the points in the debate you have woefully failed to address, and until you address them, every argument you make is irrelevant because it begs the question and those foundations have no defense, making them invalid:
Feminism is an ideology dedicated toward social, political, economic, and cultural equality. I have sourced out three different definitions/articles that all conclude the same thing. You have given ZERO evidence. You must provide a source of evidence to back up your definition, not something you pulled out of the air.
There are two separate groups of feminists - feminazis, the one we both acknowledge exist, and those who are like Luice Irigaray and Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley [and myself], who simply want to make a society where women are not made inferior to men because they are not men. I have cited authors who fundamentally can't exist under your paradigm. You must either give, in no uncertain terms, proof that they are exactly the same as the others, or show how their "logics" are to be logically extended. And no Illuminati-style conspiracy, I want cold hard facts, because without this explanation, every single thing you say falls apart.
Normative statements that apply only to men and women exist in society at large, about purity, beauty, and docility of women as desirable, that are patriarchal in nature because they objectify the body and are asymmetric (who gives a **** if a man is pure? No one). This has been shown, and it's proof that patriarchy exists in hidden form.
These normative statements are NOT natural (that would be the baby X article, and the fact that in the 1930s, blue was the color of choice for girls, and pink the color of choice for girls). Therefore none of those norms are biologically driven but socially constructed, which is an example of patriarchy existing today.
Patriarchy in more obvious forms (martial **** in India, stoning to death women in Iran, etc.) exists worldwide, and feminists seek to right these wrongs by making things more equal for these women with legal protections from martial **** and symmetrical punishments for adultery. In this feminists do a good thing.
Men and women each have a say in who raises children and whether or not to have kids. The nuclear model of the family is vastly decayed and not the norm. However in parts of the world men do choose the partners in a line-up fashion and raise the kids without mom's influence, which is blatant sexism and objectification of women.
Men are, for the most part, in control of all the governments of the world (There are a few female reps, yes, a small minority), and they are the ones who shape how society moves forward.
Men abandon women, just as women abandon men - for men who make mistakes, they should be forced to own up to them, just as when a man made no mistake or was tricked, he should pay nothing.
Tenets of feminism: men and women should be treated equally, and not held to social norms that dictate social locations for each group, but that is not how society is today, so there should be more legal, social, cultural, and political rights for women until each group has the same set of rights (arguably, a man doesn't need the right to get an abortion, because he can't be pregnant, but details details...). You have argued other tenets exist - provide me proof of their existence in STANDARD feminism.
[...]
You never answered a question that's very relevant to understanding how these words are contextualized: As someone who supports the equality of women in political, social, economic, and cultural sphere, what am I? Is there a label for me, and if so, what is it?
The people you identify are also opportunistic pieces of white trash (or other undesirable terms for other races that I'm sure will be censored out by SWF), NOT the mainstream movement. You need to provide me evidence that all significant leaders of the feminism movement are simply people looking to exploit the system.

This is exactly what I am talking about with what I said - you have not answered this, and I am demanding an answer from you, not an axiomatic affirmation from your throne of lies, which is all that you have offered [and a lame response relating to a sarcastic URL I posted about Yao Ming, as if that somehow excuses you from actually addressing the points I make. It does not.]

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

Projection, noun

6b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

So that would be only you, because you continue to assume I possess any of those emotions here, while you shove the blame for not addressing my logically laid-out points on to me for trivial remarks I make along the way. Do you understand what proper use of the English language is?

You also have an endless supply of ad-hominems and objectionable truisms, but no real arguments.

And I would hope you don't repeat something that is complete batcrap, but seeing as how you've done so time and again here, I will strive not to get my hopes up.

EDIT: While we're at it:

sophistry, noun

the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

I have highlighted why what you have stated is contradictory and an example of sophistry. If you wish to argue that what I say is sophistry, you must demonstrate why, because no one else here has raised a real objection to anything I've said - if you want to make an argument that what I say is sophistry, back it up, for your argument has no merit otherwise.

And the only argument I was making was that your claim that Sucumbio is out of line is batcrap when you were doing the exact same thing, on a much larger scale and repeatedly, AND Sucumbio was actually backing up his statements, not saying nothing and hiding it with a wall of text. And I didn't use fallacious logic to make it - I pointed out a clear contraction, an act of hypocrisy present throughout the entire thread - you need to point out the logical fallacy here - name it and explain how it applies, because otherwise your argument is once again invalidated by inspection.

 

[LarsINTJ]

This is exactly what I am talking about with what I said - you have not answered this, and I am demanding an answer from you, not an axiomatic affirmation from your throne of lies, which is all that you have offered [and a lame response relating to a sarcastic URL I posted about Yao Ming, as if that somehow excuses you from actually addressing the points I make. It does not.]

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

Projection, noun

6b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

So that would be only you, because you continue to assume I possess any of those emotions here, while you shove the blame for not addressing my logically laid-out points on to me for trivial remarks I make along the way. Do you understand what proper use of the English language is?

Should I be surprised? I'm not.

You also have an endless supply of ad-hominems and objectionable truisms, but no real arguments.

You appear to have interpreted some of my previous posts as personal attacks, too bad that pointing out argumentative deficiencies does not constitute ad hominem nor is it irrelevant. Don't get mad at me for telling you to turn around when you're beating your head against a brick wall.

Instead of taking Feminist propaganda for granted, how about you pay attention to what the opposition is saying? Of course not.

And I would hope you don't repeat something that is complete batcrap, but seeing as how you've done so time and again here, I will strive not to get my hopes up.

Well done, frame everything I've said thus far as nonsense because that's how you prove a point.

 

[Sucumbio]

Throne of lies, though? lol!

Lars, this isn't the first time someone's beat you about the face and neck with a dictionary. Since the ball's in your court when someone "replies" it's better to support your side of the argument rather than deflect the argument back with a one-liner or worse, mirror the behavior you object to. In your case you wish to prove that sources such as Wikipedia are nothing more than Feminist Propaganda. A challenging position, to be sure, but not impossible. Start with something simple, such as, the definition (more dictionary comin' right back at ya, kirby style!)

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. -source

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Now begin your case by deconstructing the definition.

1.) Feminism is a collection of movements/ideologies
2.) It's intent is to bring social/political/economic/cultural equality.

You can even challenge the definition itself, however you'd be wasting your time. It's far more efficient to demonstrate through sources and studies how Feminism is unilaterally about dominance rather than equality.

Your approach is difficult to digest because it starts with the conclusion and follows with very little (I did appreciate the video links from you and fungus tho, but we need more). In debate we tend to rely on evidence to support our claims, which means just about everything you say here will demand a link of some sort. Only in the philosophical sense would you get away with not citing your material, which is an option even in this debate too, I suppose, though I tend to think of Feminism as fodder for policy debate rather than philosophy. Okay, enough lecturing.

_____


My most recent addition to this ongoing debate wasn't meant as a smokescreen, though I can understand why you'd see it as such. Broken down to "connect the dots" so to speak, I will explain: By demonstrating the syntax error in Fungus' statement, I was able to re-categorize the entire thought as non sequitur. That is a classic debate tactic, (and fair game) which is showing how someone's point is unrelated to the debate. (And if you think the jury's still out on that in particular, I'll be happy to further explain why variations between men's and women's memories and self images are irrelevant to policy and law).

As for the issue of Men's rights, I ask you to make a comparison. Can black people be racist? Answer: depends on who you ask. Seriously, I've had several conversations with people who really thought that a black person in America cannot -by institution- be categorically racist. Ridiculous, I know, but the reason I draw this comparison is to highlight a very real issue with your stance: by attacking Women's Rights on the basis that men need them too, you are avoiding the deeper issue which is that by granting men more rights, you still aren't granting women the rights they still deserve.

In terms of the movement itself, it's not even a movement anymore. It's become a cliche in America, unfortunately. If I ask 10 people to name me one feminist, I'm almost certain 9 of them would say "Ellen DeGeneres." Not that that's a bad answer! But is it accurate? If you ask 10 people to name a militant religious leader they'd probably all answer "Osama bin Laden." Ideology comes in waves, sure, but it also comes in strengths. The strongest forms of religious ideology, for instance, come in the form of terror groups like Al Qaeda or Isis. Both hate groups by any meaningful definition. Same goes for feminists. The video you linked clearly demonstrates an example of a hate group, man-hating women all cracking jokes about killing off male babies, lol. Yeah, it's funny, but it's also tragic, because they really believe some of the things they're saying (though you can bet the social climate of message boards in particular tend to create bias on their own). Do we think all religions must be hate groups because of Isis? Do we discount all feminists because of one message board? No, of course not.

And indeed, in the middle road, there's still PLENTY of women who believe in their gender roles. They are not interested in "making it on their own," they do exactly what their husbands tell them to do, and they feel proud and confident in their decisions to live this way. They aren't bread winners. They aren't "career oriented" (what an ugly distinction). I mean do we call men career oriented? No, we just call them normal. But if a woman wants a career, oh now, hold the ****in' phone, you're not thinking of WORKING are you? Don't you have kids to raise?!?!

...

Anyway, I think for the moment this debate and mainly between you and Thor, is stymied. I suggest taking a step back, both of you, really, and concisely state your points that you wish to prove/disprove, then come back to the table with sources ready (though Thor has you beat there, no offense).

Meanwhile, I hate to say it, there's already almost unanimous agreement in America that women have it better than they did, that things needed to change, and there still needs to be more. And yes, sure, as a result of these changes that's taken over a century to progress I'm sure men do have a tougher go of it in some cases. But honestly, I'd rather 10 black people be considered for a job before me than to go back 150 years to a time when black people weren't even considered humans but instead soulless beasts of burden that sold for less than a horse.

 

[Thor]

Should I be surprised? I'm not.



You appear to have interpreted some of my previous posts as personal attacks, too bad that pointing out argumentative deficiencies does not constitute ad hominem nor is it irrelevant. Don't get mad at me for telling you to turn around when you're beating your head against a brick wall.

Instead of taking Feminist propaganda for granted, how about you pay attention to what the opposition is saying? Of course not.



Well done, frame everything I've said thus far as nonsense because that's how you prove a point.

You shouldn't be surprised that I re-quoted my first post that really laid out my thoughts, because you've addressed none of them.

You keep saying that I'm projecting and irrational.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

ad-hominem, adj
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You have done ZERO work to disprove anything I say, but just insult me ("Stop projecting," "don't get so flustered") when I have rationally laid out my thoughts in a way that, if they ARE fallacious, should be very easy to refute, because my reasoning is clearly laid out. And you still have not managed to point out any argumentative deficiencies, other than calling my sources feminist propaganda WITHOUT showing what a non-feminist propaganda definition of feminism is. You've linked two videos that are each rather long, of small minority groups, and that's it.

And I do pay attention to what the opposition is saying - I KNOW there are man-hating she-b*tches and feminazis, but YOU have woefully failed to pay attention to the opposition yourself by providing no evidence that EVERYONE who is a feminist is ok with those thoughts/agrees with them. I'll re-quote the point I made earlier that I want you to answer.

You never answered a question that's very relevant to understanding how these words are contextualized: As someone who supports the equality of women [and all other people] in political, social, economic, and cultural sphere, what am I? Is there a label for me, and if so, what is it?

I don't have to frame your points as nonsense - they do that on their own quite nicely. On a more serious note, the ONLY point I was trying to say with that statement is that I figured you would do nothing but attack me by calling me "projecting" "flustered" etc.

Here's what I want you to answer, if it's the only thing about this post you discuss [besides the above quote]: You have refused to lay out why each point I have stated is wrong in a clear, logical fashion, beyond using overarching ad-hominems against me ("flustered", "projecting") and the sources I present ("Feminist propaganda"), yet continue to insist everything I say is wrong. Why?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Okay, this has gone back and forth this long, and Thor and Sucumbio are the only ones showing more valid points and sources.

There's really too much for me to go through, so I'll just throw in some piece of mind.

Men have always been privileged since time immemorial. Women as recent as the 1950s were seen as inferior. It was always the men that had power, and it was always men that had jobs with better pay. It was always men who held positions of power in government and corporations, and I'm not even talking about just the U.S.; around the world, women are treated even more unfairly. The Middle East? Some countries forbid women to even show skin, let alone their faces, with death via public execution being a consequence. Women in some societies are viewed as either trophies or child-bearers with the sole purpose of passing down a man's legacy. Women have never had it easy, and even today, women still don't. Sure, in the U.S. and other superpower countries, women have had an easier time compared to - say - 40 or 50 years ago, but the fact remains that women aren't taken as seriously as men are.

Now, as for who raises a child. Anyone who says men don't raise children, or women do most of the raising, either hasn't had a father (or father figure) or has a deadbeat father that didn't do a thing for them, warping their views of what a mother and father does for a child. All men and women who are parents and a part of their children's lives raise them equally. Men change diapers, men feed their babies, men cook (look at all the male chefs that exist, goddammit), men do laundry as much as any woman does, and even if they're out 8 hours every day to work, they often pick up parenting duties when they return home. Hell, just working to provide for the family alone is enough to warrant an example of raising kids; anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is purely ignorant, and that's the nicest term I can think of.

Feminism has always been about being equals, where women no longer have to be so objectified or sexualized in the media. Where women can do a job a man does and get paid an equal amount. Where women aren't more prone to being sexually harassed. There are men who blame the female victims of **** for "wearing too provocative clothing". I don't care who you are, if I feel like I want to wear a tank top and short shorts, that will never in any way say "my legs are open, so come and get me"!

Yes, there are extremist feminists that seek to dominate men. I can acknowledge this. But just as there are extremist feminists that give actual true feminists a bad name, so too exist many other groups that have extremist sub-groups that put a blight in their true image; religion is the most notable of examples of this. You can't say "feminism is all about man hate" and cite negative-exclusive sources as a fact of this, because I can say "Christianity is all about LGBT hate and the eradication thereof", when clearly that isn't the case, and there are many LGBT religious people and churches who are LGBT-inclusive.

That's not to say men don't have their fair share of problems either, because they do as well. We live in a pedophile-paranoid society (though with legitimate reasons), and men who harmlessly associate themselves with a child that isn't theirs (friend, acquaintance, etc.) will be viewed with more disdain than a woman who does the same thing. Women, in many cases, have committed crimes and had less severe sentences than men who committed the same acts (there are exceptions, obviously). Susan B. Anthony is actually a good example of a woman who wanted to be treated fairly and no differently than any other man when she demanded the court to sentence her accordingly.

The point is, people, like Lars, is making these statements based on negative media coverage, and media can really make and break a group's image, as have been seen time and time again, and feminist groups are no different than any racial or religious groups in this case. Even law enforcement is getting crap with the NYPD murders, the recent Ferguson murder, etc., and more and more people are associating those acts of abuse of power to all officers, when we know there are a lot of good men and women in uniform spanning all races. Don't use extremist examples as "proof" for the majority when they encompass the minority, because the news can make the minority shine like the brightest beacon and stand out from the bigger picture.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Throne of lies, though? lol!

Lars, this isn't the first time someone's beat you about the face and neck with a dictionary. Since the ball's in your court when someone "replies" it's better to support your side of the argument rather than deflect the argument back with a one-liner or worse, mirror the behavior you object to. In your case you wish to prove that sources such as Wikipedia are nothing more than Feminist Propaganda. A challenging position, to be sure, but not impossible. Start with something simple, such as, the definition (more dictionary comin' right back at ya, kirby style!)

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. -source

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Now begin your case by deconstructing the definition.

1.) Feminism is a collection of movements/ideologies
2.) It's intent is to bring social/political/economic/cultural equality.

You can even challenge the definition itself, however you'd be wasting your time. It's far more efficient to demonstrate through sources and studies how Feminism is unilaterally about dominance rather than equality.

Your approach is difficult to digest because it starts with the conclusion and follows with very little (I did appreciate the video links from you and fungus tho, but we need more). In debate we tend to rely on evidence to support our claims, which means just about everything you say here will demand a link of some sort. Only in the philosophical sense would you get away with not citing your material, which is an option even in this debate too, I suppose, though I tend to think of Feminism as fodder for policy debate rather than philosophy. Okay, enough lecturing.

_____


My most recent addition to this ongoing debate wasn't meant as a smokescreen, though I can understand why you'd see it as such. Broken down to "connect the dots" so to speak, I will explain: By demonstrating the syntax error in Fungus' statement, I was able to re-categorize the entire thought as non sequitur. That is a classic debate tactic, (and fair game) which is showing how someone's point is unrelated to the debate. (And if you think the jury's still out on that in particular, I'll be happy to further explain why variations between men's and women's memories and self images are irrelevant to policy and law).

As for the issue of Men's rights, I ask you to make a comparison. Can black people be racist? Answer: depends on who you ask. Seriously, I've had several conversations with people who really thought that a black person in America cannot -by institution- be categorically racist. Ridiculous, I know, but the reason I draw this comparison is to highlight a very real issue with your stance: by attacking Women's Rights on the basis that men need them too, you are avoiding the deeper issue which is that by granting men more rights, you still aren't granting women the rights they still deserve.

In terms of the movement itself, it's not even a movement anymore. It's become a cliche in America, unfortunately. If I ask 10 people to name me one feminist, I'm almost certain 9 of them would say "Ellen DeGeneres." Not that that's a bad answer! But is it accurate? If you ask 10 people to name a militant religious leader they'd probably all answer "Osama bin Laden." Ideology comes in waves, sure, but it also comes in strengths. The strongest forms of religious ideology, for instance, come in the form of terror groups like Al Qaeda or Isis. Both hate groups by any meaningful definition. Same goes for feminists. The video you linked clearly demonstrates an example of a hate group, man-hating women all cracking jokes about killing off male babies, lol. Yeah, it's funny, but it's also tragic, because they really believe some of the things they're saying (though you can bet the social climate of message boards in particular tend to create bias on their own). Do we think all religions must be hate groups because of Isis? Do we discount all feminists because of one message board? No, of course not.

And indeed, in the middle road, there's still PLENTY of women who believe in their gender roles. They are not interested in "making it on their own," they do exactly what their husbands tell them to do, and they feel proud and confident in their decisions to live this way. They aren't bread winners. They aren't "career oriented" (what an ugly distinction). I mean do we call men career oriented? No, we just call them normal. But if a woman wants a career, oh now, hold the ****in' phone, you're not thinking of WORKING are you? Don't you have kids to raise?!?!

...

Anyway, I think for the moment this debate and mainly between you and Thor, is stymied. I suggest taking a step back, both of you, really, and concisely state your points that you wish to prove/disprove, then come back to the table with sources ready (though Thor has you beat there, no offense).

Meanwhile, I hate to say it, there's already almost unanimous agreement in America that women have it better than they did, that things needed to change, and there still needs to be more. And yes, sure, as a result of these changes that's taken over a century to progress I'm sure men do have a tougher go of it in some cases. But honestly, I'd rather 10 black people be considered for a job before me than to go back 150 years to a time when black people weren't even considered humans but instead soulless beasts of burden that sold for less than a horse.

You're not a mediating third party, Sucumbio, this was never a debate to begin with. I presented some points which challenge the mainstream perception of gender then a few butthurt individuals try to label me a misogynist rather than provide counter-arguments. I refuse to extend them the courtesy of a civilized discussion if they're clearly incapable of reciprocating.

Just go back and read Thor's first reply, notice the hostility? Don't forget all the other passive aggressive insults sprinkled throughout each subsequent reply.

 

[Sucumbio]

As former moderator of the DH (the PG specifically) and creator of the rules hereto, I take a certain responsibility in encouraging proper (as in formal) debate within. I hate seeing two people argue without making progress. I've read all the posts until now but for the sake of argument. I did reread his first reply, and I understand where you're coming from. This doesn't mean you should follow suit, though. We're here to debate, and if the best counter argument YOU can provide is sarcasm, then you're not really debating, right? Best to squash that **** right away with a poignant statement (with sources) and boom, you've got the upper hand. There's a fine line between attacking the debater and attacking the argument, and both of you have spent a lot of energy skirting this line (and in some cases flat out ignoring it).

Anyway, I'm not trying to bust your balls, you'll either take my advice or you won't, I care not either way. But for pity's sake let's try to avoid these shouting matches at the very least.

One final observation: you do have a tendency to overlook direct arguments to your points. Many of the statements made supporting your opposition have been replied to by you with a lazy counter, a catch-all statement that tries to invalidate the argument by virtue of originator rather than proper demonstration. I don't care to count how many times Thor asked you to simply address his points (you still haven't, lol) but yet you took the time to hit "post" ... you DID reply, just not with what would have been considered something ... well, useful, I guess. If someone says "answer this for me" then don't you think you should? Obviously it means that YOUR stance is somehow either 1.) misleading 2.) confusing 3.) understated, etc. It's in a debater's best interest to be as precise as possible, and if someone you're arguing against is all question marks, then the burden falls to you, to answer them.

 

[LarsINTJ]

As former moderator of the DH (the PG specifically) and creator of the rules hereto, I take a certain responsibility in encouraging proper (as in formal) debate within. I hate seeing two people argue without making progress.

Initiating your response with an appeal to authority is a cheap trick used to dull an audiences' capacity to think for themselves regarding everything thereafter. In short, if you seek my respect, don't bother.

I've read all the posts until now but for the sake of argument. I did reread his first reply, and I understand where you're coming from. This doesn't mean you should follow suit, though. We're here to debate, and if the best counter argument YOU can provide is sarcasm, then you're not really debating, right?

I'm not going to counter-argue replies which fail to address to the content of my initial message beyond empty denial. You speak as if I'm the root cause of this fruitless back-and-forth.

Best to squash that **** right away with a poignant statement (with sources) and boom, you've got the upper hand. There's a fine line between attacking the debater and attacking the argument, and both of you have spent a lot of energy skirting this line (and in some cases flat out ignoring it).

I assure you that no set of sourced statistics will enlighten anyone stifled by emotionally-laden bigotry. Don't accuse me of laziness when the opposition doesn't even care enough to do their own research, I even pointed them in the right direction.

Anyway, I'm not trying to bust your balls, you'll either take my advice or you won't, I care not either way. But for pity's sake let's try to avoid these shouting matches at the very least.

(If you're not doing something, then you don't need to make reference to the fact you aren't doing it... so why would you reference it, huh?)

Try to avoid these shouting matches? Oh, really?
"Lol I can't add nothing @ Thor except maybe that Michael Jackson pic with the popcorn..."
You sure hate to see people argue without making progress.

One final observation: you do have a tendency to overlook direct arguments to your points. Many of the statements made supporting your opposition have been replied to by you with a lazy counter, a catch-all statement that tries to invalidate the argument by virtue of originator rather than proper demonstration. I don't care to count how many times Thor asked you to simply address his points (you still haven't, lol) but yet you took the time to hit "post" ... you DID reply, just not with what would have been considered something ... well, useful, I guess. If someone says "answer this for me" then don't you think you should? Obviously it means that YOUR stance is somehow either 1.) misleading 2.) confusing 3.) understated, etc. It's in a debater's best interest to be as precise as possible, and if someone you're arguing against is all question marks, then the burden falls to you, to answer them.

People are misinterpreting what I say and raging about nothing. Anti-feminism is not congruous with misogyny, as I have already affirmed. Of course men and women are equal, this means they should both be judged without any sort of bias and recognized as fully-fledged human beings responsible for their actions whether good or evil. It's completely deluded to think that Feminism has anything to do with achieving this sort of equality (or equality at all). Why is it deluded? Just pay attention to the people around you, the media, culture - if you still can't see then nothing I say will change your mind. We're all attuned to attack the slightest hint of perceived misogyny, yet our blindness toward man-hate is sickening and I'm not even talking about the threats of mass murder spawned by certain aspects of Feminism.

This thread has effectively become a microcosm of the Feminist paradigm. Me, a male 'aggressor' against the automatic victimhood of women (feminists). The burden of proof lies squarely on my shoulders even though there's nothing I can say which will relieve me of the sin of standing up for myself as a man.

Feminism doesn't even understand how to respect women, let alone men. Universal sexism = egalitarian? Assigning innate personal attributes to an entire gender is sexist no matter whether it's good or bad.

All I did was question the Feminist narrative by recommending an equal level of responsibility (respect) for women alongside disbelief in the unholy 'oppressive patriarchy', that convenient excuse for ceaseless victimhood.

 

[Sucumbio]

Initiating your response with an appeal to authority is a cheap trick used to dull an audiences' capacity to think for themselves regarding everything thereafter. In short, if you seek my respect, don't bother.

I don't... just wanted to clarify for you, I am in fact, a mediator of sorts due to many factors which include but are not limited to my previous position here. In any argument I will assume this role when no one else will because at the end of the day, it's the argumentation that interests me, the topic could be anything.

I'm not going to counter-argue replies which fail to address to the content of my initial message beyond empty denial. You speak as if I'm the root cause of this fruitless back-and-forth.

I assure you that no set of sourced statistics will enlighten anyone stifled by emotionally-laden bigotry. Don't accuse me of laziness when the opposition doesn't even care enough to do their own research, I even pointed them in the right direction.

Well... this was your initial message:

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

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

I put in parenthesis the argumentative, aka the thing that would have been best argued against by your opposition. Ergo, Feminism is not about hating and punishing men, women do not exclusively select partners or raise children, they do not possess way more collective power than men in guiding the future of society, and the last bit was unnecessary, you're trolling at that point.

Now given your language, your choices of words, and given your tone, your authoritative "this is how it is," are you really surprised that Thor's and Claire's and other "opposition" posts were laden with a sharp tongue? So yeah, I do think this is on you, that you're the root cause as you put it. You don't see anyone else's "pro" arguments being "attacked" do you? Even your contemporary in this thread had to point out the burden of proof is on you. You went five posts with no sources, then finally the honey badgers (which is a good source for your overall point, but linking an entire website does nothing to back up your point by point statements). Then 6 more posts before the video (another good source for your point, though the viewpoints of one person can hardly be called compelling - AND she's not arguing in the video for what you were being asked to provide, so the source itself doesn't fulfill your source requirements). Meanwhile your opposition linked and linked and linked. If you avoid sourcing in your arguments, your statements really just show as opinions. Anytime you say something that could be argued against, in other words, it's best to follow it with a link where someone else already said what you're saying.

(If you're not doing something, then you don't need to make reference to the fact you aren't doing it... so why would you reference it, huh?)

In case you took it that way... ergo I mean no offense by any of this, but as is difficult with many new debaters, learning the ins and outs of debate can seem tedious, tiresome and unnecessary. If you're to remain here, which I hope you do, I would hope you'd be interested in improving... Especially considering that when the details are worked out we'd like to see ourselves back in action, so to speak, with debate tournaments, etc. Practice makes perfect.

Try to avoid these shouting matches? Oh, really?
"Lol I can't add nothing @ Thor except maybe that Michael Jackson pic with the popcorn..."
You sure hate to see people argue without making progress.

You didn't get the hint, and unfortunately never did, until I actually had to say "hey, you two aren't making progress." I was hoping my interjections would have given you and Thor the notion that maybe you should both just breath and start over (since these debates aren't ACTUALLY formal, or scored, so there's no penalty for doing so). But it just got worse...

Now it seems the rest of your post is OT: so... cool.

---------------------

People are misinterpreting what I say and raging about nothing. Anti-feminism is not congruous with misogyny, as I have already affirmed. Of course men and women are equal, this means they should both be judged without any sort of bias and recognized as fully-fledged human beings responsible for their actions whether good or evil. It's completely deluded to think that Feminism has anything to do with achieving this sort of equality (or equality at all). Why is it deluded? Just pay attention to the people around you, the media, culture - if you still can't see then nothing I say will change your mind. We're all attuned to attack the slightest hint of perceived misogyny, yet our blindness toward man-hate is sickening and I'm not even talking about the threats of mass murder spawned by certain aspects of Feminism.

Okay, so you say if a man is anti-feminist they are not automatically misogynist. I agree, of course. Being anti-feminist does not mean one must hate women. You were accused of misogyny because of your apparent attitude toward women when you said women exclusively raise children. See, to the reader, that sounds like you -expect- women to exclusively raise children, and that boils down to misogynist ideology. But as you say, people are misinterpreting you. This is why I suggested you step back and reorganize your thoughts, and take some time to source your statements, cause that way the focus isn't on you, it's on your statement.

Your idea that hate against women is a flame to tinder but that hate against men is blind... this is difficult to prove. Even if you produce studies that show a disparaging statistic in favor of this idea, you still won't account for enough transgressions to merit the issue itself as being evidence overall that Feminism is not about equality. Not to mention the fact that Feminism is now several years old and so it spans entire periods of thought (19th cent. America, WWI, WWII, post-modern era, the 60's the 80's, the 90's, the aughts and now). During each period of thinking, the movement itself transformed, indeed, but much of the core ideology remains the same. Women are not men's property. They are not put on earth to do their bidding, or to cater to what's expected of them. Women are not just baby factories. They are people, like men, and they deserve to be treated in all things as equals to men. Never mind that most women can't, say, lift as much as most men can. These physical differences between the genders is supposed to be irrelevant. The hardship has been to fight the urge to continue categorizing men and women, the same as it was for categorizing whites and blacks, so that people are just seen as people. If you're unsure what I mean, just look at how the military took to even allow women on the combat field. And they still can't fight, they actually only exist in support positions. Should they enter into combat, they are combat ready, but they're not on the front lines.

This thread has effectively become a microcosm of the Feminist paradigm. Me, a male 'aggressor' against the automatic victimhood of women (feminists). The burden of proof lies squarely on my shoulders even though there's nothing I can say which will relieve me of the sin of standing up for myself as a man.

Oh now, no need for persecution syndrome. You can't possibly expect sympathy given your original statement. And there's nothing to say that women are automatically victims, that's actually the first "projection" I've seen in this thread, and it's by you, since the term's been thrown around so much. Even fungus tried to play that card, that dog don't hunt as they say. Women simply have a better track record at admitting to victim-hood, because men have a preconceived notion that to admit to being ***** is a sign of weakness which is scorned in male society, and yet weakness is -expected- in a female society.

Feminism doesn't even understand how to respect women, let alone men. Universal sexism = egalitarian? Assigning innate personal attributes to an entire gender is sexist no matter whether it's good or bad.

Okay... I'm going to admit I have no idea what you mean by this, can you elaborate, please?

All I did was question the Feminist narrative by recommending an equal level of responsibility (respect) for women alongside disbelief in the unholy 'oppressive patriarchy', that convenient excuse for ceaseless victimhood.

Well if you look at the issue from this angle, that's what women DO want, Feminists included. I think Thor said this too... Women want an equal level of responsibility, sure. Equal work for Equal pay is just one massive issue that falls under this trope. But you see, you weren't saying that. When YOU say "responsibility" you're referring to how women should just suck it up and try to deal with life without any help, just because they chose a crappy man and got knocked up. And again you wonder why everyone's on the attack? People don't choose for their lives to be difficult, but that's life. Two people are together and things are great and then it's not. Yes, sometimes there are warning signs. The courts are not there to figure out solely who's to blame. They're there for the child's welfare. They are the child's advocate, because they did not ask to be brought into the world, into a single-parent home with no money and "no future."

I do accept that there are terrible people out there, who abuse the system. Sure. As I stated earlier, there's an entire Welfare Culture, whose personal motives are to have as many kids as possible so that the government will pay for them all, and to ensure that they're NOT married, so that they can collect as much child support as possible. I get it. But this isn't the fault of feminism, it's the fault of the Welfare State, which is a debate entirely on its own, and by conflating the two, you're insulting women who actually try to make their lives better when their spouse walks out on them.