Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Warren Farrell...
Events occurring after X don't change the nature of X.
That a woman asked him out on a date when he cleaned up doesn't change whether he was or wasn't harassing her beforehand.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 02 Apr 2012, 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Want to hear a funny law, in Norway there is a law that states that if a man is blackout drunk, a woman is blackout drunk and the woman wakes up the next day, she can file a rape charge and the law states that she's not responsible for what happened because she was drunk, but the man is.

I think its very hard to hold the position that that women are as logical as a man if she dated a man who she complained was harassing her.

Orly?

In other news, there's so much sexual violence in the Syrian conflict, a map had to be set up to know where to concentrate supplies of rape counselors, emergency contraception, and on site STD testing:

WUS Syria

A man displaying logic rather than rhetoric; a man whose views I value more than those of any feminist I've spoken to because he argues for them rather than emotionally blackmailing opponents into submission.
See, you appear to be on the desperate end of this discussion - your rhetoric is wearing off, and the rusty skeleton of your logic shows.



However, it's a matter of interpretation rather than sequence. As I said, flirting by someone attractive - as Farrell mentioned during that interview - is usually considered flirting.
Flirting by someone unattractive can be easily dismissed as harrassment. She saw him as a pervert when he was unattractive, but as a potential mate when he became attractive.
She's just lucky - I would have filed a complaint against her in return the moment she started finding me attractive.

Right, because declarations about entire classes numbering in the billions based on subjective perceptions of singular third hand anecdotal stories about a member of said class make up the very basis of science.

Cool story: I saw a man with six fingers on each hand once.

LOLwut

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 02 Apr 2012, 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Did he play a mean guitar

I'm cooling my heels waiting for someone to refute the rather horrifying statistics on gendered violence and oppression,
or women's representation in leadership roles,
or SOMETHING,
and in so doing the continued relevance of feminism.

That's kind of the beauty of it all. I need make no argument, really.

I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

I WOULD, I guess, be appeased if someone dared to mention a single specific feminist initiative...or a group...or a feminist scholar...and made the case (supporting their already-made assertions) for those being misandrist or "fascist", but I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for that, too.

~yawn~

If X action was judged as harassment immediately following, subsequent events do little to change the nature of that interaction.
And by "little", we mean, of course, "nothing".
That she later asked him out on a date doesn't change in the slightest whether his actions toward her preceding constituted harassment.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 02 Apr 2012, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ukelele.

Ok, that was my fault, I put "women" instead of "woman" however, you elected to read it as being against your whole gender, when the prefix "that that" should have been a hint. Either I'm stuttering when I type, or I wrote "e" instead of "a" considering that everything else indicated that I was speaking about "THAT SPECIFIC WOMAN" I'd say you overreacted a little bit here. I'm just saying that either I hit "e" instead of "a" by mistake, or I structured the entire sentence wrong. Which is more likely?

LOL L2Read in context.

Last edited by TM on 02 Apr 2012, 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Interesting typo. I say "interesting" because you not only used the plural "women" as opposed to "woman" but followed it with the plural-appropriate verb "are" as opposed to "is". Huh. Making such complex typos must be a real nuisance, eh?

The "context", of course, is my attempting to stay serious in a discourse with someone who believes by evolutionary design women as a biological class are X, and men as a biological class are Y, with X and Y being dichotomous. Excuse the..."overreaction" on my part.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 02 Apr 2012, 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It happens when English is your third language.

Last edited by TM on 02 Apr 2012, 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Again, my apologies for assuming.

By all means, enlighten me.



Which is a matter of initiative and competence, as most employers can tell you.
There is, though, some discrimination, and that I'll admit. I'd make sure if I were an employer to hire no women with indications that they'd like to have children, as I'd be forced by law to pay them for work not carried out as well as hire a replacement at my own costs.



This is why feminists are scum. Regardless of who's right, they feel no need to explain their position; just to blackmail the rest of the world.
It might be self-perpetuating, though - if I heard any applicant for any position say that, I wouldn't even continue the conversation. I'd just hire someone else.
There is no need in today's labour market for anyone with an overly-inflated sense of entitlement supposedly justified by violence against women in countries they've never visited.



That's irrelevant to what I've been saying. Either refute my point or get back to the kitchen and start making children who will actually work and pay taxes.
Also, you can take over any job I have (though not one that requires a specific degree, as chances are you don't have that specific degree) when I'm sent off to war.



You wouldn't be yawning if you were so oppressed.
You'd be in the kitchen, making your husband (not boyfriend; that's sinful) dinner.
Additionally, you might be wearing a burqa, and would probably be pregnant with your sixth child.
Also, you wouldn't be allowed to work, as you'd have five children.

Luckily, that's over with. Now, let's talk about men's rights, which haven't changed much.
We're still supposed to fight wars, work menial jobs to support you and take stories like these for granted.
Thank you, feminism. I'll be a misogynist now.



That is, again, a matter of interpretation.
Trying to be friendly while unattractive might constitute harrassment;
trying to harrass while attractive might be perceived as just flirting.

A small sidenote: English is my second language, so don't pull me up on the spelling.

And there we have it.

Good night, folks.

Because of the behaviour of this one woman? You're showing a lack of logic if you jump to the conclusion that all women are less logical because of that.