Page 5 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Apr 2014, 4:07 am

starvingartist you can with FUDs.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

18 Apr 2014, 12:58 am

starvingartist wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
That's in addition to all of the male skills that I still had to learn, which very few girls tackle.


just for the sake of curiosity: what exactly are "male skills"? --do you mean things like standing up to take a piss, is that a male skill? if so then you're right, very few girls tackle that one. :wink:
Driving a stick shift and forgetting to put the toilet seat down and being lazy and thinking about sex a lot. Playing football hockey lifting heavy weights and working in dangerous jobs like offshore fishermen like on deadliest catch. Were also good at making up excuses and procrastinating! :wink:


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

18 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
If the majority of men's rights "activism" was put towards those issues that MRAs claim they care about (male circumcision, custody laws, prison rape, the draft, etc) rather than towards harrassing feminists and denouncing the gains of women, they might actually see support outside of Reddit.


The local NCFM chapter here does work on those issues. That's most of what they do.

From their April meeting agenda:

"4. First Steps Baby Expo, Saint Cloud, April 12"
"7. Rochester Baby & Kids Expo, May 17"
"9. Saint Francis Baby Fair, Shakopee, June 14"

They have booths at several of those events each year. They staff them for 4-8 hours with volunteers. The main issues that they do outreach on are circumcision, excessive drugging of kids, and unnecessary punishment of schoolkids for harmless things like fidgeting. The latter two would help a lot of Aspies and quite a few girls.

Women's groups are equally deserving of your criticism: lashing out at "unrealistic" models in swimsuit ads doesn't do much to stop girls from competing with each-other on beauty. They start doing that long before puberty, long before they have any interest in boys that would allow us to influence them.

Hopper wrote:
If you can't advocate - self or otherwise - against male circumcision without getting in an attack on feminism, you really need to reassess your priorities.


What I said was hardly "an attack on feminism," as you breathlessly put it. I re-posted a response from A Voice For Men to the #killallmen Twitter hashtag, and added a follow-on comment. Four out of my five sentences focused on shoddy, gender-biased science. The other was a preface.

You can disagree with AVFM's statement that feminists are 'making a mockery' of genital mutilation (by acting as though it's a girls' issue), but remember that I've taken flak here for supposedly ignoring equal participation by women in manufacturing. As it happens, the numbers support what I said:

http://www.wantedanalytics.com/analysis ... ufacturing

The male-female split is 73%-27%. As the article noted, there's also a skill-gap in the same direction.

In the case of genital mutilation, the rate of MGM in the US dwarfs that of FGM (maybe by 50 to 1).

Quote:
Are you suggesting that, in the US at least, female-heavy industries have been 'protected' from the ravages of the market, and male-heavy ones have been left to crumble? If so, could you flesh out how this is, please?


Gladly. During the "recession," men lost 2.6 jobs for every job lost by a woman, even though women made up almost exactly 50% of the workforce. (Both figures come from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.) That's not because men weren't pulling our weight. In many cases (like specialty manufacturing), we did work that was quite a bit better than other segments of the market.

A case in point: Back in the '90s, when Intel was bragging about 600 nanometer wires, the company that I later worked at was already making production machines that moved to an accuracy of one nanometer. Even the error was consistent to a few picometers, less the the atomic radius of any atom. They were used in chipmaking, but also in a lot of other industries. A lot of websites wouldn't be viable without the work that we did to improve hard disk manufacture. Our systems helped fields like medicine by allowing snp-chips, better scopes, and bioinformatics, and remember that medical schools in the US now graduate more women than men.

We didn't get much love in return: We were offered no grant money, and in fact we funded academic research whenever we needed something that we weren't equipped to do in-house. Universities didn't train engineers to do our level of work, so we did most of our own professional training.

People like Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote off job losses in manufacturing by painting us as a traditionalist backwater that lost relevance when cooler things came along. That's utterly ignorant: Judged on technical merit, we were decades ahead of his cool kids.

So from where I stood, yes: I created jobs for women who worked in protected industries (like medicine), and at the same time my own job was exposed to foreign competition and cheap-shots from pseudo-intellectuals alike.

0_equals_true wrote:
If some feminist group gave me pretty much the equivalent of your argument, I wouldn't really give them much credence, it doesn't deserve it.


Would you not?

The president of my country said: "Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong."

That's been well debunked: http://spectator.org/blog/57588/obamas- ... m-debunked

Hopper wrote:
If you could click your fingers right now and remove feminism from history, and circumcision would still exist.


By the same token, if women in the 1800s or early 1900s could have snapped their fingers and gotten rid of patriarchy, they wouldn't have been free. Dead is more like it.

I'd much rather get rid of chivalry. Even a lot of ostensibly-edgy leftist men still champion women while shrugging off the problems of their own gender. That made perfect sense 200 years ago. It's hard to see how it does now.

0_equals_true wrote:
The biggest problem I'm having with your view is rather then focusing a clear men issues, I get the impression you relate any general socioeconomic problems to women or feminism.

I have a pretty low opinion of anyone man or women who only see themselves as victims, and do little to change their situation.


I'm becoming quite acquainted with your opinions.

AVFM is one of the more reactionary men's rights sites, and the aforementioned Twittering barely got a rise out of them. That doesn't support your charge of a victim mentality, nor starvingartist's affirmative answer to the title of this thread.

As I noted earlier in reply to Geekonychus, those bogeymen "MRAs" do more face-to-face advocacy for school reforms that would help Aspie kids than most of you professional victims have done to help yourselves.

Geekonychus wrote:
Most of the men's groups making any progress on these issues are the one's who work alongside human's rights organizations (including feminist ones) and don't associate with the reactionary rhetoric of the MRA movement.


If expressing mild consternation at the suggestion that we all be killed is grounds in your mind for total ostracism of a group of people, then you're a lot more reactionary than they are. And if the self-repression in that attitude is "progress," it explains why serious men's groups exist.

0_equals_true wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
You only brought up a single, assembly-centered industry. I worked with Bosch, Seagate, Nikon, Zeiss, Applied Materials, Okamoto, Mitsui, GE, 3M, Lockheed and others, and the people that I worked with were mostly men. You prove our point. Your sense of agriculture is way off. The only dumb thing here is that you ask me to prove things to your satisfaction when you haven't held feminist arguments to the same standard.

Prove what point? Your frustration towards, declining industry has nothing to do with women regardless of the gender mix, because women are not responsible for the labour drain abroad. You have misplaced resentment.


You've accused me of making an unsupported claim. For your part, you've made unsupported personal accusations against me and other men, and lectured me at length on what economic policies you believe world leaders should enact. Outlandishly, you've accused me of being a 'fake libertarian.' Here in the States, we make good fun of people like Grover Norquist for those sorts of statements :D Had my comment about Bastiat made me a libertarian, preferring that trade liberalization be enacted uniformly could not make me a "fake" one.

Quote:
Also I have not heard any feminist arguments, or evidence of conspiracy from women's groups to do with industry moving abroad,


Why would you use a standard of "conspiracy" here? You used an utterly different standard below:

Quote:
On the other hand: Things like land ownership, voting, issues of domestic/sexual violence, whether or not they could have tackled earlier, doesn't mean they shouldn't have been. There is no doubt we are better off for progress.


So to summarize your position, women's groups aren't guilty unless they've conspired to harm men, but men are guilty if we don't work miracles.

(By the way, I don't understand the narrow standard of culpability that you chaps apply to women: They control 70% of US consumer spending, vote at a higher rate than men, and win elections at a higher rate whenever they bother to run. Do you think that they can't handle more responsibility?)

Quote:
I was actually asking you for better examples.


I've already given you plenty to shoot at. If you have a beef, shoot away.

Quote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
I've given you and Hopper plenty of chances to show how the feminist arguments are really correct. Here's just one, from my first post to this thread: "If women believe that they were forced into domestic roles by men acting capriciously, then they need to show how gender integration could have been achieved in the 1800s or earlier." I got no takers when I posted that. Half of the feminist case is unsupported if they can't carry that one. You want me to prove stuff? Eat your own soup.


It sounds a bit like a strawman. Which arguments? The basic principle of fairness?


A principle is something that you afford to everyone. (See above.) When I've invoked your "basic principle of fairness," either you or Hopper have said 'Oh, but it's not women's fault.' How is that relevant? Your claim above seems to be that anything inequitable should be fixed because that's 'the right thing to do.' I've suggested things that would be easier to fix than the problems that held up the women's movement.

Quote:
Btw I actually degree with the notion, that female subjugation was purely at the hands of men, it was also enforced by women too. It was just that in order to achieve change it was men that were the gatekeepers.


Not all of the gatekeepers were men. Take childcare, which is still one of the worst barriers to gender-equal employment: My mother had to shop around for complete strangers to take care of her kids. The housewives in the neighborhood traded hours among each-other. My mother was more than willing to pay. If you want to force male institutions to make accommodations for women at work, then for Christ sake, why can't you force female-run institutions to help other women?

What we already expect of employers isn't easy. A product development cycle is as short as six months now. (We didn't ask for that. It's consumer-driven, and women make most of those buying decisions. We could do better work if it were longer.) It's a problem to have your chief engineer gone on maternity leave for three of those months, especially with no way of predicting which three.

Hopper wrote:
Men worked in jobs they would have preferred not to - still do. They had to do so because they could only get by selling their labour. That's capitalism.


No, it's reproduction. Not many women choose to never have sex, and until recently having sex meant having kids. Having kids meant having to work a lot. My point stands:

Regardless of how arbitrary gender roles were, women got the better half of those roles, since both men and women reliably choose stability and safety over freedom. That's why people keep applying for stable corporate jobs with good benefits even though they dislike them in most other ways.

0_equals_true wrote:
You think that changing diaper, or learning to sew make you special? Please.


You accused me of playing the victim card, and now you accuse me of self-promotion when I've rebutted you? My words were: "When women complained that men didn't help out enough around the house, I stepped up to the plate and learned." I did exactly that.

Quote:
More and more women are doing 'male' skills. If you have such a low opinion of women that only servers to undermine your position.


I addressed the statistics earlier. I want to see more women in those jobs, and I'm not the only one: Companies have a hard time filling them, even though many of them pay well. It's already easy to get those jobs, so making it easier isn't going to help. Asking more women to step up might.

0_equals_true wrote:
Rather than working toward an egalitarian attitude for everyone inline with mainstream rights groups, you see one movement as a direct threat to you becuase frankly you resent their progress.


A self-styled libertarian wants me to stick timidly to the mainstream... You sound a lot more like a modern American Democrat than the "classical liberal/libertarian" that you describe yourself as being. Which classical liberals have you read? Montesquieu? Bastiat?

Regardless, what egalitarian attitude are you talking about? The US has had a sharp decrease in opportunity and a sharp increase in class disparity since feminism became mainstream here. Those "mainstream rights groups" have flocked to universities that were known to be counter-meritocratic. (I've posted on that elsewhere.) They've allied themselves with a party that's as regressive on spending as Republicans are on taxation.



Last edited by NobodyKnows on 18 Apr 2014, 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

18 Apr 2014, 6:02 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
Women's groups are equally deserving of your criticism: lashing out at "unrealistic" models in swimsuit ads doesn't do much to stop girls from competing with each-other on beauty. They start doing that long before puberty, long before they have any interest in boys that would allow us to influence them.


interesting. i was not aware that until the onset of puberty little girls live in bubbles completely devoid of all socio-cultural and media influence. one learns something new every day. :wink:



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

18 Apr 2014, 6:19 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
A principle is something that you afford to everyone. (See above.) When I've invoked your "basic principle of fairness," either you or Hopper have said 'Oh, but it's not women's fault.' How is that relevant? Your claim above seems to be that anything inequitable should be fixed because that's 'the right thing to do.' I've suggested things that would be easier to fix than the problems that held up the women's movement.


i find the moral reasoning behind this paragraph absolutely baffling. i can't follow you at all, man. i bow out. :shrug:



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

18 Apr 2014, 6:56 pm

starvingartist wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
Women's groups are equally deserving of your criticism: lashing out at "unrealistic" models in swimsuit ads doesn't do much to stop girls from competing with each-other on beauty. They start doing that long before puberty, long before they have any interest in boys that would allow us to influence them.


interesting. i was not aware that until the onset of puberty little girls live in bubbles completely devoid of all socio-cultural and media influence. one learns something new every day. :wink:


So true. In western nations outrageous gender expectations are stuck on every billboard every magazine and movie, pumped into homes and cars via TV, internet and radio. It must be incredibly confusing to be subjected to that amount of brainwashing. I would imagine much of the influence occur well before puberty.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

18 Apr 2014, 7:48 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
On the other hand: Things like land ownership, voting, issues of domestic/sexual violence, whether or not they could have tackled earlier, doesn't mean they shouldn't have been. There is no doubt we are better off for progress.


I should also mention a couple of other things about your list above:

1: Women in much of the West could own land and inherit large sums of money. Much of Mark Twain's money came from his wife's inheritance. Napoleon III was bankrolled by Harriet Howard.

2: The earlier reference by a female WP member to girls being married off at 7 needs clarification. Marriage could mean different things, and I'm not sure which she meant. Nobility sometimes had arranged marriages between children of similar ages. Those could happen as early as five, and neither of the children got to choose. In frontier America, the young end of the spectrum was 12. In Saudi Arabia, the standard is roughly puberty.

salamandaqwerty wrote:
So true. In western nations outrageous gender expectations are stuck on every billboard every magazine and movie, pumped into homes and cars via TV, internet and radio. It must be incredibly confusing to be subjected to that amount of brainwashing. I would imagine much of the influence occur well before puberty.


Obviously it's confused you so completely that you're not even aware of it. How is that just a girls' problem? Does the stereotype of the father as a cash machine cum human shield not influence boys? (That's not sour-grapes. The men in my family were really good at being traditional, battle hardened, cash spewing men. That's what I trained for as a kid.)

In the case of male roles, we enforce them statutorily through the public school system. If they cared one whit about boys' wellbeing, they'd teach us negotiating skills. Instead they teach us that work is an obligation. Some work is. Most of it isn't. Most of it isn't even useful.



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

18 Apr 2014, 10:28 pm

salamandaqwerty wrote:
So true. In western nations outrageous gender expectations are stuck on every billboard every magazine and movie, pumped into homes and cars via TV, internet and radio. It must be incredibly confusing to be subjected to that amount of brainwashing. I would imagine much of the influence occur well before puberty.

Quote:
Obviously it's confused you so completely that you're not even aware of it. How is that just a girls' problem? Does the stereotype of the father as a cash machine cum human shield not influence boys? (That's not sour-grapes. The men in my family were really good at being traditional, battle hardened, cash spewing men. That's what I trained for as a kid.)

In the case of male roles, we enforce them statutorily through the public school system. If they cared one whit about boys' wellbeing, they'd teach us negotiating skills. Instead they teach us that work is an obligation. Some work is. Most of it isn't. Most of it isn't even useful.
[/quote]

I never stated that this was a female only issue. I am obviously aware of it or I would not have addressed it. Your reply to my post seems unnecessarily aggressive.
It seems like you have issues relating to gender roles, understanding how this has impacted on you should give you some understanding on the similar stereotypical gender expectations placed on females.[quote]


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

19 Apr 2014, 4:40 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezOZCVEimXY[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

19 Apr 2014, 5:17 am

NobodyKnows - I'll deal with this one matter at a time.

Circumcision - please tell me how feminists are, or feminism is, in any way a significant block to the ending of male circumcision. Or a block at all. I guarantee if feminists presented a united face on the matter - and they don't tend to present a united face on many topics - many MRAs would respond 'bloody feminists, meddling in men's issues, telling men what to do with their bodies, hating male traditions and masculine logical science, it's political correctness gone mad, we'd be rounded up and spat on if we tried to do anything similar with women's issues. You know what I call them? Feminazis! Clever, isn't it?'.

To repeat myself, and please try and understand, and you actually provided the numbers for this point yourself, so I hope you will: MGM is normal in western society (and around the world). No, it does not make it right. But it does make it normal. It is particularly normal in the US, supported and promoted big time by the medical establishment. Even in the UK, though not practised as normal, it is an old enough and known enough tradition that, as with many traditions, most people don't think much about it.

FGM, on the other hand, is not normal in western society, nor particularly around the world. It was new and shocking when it came to western public attention. It also had the advantage to us in the west that it was done by dark skinned foreigners who talk funny, who are easily understood as backwards and brutal and whose ways are always weird, and about whom the west should have no compunction in correcting. But male circumcision? Oh. We do that, and quite a lot. Have done for a long time. That must mean it's normal and fine - oh hey, look, here's some men and women in white coats telling us so. Phew!

MRA position: Stupid feminists - look at this radfem article attacking the non-questioning of the power and authority of science in society. Lol. They so hate male logic they'd rather go to a homeopath? Idiots! [Beat]. Man, I hate these stupid feminists, refusing to question the power and authority of science in society.

I don't get in any way why feminism needs to be brought into the matter. "Because they're against FGM but not MGM! Some are even pro it!". Like much of the rest of the public, then, no? FFS. Here's the thing: if MRAs such as yourself bang on about the feminists blocking the ending of MGM, it will be taken by feminists as simply an excuse for attacking feminism. And they'd be right. There is no reason to single out a lack of feminist agreement/speaking out on the matter over the same from the public at large. 'I'm against male circumcision' quickly becomes code for 'bash the eeevil feminists!'. Which is a shame, as if you can't mention MGM without acting as if you've been hypnotised so as to throw in, 'and you know, some feminists are pro it!' with it, it just looks like the issue isn't so much MGM as it is that, bascially, feminists and feminism dares to exist. Which, let's face it, is pretty accurate.

Those who want to put an end to circumcision do not need the support of feminists en masse, nor even for the feminist pro-circumcision lobby to put an end to their nefarious deeds. Seriously - what do you think the public response would be if feminists en masse came out against MGM? What is the public response to feminist pronouncements at large? "Damn feminists, wanting to legislate to interfere with our traditions and medicine, telling us what we can and can't do with our children. Don't they respect or know any damn thing men do?".

Just, 'hi, we're from [your anti-GM group name here], and we'd like to talk to you about why we think male cicrumcision is wrong. I would hope it is a given that we agree FGM is a wicked practice and should be stopped, but we here at [your anti-GM group name here] would like to go one further, and see all and any non-medically necessary surgery on the genitals of children, and indeed anyone non-consenting, of any gender, come to an end. We understand that here in [your country here], male circumcision is seen as no big deal, a benign and often important tradition for many people, and even garnering support from medical science. But we at [your anti-GM group name here] believe it is always wrong to surgically alter a child's body unless great medical necessity is shown. Here's why'. Why on earth do feminists of any disposition need to be dragged in, thus distorting the matter? "Because some feminists are pro MGM!". Sigh. Didn't we already do this? In terms of particular groups being pro circumcision, is it really the feminist one who have instigated and propagated the practice, and giving the backing of medical science to the matter?

"It's a feminist issue because mothers are complicit!". It's a feminist issue because a woman believes in, and yields to, the practices of the culture she's in and in the opinion of medical science more than in her own feeling that removing a part of the genitals from the son she has just carried and given birth to might not be very nice. Because what kind of sick, stupid woman would question the practices of her culture, would dare to think that maybe science ought not to necessarily be a venerated, unquestioned authority? Hmmm. (Incase you can't tell from that 'hmmm', she would likely be a feminist. She'd certainly be called one by those outraged by her insolence.)

And as you have seen here, there are feminists against circumcision. If one is against MGM, but refracts that position through endless attacks on the lack of feminist sympathy, or highlighting their 'hypocrisy', then clearly one is not so much against MGM as pro having-a-go-at-feminists-using-any-issue-at-hand. Raising the issue of male circumcision is also easily taken as anti-semitism. And who wants to go there? Tricky terrain, requiring nuance and deep thought and open conversation, all in good faith. Far better to have a go at feminists for not doing what you want them to - it allows one the luxury of pretending it could all be sorted out if it weren't for feminism. It'll provoke needless division, and piss away energy better put to actually dealing with MGM, so the practice will continue. But hey - at least you can go on having a pop at feminists how it would be sorted if it wasn't for them. Which is pretty f*****g sick.

Simply: MRAs do not care as much about ending MGM as they do about attacking feminists.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


Last edited by Hopper on 19 Apr 2014, 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

19 Apr 2014, 5:46 am

To be honest I don't take either of them seriously! MRAs complain about stupid stuff like women being empowered and Feminists for saying all men are rapists etc then there are factions of feminists who argue with eachother and few dissagree with the radical ones with the loud mouths like Andrea Dworkin etc. Its all stupid if you ask me, women can be raped and yes even men can be raped, women get abused by men and face sexism and sexual harrassments by men but it also happens to men by women. The only thing that bothers me is they both claim for equality but tend to ignore the issues the opposite genders face when bad stuff happens to them like a man being a victim of abuse by a woman a feminist will ridicule him and say he deserved it or just man up but at the same time if its a woman in that situation they have total sympathy for her.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

19 Apr 2014, 10:28 am

Image


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

19 Apr 2014, 12:53 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Image


lmao! thank you missliz, i will use this every time i have a conversation with an MRA--what do you win if you get a full card? i imagine that it wouldn't take long with most of them before they manage to bring up everything on the card. :lol:



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

19 Apr 2014, 1:08 pm

Isn't google images great. :D


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


sephardic-male
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 274
Location: Toronto, Canada

19 Apr 2014, 1:08 pm

heavenlyabyss wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
sephardic-male wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
sephardic-male wrote:
currently on twitter feminists are using the #killallmen hashtag advocating, murdering, genocide and enslavement of men. how comes feminists aren't protesting against that.


Like this one, you mean https://twitter.com/jaythenerdkid/statu ... 64/photo/1 ?


so a post of a pervert justify postings calling for my murder and enslavement?








[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcTG2yFcBE[/youtube]


#killallsephardic_male? Didn't see that. :P
Fixed the encoding wont work anymore with the s in the http every time ya put the url take the s off the https for it to work.


Here's my problem with all this though. I get that you guys are trying to get some sort of argument about hypocrisy going but are any of you actually offended by any of this? I am male and I don't find it offensive. I see it as hyperbole and I'm able to laugh at it. I'm not fearing for my life nor are my feelings hurt.

Honestly, are any of you truly offended by this.



i cannot laugh at postings of feminists openly advocating mass murder and enslavement of males which includes me. if the posts where doing the same towards women would you still laugh at them? why is it ok to call for killing of men and not women? why is that advocating the genocide of men is seen as humor but when it directed at women it is not?


_________________
http://theothermccain.com/category/feminism/sex-trouble/

Robert Stacy McCain's sex trouble series


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

19 Apr 2014, 1:24 pm

sephardic-male wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Here's my problem with all this though. I get that you guys are trying to get some sort of argument about hypocrisy going but are any of you actually offended by any of this? I am male and I don't find it offensive. I see it as hyperbole and I'm able to laugh at it. I'm not fearing for my life nor are my feelings hurt.

Honestly, are any of you truly offended by this.



i cannot laugh at postings of feminists openly advocating mass murder and enslavement of males which includes me. if the posts where doing the same towards women would you still laugh at them? why is it ok to call for killing of men and not women? why is that advocating the genocide of men is seen as humor but when it directed at women it is not?


Image
Image
Image
Image
Image