The latest Feminist deflection

a reply to: Dark Ghost

LOL, I don't think my husband would be too thrilled

Credit goes to my (divorced) parents for thinking logically on the CS & alimony (2 very hotbutton feminism issues) When they divorced, the (female, if it's worth anything) judge tried to worm my mother into filing for alimony. She flat refused & tore her a new one. She also didn't want my dad's CS, but there was no getting out of the order. So she just cashed my dad's checks and wrote him one right back because not only wasn't it fair anyway (both agree no CS but the judge decided otherwise) it was exorbitant and hurt the hell out of my dad. She didn't want to live high on the CS hog just so he could live in poverty a few blocks away. Every now and then, he'd take over a bill if she couldn't do it. It was a pretty good way to teach what really matters to us kids back then.

That's integrity & equality. This is what the 30-somethings & under have yet to flesh out for themselves.

originally posted by: Nyiah
LOL, I don't think my husband would be too thrilled

I'm sure your husband is very grateful to have such a wise and reasonable significant other, so yes I too would be angry in his position if a (younger?) man asked you to marry her on the internet, even if it were a metaphorical marriage.

Credit goes to my (divorced) parents for thinking logically on the CS & alimony (2 very hotbutton feminism issues) When they divorced, the (female, if it's worth anything) judge tried to worm my mother into filing for alimony. She flat refused & tore her a new one. She also didn't want my dad's CS, but there was no getting out of the order. So she just cashed my dad's checks and wrote him one right back because not only wasn't it fair anyway (both agree no CS but the judge decided otherwise) it was exorbitant and hurt the hell out of my dad. She didn't want to live high on the CS hog just so he could live in poverty a few blocks away. Every now and then, he'd take over a bill if she couldn't do it. It was a pretty good way to teach what really matters to us kids back then.

On a serious note, the amount of respect and admiration I now have for you as a person has just skyrocketed. You are a PERFECT example of somebody who went through something considered by most to be an extremely difficult, emotionally draining experience (a divorce) and yet you don't seem to fixate on it for negative/depressing reasons (or to play the victim) but have demonstrated you learned that having GOOD ROLE MODELS (even after they became divorced) is a highly valuable aspect of the experience to focus on.

That's integrity & equality. This is what the 30-somethings & under have yet to flesh out for themselves.

True.

I will stop now. It probably seems to others that I am expecting you to present your final judgement for a case where I expect to receive 50m dollars if you rule in my favour.

"My analogy: A man goes to a pub and drinks so much that he eventually has blurred vision. The bartender, his mates and all the others near him plead with him not to drive. They forcefully restrain him and tell him he will harm himself AND others if he drives. They cannot take the keys away from him and he proceeds to his car. On the way to the car, he loses his balance and falls on the ground awkwardly. A man walks by, sees he is on the ground and decides to steal his wallet and mobile phone as the man appears unresponsive. A friend who is leaving the bar notices the robber running away and then looks to see his friend on the ground. He calls an ambulance. When the victim wakes up, he realises his wallet and phone were taken and decides to file a police report. The police ask him all that he can remember, which is nothing after falling on the ground. The victim has a cracked skull, has had his wallet and phone stolen by an evil person and will be in hospital for at least the next week. "



Dude that is a terrible analogy. Being robbed and being rapped can not be compared. Now if you had said the drunk man had his left arm cut off while lying on the ground it would have been closer to what rape really is to a women.

"The man that performed the robbery is an evil degenerate idiot." No robbing someone does not make you evil, but raping someone does .

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Dude that is a terrible analogy. Being robbed and being rapped can not be compared. Now if you had said the drunk man had his left arm cut off while lying on the ground it would have been closer to what rape really is to a women.

Ok, you also don't understand why the analogy was used and why it is a very fitting one. I will now explain to you why you had the knee-jerk reaction that you did and why you failed to comprehend the usefulness of the analogy used.

My analogy was not given to compare the crime of rape with the crime of theft. The analogy was done to demonstrate that drinking to the point of your eyes going blurry WHILE being separated from somebody you trust who can look out for your welfare is a behaviour that is far more likely to result in bad things happening to you. Whether you are a 17 year old girl, a 30 year old massive bodybuilder man or a midget makes no difference. There are bad people out there. They will take advantage of your inability to be alert and inability to defend yourself. If you are unfortunate enough to experience such a situation (which I personally have, in case you are wondering), if you are comfortable to share your experience in a public setting with the aim to help other people, THEN it is your duty to discourage people from taking part in those behaviours so that people that are willing to listen will absorb the advice and take it seriously. Everybody deserves knowledge, unfortunately not everyone learns and puts into practice the knowledge they were given.

All that I wrote above is consistent with the arguments presented in the opening post and you can go through every single post of mine in this thread to see for yourself.

What is my personal lesson from the experience of mine I alluded to before? I have never drunk alcohol again since the incident (an extreme reaction, but it was necessary for me), I have decided that drinking for me is not worth doing because unless I get tipsy there is no point in doing it (I do not like the taste of alcohol and I wouldn't consider it fun to do as I did when I was a teenager). From the moment the alcohol begins to alter your perception, you are losing your sense of control, which is a sensation I do NOT enjoy. That is me and I speak for myself.

If people want to get blind drunk, they can do that. But if they then pretend that the decision to get blind drunk was not a stupid decision after they know it to be scientific fact, have heard many bad stories of blind drunk people being mistreated, have probably heard people close to them doing the same thing and experiencing negative consequences, and after ALL of that pretend that they did not take part in a risky behaviour, then they are either a feminist (when the topic happens to involve rape/sexual assault) or stupid. Take your pick.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Still feels disingenuous to me. It felt that way in all these post you made. I understand that you are not condoning rape nor are you trying to say that it's not a great evil. I don't think you believe in rape couture though. But as a 36 year old man I know that it's true because I've seen it from most of my male friends through out my life.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Still feels disingenuous to me. It felt that way in all these post you made. I understand that you are not condoning rape nor are you trying to say that it's not a great evil. I don't think you believe in rape couture though. But as a 36 year old man I know that it's true because I've seen it from most of my male friends through out my life.

What seems disingenuous? Please be more precise. Do you think I know something but am refusing to recognise it?

Your male friends growing up don't represent all men around the world.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Keep telling me how men aren't affected.

TheRedneck

Hey now. I never said that men weren't affected. I've admitted throughout the thread that there are women that take it too far. I'm just trying to give some balance by suggesting that they are the minority and you shouldn't use those bad eggs to judge the whole carton.

I'm so f'ing sick of the whole femiinist b''ll # agenda like any other agenda.

Good god, .... can't people just fricking get along and be done with it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough; you never said that exactly. And if you'll remember, I have acquiesced that point. I do, however, believe you grossly underestimate the size of that minority.

I will also admit there are people who simply think women should stay barefoot and pregnant. They exist. But from my experience, they exist in far smaller numbers than women who game the current system for revenge or profit at the expense of the innocent. And those women exist in far smaller numbers that the men who are trying to protect themselves from feminism. We've probably left minority status on that last group.

To put it in perspective, there are precious few terrorists shooting up places in the US. But how many people are concerned about terrorism? The answer is quite a few, and that fear alone leads to a large amount of anti-Muslim feelings. Should we ignore Muslim extremists who shoot places up, because they are such a small minority? If not, then why does Feminism actually support women who game the system, in larger numbers than terrorists who shoot up places?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I HIGHLY doubt that. Sexism is still rather rampant among men. Keep in mind that women make up over half the population. It's like 51% women to 49% men in the country, so WHY are women still so underrepresented in the workforce? Especially in higher positions like CEO's.

Also you don't have to be one of those guys who thinks women's place is in the kitchen, should only speak when spoken to, and other extremist sexist ideas to be contributing to holding back women in the workforce. Let me give you an example:

I've mentioned before on ATS that I used to serve in the Army. My MOS was 13M which is MLRS and is field artillery. This is a combat arms MOS if you didn't know. When I enlisted in the Army at the age of 18 the rules were no women in combat arms. Period. At the time I didn't think too much of it except that I vaguely didn't think it was fair. But I heard reasoning such as "If you were injured and couldn't walk out of a battle field, would you trust a woman to be able to carry you to safety?" and other gems like that. It sounded reasonable at the time so I didn't question it too much.

But then I went to Iraq and I saw firsthand that women can serve in combat arms. You see, at the time, Bush was looking for any soldiers he could mobilize to do policing in Iraq. So many units were deployed as MP units. This included National Guard units. Also, the MP MOS allows females. HOWEVER, the policing you did in Iraq is VERY different than the policing done stateside. It's more akin to combat tactics than waiting on the side of the road for a speeder to give a ticket to.

CLEARLY the Army was trusting these women to run combat arms operations here, so it really started to make me think about the rhetoric used. So then I went back to that first line used and was like "hey wait a minute!" dragging injured soldiers off of the battle field isn't the only thing you need to be able to do on a battlefield, PLUS medics are allowed to be females. I think it would be more important for someone to be able to carry 8.8 pounds in their hands (weight of M16A2 with 30 round magazine) and 40 some pounds of battle gear on their body and then be able to follow directions in the heat of a fire fight.

As such I've been in favor of women in combat arms pretty much since I left the Army in 2007, but I've had arguments with people such as my ex-platoon sgt about this and even he doesn't believe women should be in combat arms. He's a great guy and I trusted him with my life while in Iraq and I even still keep in touch with him and my other platoon mates on Facebook, but cycling back to my original point he is contributing to holding back women in the workplace. Not because he is inherently sexist, just because his biases prevent him from opening his mind to the possibility that women CAN fight in combat, even if it means they don't have the exact same tasks as men.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't stomp out all thought and freedom of it. You can try, howeer it will only amount to something akin to the novel 1984.

Live and Let Live.

It's worked fine for the past 80 yrs. So why are people flipping out now? Because, it's called.... PROGRAMMING.

a reply to: Neith

What are you talking about? Your response here has absolutely nothing to do with what I just typed out in that long response.

Damnit i wish people had more logic.

But i wish more that they had humour.

Sigh...

**** Attention ****

Please stay on topic and the topic isn't each other.


Thanks,

a reply to: elevatedone

Sorry..peace offering