There's a special place in hell for people who vote Democrat

[fskimospy]

If anyone were to use "I know X" as to support their argument, you would laugh at them. I have seen you do it, and I doubt very much you feel like that is much of an example.

Look up Chanty Binx. I think she represents the type of feminism that people like me have a problem with.

I certainly wouldn't, that would be ridiculous. You asked me why I think modern feminists are about equality, and my answer was that I know a lot of modern feminists who are all about equality. If you're trying to argue about a vast, nebulous movement by referencing specific people associated with it I don't understand the point because no one speaks for it.

Freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty, freedom of expression are all things that modern feminism seems to have a problem with. How many have called for the expulsion of students for simply being accused of rape? How many have tried to limit speech they dislike?

Those are the issues. Old school feminism was not about that. You had outliers sure, but those outliers are far closer to the center today.

You seem to be walking your position back now, instead saying that modern feminism is attacking freedom of speech (which I also think is bullshit, but whatever) and now saying that these outliers are less of an outlier. Originally you said modern feminism is about equality and anyone who thought so was ignorant or misinformed. I think that's a massively overbroad and indefensible claim that you should retract.

 

[Exophase]

Run along to your mom. When you've matured a little and have some actual experience to relate, look me up.

Are you this judgmental and condescending to everyone you talk to or just people you know basically nothing about? Or are you just trolling?

Please tell me more about this actual experience I lack and how I need to mature.

 

[chipwitch]

I think you can figure out how to use the internet.

I know quite well how to use the internet. As a liberal, if I'm willing to even consider fox news, breitbart, alex jones' infowars as legitimate unbiased news outlets and even THEY don't have any articles about Chanty except for ONE on breitbart that was pointing out Richard Dawkins had retweeted a satirical cartoon finding it humorous. He didn't even know who chanty was at the time. Then, the The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism, not exactly a bastion of right wing theists, un-invited him to speak at a previously scheduled engagement.

I see in that that fringe behavior is not condoned on the left. Somehow, you see conspiracy.

There used to be a wiki article, but it was removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chanty_Binx

Yes, I see how that would indicate a conspiracy. Heaven forbid anyone actual be critical of what we label "knowledge." That says a lot about you.

I think you can easily find videos of her. I dont really want this to center just around one person though. She was meant as an example of the type of feminism I have a problem with.

Nor should it. But, surely if there is a movement to enslave men, there must be someone you can point to? If I claim that christians are trying to overthrow the government and install a theocracy and then point to Terry jones as evidence of this, then I would be in the wrong. Terry Jones is batshit crazy and would likely encourage a theocracy, but it isn't the view of christians... or is it? Hmmm.

Here is an example of her reacting to someone who points out that men have vastly higher rates of suicide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvByTdMXlPM

She mocks the issue and says she needs a cup for his man cries.

Again, the point was not to focus on her, but the type of modern feminism that is not about equality.

Okay, she's a dick. And that proves what about feminism? Is 196 likes on her facebook page indicative of an entire "social movement?"

 

[realibrad]

I certainly wouldn't, that would be ridiculous. You asked me why I think modern feminists are about equality, and my answer was that I know a lot of modern feminists who are all about equality. If you're trying to argue about a vast, nebulous movement by referencing specific people associated with it I don't understand the point because no one speaks for it.



You seem to be walking your position back now, instead saying that modern feminism is attacking freedom of speech (which I also think is bullshit, but whatever) and now saying that these outliers are less of an outlier. Originally you said modern feminism is about equality and anyone who thought so was ignorant or misinformed. I think that's a massively overbroad and indefensible claim that you should retract.

There is not a contradiction in my statements. The outliers are more in the center. Ill grant you that I never defined what I saw as outlier, so its possible that I had meant what you took as my meaning, but I did not mean to imply that.

Those who would have been considered on the very fringe are a lot closer to the center today. The fringe to me are those who actually hate men and see men as a problem. I do not think that is the norm. What I have a problem with in terms of modern feminism is the cultural ideas they are pushing. I think feminism has been hijacked by my generation and millennials. They have created a world where reality does not matter.

Gender pay gap is a great example. Even Obama whom I see as a pretty reasonable person has used the 77 cents for every dollar crap. All the research I have seen shows that to get to the 77% you have to really slant the data. I think even you disagree with the narrative of the 77%. But, now matter how much data you throw at people, they will hold their idea that its not wrong.

You know this problem well, as I have seen you talk about how data does not change people's minds. Its a problem with the generation that is driving feminism now. Its why you have the issues that Spungo brought up. Those are all issues pushed for by modern feminism. Those were not issues brought up before, because they are stupid.

 

[realibrad]

I know quite well how to use the internet. As a liberal, if I'm willing to even consider fox news, breitbart, alex jones' infowars as legitimate unbiased news outlets and even THEY don't have any articles about Chanty except for ONE on breitbart that was pointing out Richard Dawkins had retweeted a satirical cartoon finding it humorous. He didn't even know who chanty was at the time. Then, the The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism, not exactly a bastion of right wing theists, un-invited him to speak at a previously scheduled engagement.

I see in that that fringe behavior is not condoned on the left. Somehow, you see conspiracy.

Yes, I see how that would indicate a conspiracy. Heaven forbid anyone actual be critical of what we label "knowledge." That says a lot about you.

Nor should it. But, surely if there is a movement to enslave men, there must be someone you can point to? If I claim that christians are trying to overthrow the government and install a theocracy and then point to Terry jones as evidence of this, then I would be in the wrong. Terry Jones is batshit crazy and would likely encourage a theocracy, but it isn't the view of christians... or is it? Hmmm.


Okay, she's a dick. And that proves what about feminism? Is 196 likes on her facebook page indicative of an entire "social movement?"

What is with this conspiracy and enslavement bullshit? When did I ever say feminism was about enslaving men?

I am arguing that feminism is pushing ideas that will hurt men and society in general, but its not a conspiracy. The positions that I have a problem with came about because of stupid people making shit up in a vacuum.

Are you maybe assuming I am coming from a crazy perspective yet again? You accuse people of pushing a narrative and yet you are seeming to do the same.

edit*
Fuck the right and their BS fake news btw. That should help make it clear because you seem to think I am a conservative. I'm not.

 

[Spungo]

I certainly wouldn't, that would be ridiculous. You asked me why I think modern feminists are about equality, and my answer was that I know a lot of modern feminists who are all about equality.

If you prod them a little bit, you'll discover that they're really just communists pretending to fight for women. When feminists talk about the wage gap, they're not talking about male engineers and female engineers getting the same pay. They're talking about full time male engineers being paid the same as part time female childcare workers. They're talking about waitresses getting paid the same as diesel mechanics. That's called communism. Calling it "feminism" is just a shell game.
I'm not even saying communism is wrong. I'm just saying that I want people to be honest about their intentions. If you want communism, say you want communism. Let's not play this game where we pretend to be arguing about gender issues.

Okay, she's a dick. And that proves what about feminism? Is 196 likes on her facebook page indicative of an entire "social movement?"

She's not an outlier. She's the norm. When men try to organize and fight for the rights of fathers, they receive death threats and bomb threats. When men speak at a university, feminists pull the fire alarms. It's not accurate to say women hate men. It's specifically feminists who hate men and don't want them to have any rights.

 

[chipwitch]

Are you this judgmental and condescending to everyone you talk to or just people you know basically nothing about? Or are you just trolling?

Please tell me more about this actual experience I lack and how I need to mature.

LOL. I usually get to the condescension point about the 4th iteration through attempts at a rational discussion with someone insisting themselves as capable of one. It's a flaw of mine, if that makes you feel better.

You're right. I don't know you. I admit it. I'm not judging you. I've even told you there's nothing wrong with immaturity or ignorance. Both are afflictions we have all faced and both are generally remedied with time. Don't conflate "judging" with "assessment." I see your lack of willingness to acknowledge any fault in your thinking, I guess you're too smart to be in error. That's usually a sign of immaturity and/or ignorance, certainly a lack of wisdom. It's not a disparagement.

The difference between is that I don't think I have the absolute knowledge of everything. I even said that with evidence of a conspiracy against men, I'd change my position. Those claims of a desire to enslave men have been completely and unabashedly unsubstantiated, so far. Realibrad presented a name. That was a step in the right direction. I was ready to retract my position. That's honesty. Something you, brad and legend all have in common.

As for trolling, it was you who came into the thread and picked out some picayune point of something I said, a point which I promptly admitted was a slight generalization, yet you keep going back at that same point. You're trying to bait me, even now and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really do want a civil conversation. If I was absolutely certain of your immaturity, I wouldn't have written this post. Even now, I give you the opportunity to reveal your true nature... or not, it's up to you and makes no difference to me.

 

[fskimospy]

If you prod them a little bit, you'll discover that they're really just communists pretending to fight for women. When feminists talk about the wage gap, they're not talking about male engineers and female engineers getting the same pay. They're talking about full time male engineers being paid the same as part time female childcare workers. They're talking about waitresses getting paid the same as diesel mechanics. That's called communism. Calling it "feminism" is just a shell game.
I'm not even saying communism is wrong. I'm just saying that I want people to be honest about their intentions. If you want communism, say you want communism. Let's not play this game where we pretend to be arguing about gender issues.

lol, my friend who worked as an attorney for one of the most prestigious M&A firms in the world is a secret communist.

You are seriously insane, seek help. Do you even realize how nuts you sound?

 

[dank69]

I can probably find 20 feminists who actively fight against equality 😀
Instead of naming names, it's easier to just name concepts and campaigns. Each campaign definitely has a minimum of 20 feminists supporting it.


Ban Bossy campaign - calling little girls out on their bullshit is sexist. Only boys should be called out when they act bossy. The goal of this campaign, and ones like it, is to create a society where women grow up with a god-like sense of entitlement; a society where it is sexist to question anything a girl says. You can see the result of this type of feminist nonsense in the interview Suey Park did about her Cancel Colbert crusade. When the interviewer called her stupid, it was like that was the first time she was ever called out, and she even used the line that the interviewer's opinion didn't matter because he's white and has a penis. wtf?? We saw a similar thing with that white girl who was pretending to be not-white, Bahar Mustafa, making very racist comments then claiming she can't be racist because vagina. She was obviously never told that she's being a bossy wise and beautiful woman. Putting her in her place would be sexist. Ban bossy!
(yes, she did claim that the people calling her a terrible person were just sexist)
I get to deal with the consequences of this bullshit when my brother ends up dating one of these entitled princesses. I can't even get mad at those women. They grew up exactly as designed - believing women are always right, men are always wrong, and that any criticism is based on hatred of some kind. Society sure has changed over the years. Instead of brothers making sure their sister's boyfriend is not a piece of shit, we have the sister (me) making sure her brother's girlfriend is not a piece of shit.


Yes Means Yes campaign - making 99% of men rapists. If a person makes a move without asking and getting verbal confirmation, it's rape. By this dumb standard, I'm guilty of raping several men. If I'm taking his shirt off and he does nothing to stop me, I'm getting implied sexual consent. Under yes means yes laws, I'm technically raping him. Of course, the law is not intended to defend men, so it will only apply when men are accused of rape. I get to be the victim of this nonsense because it makes men afraid to do anything or make a move. Modern men are even scared to buy alcoholic drinks for women because that could be interpreted as drugging a girl then raping her. Drunk sex is simply not legal anymore.


Ex Post Facto campaign - the ability to withdraw consent after the fact. I think this is a key point marking the downfall of western civilization. One of the great triumphs of civilization was the abandonment of ex post facto ("after the fact") laws. For example, we can't ban alcohol today then throw you in jail because you drank alcohol yesterday. That would be ex post facto. You can't be thrown in jail for doing something that was legal when you did it. Until now. Now, it's possible to withdraw sexual consent after the fact. It was consensual sex yesterday, but consent can be withdrawn, so now the guy is guilty of rape. As always, this law only applies to men. Again, it's part of a campaign to criminalize maleness.


Hiring Quotas - this one definitely affects me because I work in a male-dominated field. When quotas are in place, people doubt my technical abilities. Do I have this job because I know what the hell I'm doing, or did I get hired just to satisfy some dumb feminist group? Even as a woman, I question the qualifications of other women. I've encountered a lot of unqualified quota hirees, and they're useless. Due to feminists, I get grouped with those useless women. People assume I'm one of them. Thanks, feminism.


Only women can be victims campaigning. I've posted about this several times before, describing the problems my brother had with evicting an abusive girlfriend. Simply put, never let any woman move into your house. As a guy, you can move into her house because you can leave at any time, but letting her into your house is a disaster because there's no legal way to get rid of her. If you call the police to have that woman arrested for trespassing (refusing to move out), they claim to be abused, and the police arrest the guy who owns the house. That's actually written in the laws; if two people are arguing, the man is automatically arrested. The whole legal system is designed to be abused by women who have borderline personality disorder. I keep posting this, but Dave Foley's experience with his piece of shit abuse-the-law wife is similar to what my brother had to deal with. Thank god my brother was never married to her and never had kids with her, but he had the same bullshit of being accused of being abusive, being arrested, taken to court, etc. As a man, you simply do not have rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaC-2lj6HNg

20 whole feminists each? 😱

 

[realibrad]

20 whole feminists each? 😱

You realize that some of those were put into law right. You can easily find 20+ popular feminist supporting those, but the fact they were turned into law says a lot more about their popularity.

Here is how yes means yes is framed.

The proposal requires all colleges taking student financial aid funding from the state to agree that in investigations of campus sexual assaults, silence or lack of resistance does not imply a green light for sex, and that drunkenness is not an acceptable defense, the San Jose Mercury-News reported earlier in August.

The problem is that it goes way beyond that. If you are with a girl, and she starts making out with you, and puts her hand down your pants, and you in turn put your hand down hers, she did not give consent and that could be rape. By law, you must get an affirmative yes before doing anything. Even with an affirmative yes, she can claim that she felt that if she said anything other than yes that you would beat her, and thus her yes is nullified.

That is a scary and stupid law. Having sex with a passed out person is rape. Putting someone in a position of fear that if they were to object that you would harm them is not okay. That is vastly different than needing affirmative consent for all things.

 

[chipwitch]

What is with this conspiracy and enslavement bullshit? When did I ever say feminism was about enslaving men?

No? Then I apologize. (See how that's done. You haven't done that once that I've corrected your mischaracterizations of my posts.)

Since you came in arguing in support of Legend, I assumed you were defending is opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then all is well.

I am arguing that feminism is pushing ideas that will hurt men and society in general, but its not a conspiracy. The positions that I have a problem with came about because of stupid people making shit up in a vacuum.

Good, we're on the same page then. Legend claiming that the feminist movement's goal is to 'subjugate men'. His words not mine.

Are you maybe assuming I am coming from a crazy perspective yet again? You accuse people of pushing a narrative and yet you are seeming to do the same.

I merely see your words and your behavior and attempt to understand where you're coming from. Unlike you, I state what I see and if I'm incorrect in my assessment, I respect your clarification. With the exception of the "Chanty Binx" reference, I can't remember any instance in any of our exchanges where you've given any concrete evidence to support your claims.

"Pushing a narrative" means I go cherry picking what I present as evidence to support my claims. I don't. I realize I may not find all knowledge in my studies. That's why I engage people like you. You have a different perspective. I don't care about your opinions. But, if you had concrete evidence to support ANY of the claims you've made to me EVER, MY world view would change instantly. I don't like garbage sitting in my brain. Some of us are just more scrutinizing about what we put in there.

See? I don't have a narrative. I have a world view. It has changed and morphed throughout my life. This has happened every time evidence has been revealed that was contrary to the world view I possessed at the time. I don't look to support my world view. I think in terms of probability. And the probability of the individual things varies. Few, if any are 100% absolute certainty. Evolution? 100% There is no god? 99.99999%. Feminists are hurting society? 30% I got that from you and legend by the way... In the absence of any evidence to your claims, that percentage is declining.

Can you say that about anything we've discussed? It seems with you, that things are either black or white. It's either you believe a thing is true with 100% or 0%. That's the kind of person with whom an honest discussion can not occur. Maybe I'm wrong about the 100%/0% thing with you... but from our exchanges, I'd say I believe it to be true with about 70% probability.

edit*
Fuck the right and their BS fake news btw. That should help make it clear because you seem to think I am a conservative. I'm not.

No, I think its only "probable" that you are a conservative based on all our conversations. It's called trying to understand the person with whom you're speaking. When first we meet someone, we generally start out thinking they are "just like me." Then, as things progress, we change those assumptions. In time, we may know someone well, but never 100%.

There are plenty of conservatives who don't have bat shit crazy views. Being conservative doesn't make you a bad person or prevent us being friends. So, That should help make it clear that I'm not a bat shit crazy liberal trying to "push a narrative."

 

[Exophase]

LOL. I usually get to the condescension point about the 4th iteration through attempts at a rational discussion with someone insisting themselves as capable of one. It's a flaw of mine, if that makes you feel better.

You're right. I don't know you. I admit it. I'm not judging you. I've even told you there's nothing wrong with immaturity or ignorance. Both are afflictions we have all faced and both are generally remedied with time. Don't conflate "judging" with "assessment." I see your lack of willingness to acknowledge any fault in your thinking, I guess you're too smart to be in error. That's usually a sign of immaturity and/or ignorance, certainly a lack of wisdom. It's not a disparagement.

The difference between is that I don't think I have the absolute knowledge of everything. I even said that with evidence of a conspiracy against men, I'd change my position. Those claims of a desire to enslave men have been completely and unabashedly unsubstantiated, so far. Realibrad presented a name. That was a step in the right direction. I was ready to retract my position. That's honesty. Something you, brad and legend all have in common.

As for trolling, it was you who came into the thread and picked out some picayune point of something I said, a point which I promptly admitted was a slight generalization, yet you keep going back at that same point. You're trying to bait me, even now and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really do want a civil conversation. If I was absolutely certain of your immaturity, I wouldn't have written this post. Even now, I give you the opportunity to reveal your true nature... or not, it's up to you and makes no difference to me.

I posted to you in this thread because I thought you said something that sounded offensive and unreasonable. Rather than say that I wanted to ask you if you really meant what you said and weren't being hyperbolic or facetious. I was expecting you to say "no I didn't really mean that, it was an exaggeration." Now it sounds like you did want to say something like that, but that's not really what you said. What you said was that you stand by your statement entirely and it was such a sure thing that you'd bet everything you own on it. You admitted it was a generalization, but that doesn't mean that you think there's anything wrong about it. There's a statement some people make (that I find vehement), "stereotypes are based on truth." If someone says they're making a generalization but that they stand by it 100% I'm just going to take that to mean that they think generalizations are applicable.

I wish you would take me seriously when I say I'm not picking this out because it's a technical point I can argue and win some arbitrary argument on the internet, I'm picking it out because I genuinely see this sort of thing as a troubling statement. I am not baiting you, I'm not being intellectually dishonest, but if you already think I'm lying it probably won't do any good to state that will it?

If someone looked at a person like Chanty Binx and said that only a woman could believe the things she does that would be an awful thing to say. It's far from accurate and it reflects some bad stereotypes, but aside from that why bring up the person's gender in the first place? Why not just leave it to arguing against their ideas? And why do you keep bringing up all these things that you assume about who I am or what my motivations are instead of sticking to attacking MY ideas?

You say I'm ignorant and immature but you haven't made it clear at all in what ways I am. You say I need to feel smart and won't admit to being wrong about everything but I don't have any idea what you're even saying I'm wrong about here. And you're making that assessment about me based off of one thing that I'm arguing about. I don't think I'm anywhere close to right about anything, I at least try to admit it when I'm wrong, when I'm badly informed or misunderstood what someone was saying. If I really have misunderstood you I WANT to see that but you HAVE defended yourself in a way that I DO still take issue with. Not that you have to care at all about what I do or don't take issue with, but we could just leave it at that.

And please, could you stop acting like I'm piling on you? Everything between us has been a direct back and forth. You say I'm attacking you over a picayune statement. I put as a parenthetical aside that I don't think subjugation has to suggest conquering but that seriously wasn't something I wanted to launch an argument over (and I think the context showed that?) but you pushed back against it with your own argument. That's fine, if I say something here you or anyone else is free to argue against it. But why is it this terrible thing when I do that?

 

[Spungo]

lol, my friend who worked as an attorney for one of the most prestigious M&A firms in the world is a secret communist.

You are seriously insane, seek help. Do you even realize how nuts you sound?

Which part of the paragraph quoted is incorrect? Disagreeing with my assessment of the wage gap would actually make you a conspiracy theorist 😉

According to the CONSAD report prepared for the US Department of Labor, 2009:

"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Diesel mechanics get paid more than retail clerks? SEXISM!

 

[fskimospy]

Which part of the paragraph quoted is incorrect? Disagreeing with my assessment of the wage gap would actually make you a conspiracy theorist 😉

According to the CONSAD report prepared for the US Department of Labor, 2009:

Diesel mechanics get paid more than retail clerks? SEXISM!

The part of your quoted paragraph that is incorrect is when you tried to claim the feminists I know are secret communists. It was both stupid and insane and you should feel bad for writing it. I am looking forward to telling my friend who is easily a millionaire many times over and worked for most of her career in about the most cutthroat, hyper-capitalistic environment that you could possibly find that crazy people on the internet think she's a secret commie though, haha.

I could get into the obvious fact that the choices men and women face aren't the same, but considering the looniness you've displayed already I'm not so sure you're a good person to discuss it with.

I will leave you with an interesting question though: What percentage of male partners in top law firms do you think have children and what percentage of female partners in top law firms do you think have children? The more you think about this question the more you might understand what feminists are talking about.

 

[realibrad]

..."

I am willing to admit when I am wrong when I believe I was wrong.

I first said this.

I do not follow your analogy at all. Slavery was about subjugation whereas title 9 says that if you cant do something for both you cant do it at all.

You explained your analogy with this comment.

"So, there's never been subjugation of women? The idea that women can own property, vote, have a career, get an education, be an actor or a writer or a painter and so on and so on is relatively new. Most of those concepts have only been "allowed" for less than 100 years. Title nine came about in part to help reverse that."

That sure seems like you are trying to compare the subjugation of slaves to the supposed "subjugation" of women. You then went on to say you were not, but it sure seems like you did there. If you don't think you are there, then you have a damn confusing way of talking.

Now, Ill drop that because its not as interesting to me as the other stuff.

You are countering claims that I did not make. This is not the first time either. You think that I have or will make those claims because you have marked me as a conservative. Instead of doing that, you could have simply countered my points.

What claim have I not supported?

As for changing my mind on anything we discussed, no, I have not changed anything. I have with other people. Spy has been the cause of most of them on this thread, which is why I respect him.

You have simply taken a stance that is non-falsifiable. Your view of feminism is x, and so if someone else says y, then they are not espousing true feminist ideas. Okay, so what are the real feminist ideas? Well, feminism is an amorphous movement that cannot really be condensed into a few ideas. Oh, so then its a meaningless label and any idea cannot be attributed to feminism, and no idea can be dismissed as not feminism.

See the loop you created?

 

[chipwitch]

And please, could you stop acting like I'm piling on you?

I see. If I understand you, then what you're saying is that since all I have at my disposal to gauge you and your words are the words you type here. And since that is clearly not enough for me to "sense" the things I do about you, then I'm at fault, or in the wrong? Aren't you doing the same thing? You're perceiving that I'm "acting" (I assume you mean 'behaving'), like you're piling on me? I wasn't aware of that. I certainly don't feel like you're piling on me. I feel like you singled out a picayune semantical generalization I said, in lieu of the bigger topic that was being discussed. Walking into the middle of a conversation and essentially changing the topic is one mark of something (I can only venture possible "somethings" such as immaturity, social awkwardness, incivility... others). I can appreciate that your first "interruption," for lack of a more accurate, less harsh word, was NOT inappropriate to the discussion. BUT, when I demonstrated it was of little importance to the conversation at hand, you persisted. Another mark of immaturity. You just won't let it go.

Everything between us has been a direct back and forth. You say I'm attacking you over a picayune statement.

No I didn't. You attacked something I said, perhaps, though I didn't even say that much. I said you are making an issue (argument if you prefer) out of a picayune comment I made. It wasn't a "claim," as I admitted relatively early, of course it didn't apply to EVERY woman, a generalization.

I put as a parenthetical aside that I don't think subjugation has to suggest conquering but that seriously wasn't something I wanted to launch an argument over (and I think the context showed that?) but you pushed back against it with your own argument. That's fine, if I say something here you or anyone else is free to argue against it. But why is it this terrible thing when I do that?

LOL... now here we go... how did that feel when YOU FELT I was making an argument over something YOU thought was picayune? The difference of course is that LEGEND said, and I paraphrase (albeit closely), that "feminists' goal is to subjugate men." THAT was the current conversation, the topic being discussed. Your comment was merely a detraction. Did you not notice how Legend took advantage of the opportunity to disengage the discussion he and I were having? I believe you gave him the opportunity to slink away from his indefensible position.

Now, perhaps I can settle this between you and I, as I'm finding it wearisome. I don't give a fuck that you think what I said was offensive. I don't find it offensive. It's my opinion vs yours. This is another thing that makes me think you are young, possibly not even graduated high school... The younger generations are offended by every little thing they deem to be a "micro-aggression." It baffles me how such people find dressing up in a mariachi costume is offensive to mexicans and want to take that issue on as their badge of honor to humanity. It is absolutely ludicrous, but that's what has happened because people are overly sensitive to "hurt feelings."

I'm sorry if your feelings were harmed in any way. I don't retract my comment. Perhaps you could start a petition to have me banned from the site for committing such a crime against humanity?

 

[1prophet]

The part of your quoted paragraph that is incorrect is when you tried to claim the feminists I know are secret communists. It was both stupid and insane and you should feel bad for writing it. I am looking forward to telling my friend who is easily a millionaire many times over and worked for most of her career in about the most cutthroat, hyper-capitalistic environment that you could possibly find that crazy people on the internet think she's a secret commie though, haha.

I could get into the obvious fact that the choices men and women face aren't the same, but considering the looniness you've displayed already I'm not so sure you're a good person to discuss it with.

I will leave you with an interesting question though: What percentage of male partners in top law firms do you think have children and what percentage of female partners in top law firms do you think have children? The more you think about this question the more you might understand what feminists are talking about.

Are these the same feminists that say the decision to get pregnant and whether to carry the unborn to term (birth)or not, is the woman's and the woman's right alone since it is her body?

 

[Exophase]

Now, perhaps I can settle this between you and I, as I'm finding it wearisome. I don't give a fuck that you think what I said was offensive. I don't find it offensive. It's my opinion vs yours. This is another thing that makes me think you are young, possibly not even graduated high school... The younger generations are offended by every little thing they deem to be a "micro-aggression." It baffles me how such people find dressing up in a mariachi costume is offensive to mexicans and want to take that issue on as their badge of honor to humanity. It is absolutely ludicrous, but that's what has happened because people are overly sensitive to "hurt feelings."

Wow, so you think I'm young, possibly not even graduated from high school because I said a comment you made struck me as offensive. That is totally wrong and I'm really downright impressed that you can make such incredible assumptions about people based on so little.

It's fine if you don't care. I don't expect anyone to change what they say based on something like this. I just figured that since I very often see feminists concerned with language that can be considered sexist that would be a thing for you, but I guess not. I told you in the most straightforward way I could muster why I said what I did and why I pursued you, you think I'm a petulant child or whatever so yeah okay, whatever. I guess I did all I needed to do to "reveal my true nature" as you wanted, right?

I mean, your whole reaction here is just very strange and confusing to me. Is this really what you'd be telling someone if they called a racist slur offensive? You don't think that's a reasonable thing to say?

My feelings are fine. If you want to go ahead targeting people here based on their gender be my guest. No one's going to ban you but I'm sure there'll be lots of drama to look forward to.

 

[dank69]

You realize that some of those were put into law right. You can easily find 20+ popular feminist supporting those, but the fact they were turned into law says a lot more about their popularity.

Here is how yes means yes is framed.



The problem is that it goes way beyond that. If you are with a girl, and she starts making out with you, and puts her hand down your pants, and you in turn put your hand down hers, she did not give consent and that could be rape. By law, you must get an affirmative yes before doing anything. Even with an affirmative yes, she can claim that she felt that if she said anything other than yes that you would beat her, and thus her yes is nullified.

That is a scary and stupid law. Having sex with a passed out person is rape. Putting someone in a position of fear that if they were to object that you would harm them is not okay. That is vastly different than needing affirmative consent for all things.

So are there any statistics showing how many men have been victimized by these "yes means yes" laws?

 

[fskimospy]

Are these the same feminists that say the decision whether to get pregnant, whether to carry the unborn to term (birth) is the woman's and the woman's right alone since it is her body?

Sure are! Not sure why that matters though, as broadly speaking both male lawyers and female lawyers can freely choose whether to have children.

Male partners with children are quite common. Female partners with children are quite rare. Why do you think that is?

 

[Moonbeam]

I swear, I really hate and mildly love you 😛

He's a iconic example of an early warning system and potential emollient to the siren call of authoritarian liberalism. Rome needs her geese.

 

[realibrad]

I will leave you with an interesting question though: What percentage of male partners in top law firms do you think have children and what percentage of female partners in top law firms do you think have children? The more you think about this question the more you might understand what feminists are talking about.

Can't that be explained as something other than women being treated unfair?

Women who have kids have to take a lot of time off. Having a baby is no easy thing. Further, their bodies are made to be the primary care giver. Modern society can help make the advantage of women as care givers smaller, but its still there. Men taking time off to take care of a baby will mean he has to do more work. A woman working after means she has a harder time jumping back in because she had to take time off. Its usually true that its more efficient for women to stay home to take care of a baby vs the man. There are natural incentives for women to take more time off.

Taking time off can be a problem. Further, women are not dumb and think ahead. If you are a woman, and you want to have a kid, then you want to be in a situation where you have more flexibility to have a kid and have a job when you come back that may offer flexible time. Employers are not dumb either. You would not want to hire someone who is more likely to take time off for months on end vs someone who wont.

This is something that my GF and I are trying to work out now. She make a lot more money than I do, but we want to have kids in the next few years. She is annoyed that she wants to be a stay at home mom and not have to take time off. She knows she cant do both, but that is biology.

 

[chipwitch]

I am willing to admit when I am wrong when I believe I was wrong.

I first said this.


You explained your analogy with this comment.

"So, there's never been subjugation of women? The idea that women can own property, vote, have a career, get an education, be an actor or a writer or a painter and so on and so on is relatively new. Most of those concepts have only been "allowed" for less than 100 years. Title nine came about in part to help reverse that."

That sure seems like you are trying to compare the subjugation of slaves to the supposed "subjugation" of women. You then went on to say you were not, but it sure seems like you did there. If you don't think you are there, then you have a damn confusing way of talking.

Now, Ill drop that because its not as interesting to me as the other stuff.

You are countering claims that I did not make. This is not the first time either. You think that I have or will make those claims because you have marked me as a conservative. Instead of doing that, you could have simply countered my points.

What claim have I not supported?

As for changing my mind on anything we discussed, no, I have not changed anything. I have with other people. Spy has been the cause of most of them on this thread, which is why I respect him.

You have simply taken a stance that is non-falsifiable. Your view of feminism is x, and so if someone else says y, then they are not espousing true feminist ideas. Okay, so what are the real feminist ideas? Well, feminism is an amorphous movement that cannot really be condensed into a few ideas. Oh, so then its a meaningless label and any idea cannot be attributed to feminism, and no idea can be dismissed as not feminism.

See the loop you created?

I believe YOU see a loop. The problem is that you believe everything, morality, god, etc are all self-evident and that by merely pointing it out excuses you from explaining your position. I tried on at least 3 different occasions to answer this post you just quoted. Each to the same response, essentially the one of yours I'm quoting now. You don't bother to tell me what part you are unable to understand. You just present the whole thing in it's entirety and say, "Here, what's this?"

This behavior you're demonstrating here is like a child who wants you to show her again and again how to tie her shoelaces when all she really wants is to have her shoes tied and doesn't really want to learn. The way you can tell she doesn't really want to learn is because she puts her foot up for you, but never bothers to pick them up herself and try.

100%/0%? See my previous post to you? You're willing to change what you believe? Did you notice I didn't say, "what I believe." I said, my world view, a perception. The problem with beliefs is that they're based on nothing tangible. By my observations, people who allow such pseudo-knowledge into their brain, they aren't inclined to ever let it go. I scrutinize what goes in and doubt it even then. Can you say the same thing? If not, we cannot discuss anything further. Convince me.

 

[Exophase]

He's a iconic example of an early warning system and potential emollient to the siren call of authoritarian liberalism. Rome needs her geese.

You made me look up a word. :thumbsup:

 

[realibrad]

So are there any statistics showing how many men have been victimized by these "yes means yes" laws?

Why would that matter. I am talking about how the law was passed because of support, and that its dumb. I'm not going to be baited into an argument that has nothing to do with my points in an attempt to discredit my stance. its stupid.