The latest Feminist deflection

originally posted by: Nyiah
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.

Wow, your parents truly sound like lovely people, and that's so refreshing to hear.

By the way, I'm really disappointed no one on this thread has compared anyone to Hitler.
Come on, people! You're slouching!

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Bluesma
A lot of addicts of victimization out there.

Indeed, there are.

However, let's put into perspective the following facts before we get too complacent:

Feminism was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, an extreme situation that no longer exists in the West. MRAs was an extreme reaction to feminism's refusal to include men in the dialogue when discussing issues regarding equality that affect men. 100% of feminism's issues have been acknowledged, 99% of them have been fixed in a reasonable manner. Only about 50% of men's issues have been acknowledged and about 5% are only in the process of being fixed. (No issues have been fixed).

Yes feminism has been around longer and MRAs will take time. But how will it EVER get moving if feminists have the political power to shut down a documentary about MRAs (directed by a female feminist — I kid you not, I'm not lying, look it up!) before it has been seen or critiqued on the assumption that it is anti-feminist, anti-women and wants to take away all the rights women have gained, when such a claim is backed by 0% evidence. Do you see the problem?

I have made a thread that details all of this, if you want the link look at my thread history or I can PM it to you. I'm not linking it because I already did and doing it again will seem like I'm after stars/flags, which I'm not.

I see the problem, and I am agreement with you. I read your post as if you think I disagree- am I misinterpretting?

The only thing I would add is that obviously not ALL feminists are doing this- as you yourself pointed out, this film was made by a feminist. So obviously, there are fanatic feminists, and there are rational ones, willing to look at the issues with open eyes.

I would make the same point for anyone saying the mens rights movement is irrational and misogynist- some MRA's are, some aren't. I have had discussions with Elam, and he is a pretty balanced and intelligent person. That does not mean they all are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

I don't know, but I do know that is a poor indicator of opportunity. Women often get a choice, work or stay home, while men typically do not. Thus, there would be more men in the workforce, due to women getting an opportunity to choose that is denied to men.

As for CEO positions, there are plenty of women in those positions, and plenty of opportunity for women to be in them. Obviously, more men are willing to work the 24-hour days required to make it as a CEO than women. Do you want to deny women that choice?

The majority of women I know here despise feminism. Their reasoning is clear: they've got it pretty good. They have a choice whether to work or not, and they receive the same financial rewards as their husbands who do not have that choice. It is also still a rarity around here for a woman to pay anything on a date. If they want, they can be anything or do anything a man can. Who wants to give that up?

As far as combat rules, if a woman can physically and mentally handle combat, I would rather fight next to her than I would a man who wasn't as capable. There will always, IMO, be a discrepancy in the gender of combat soldiers, simply because on average women are less aggressive and less physically strong than men... but those who can handle it have the opportunity now and I support that.

A related field would be truck driving. Most women can't (or rather don't want to) handle the long hours, dirty conditions, and continual danger associated with hauling freight across the country. But some do, and it has been my experience that if a woman lasts more than 6 months, she can drive circles around male drivers.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
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.

You are completely missing the point, and I as a woman am telling you so. If you look back through the thread at about the only other post I have made in it, then you will see this is almost exactly the same thing I said in response to another poster.

If you choose to get so drunk that you loose all ability to control yourself, it does not matter at all who you are, you have just placed yourself at the mercy of whoever else happens to be there. At that point, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter if you are man or woman, you are helpless and at the mercy of those other people.

At that point, anything could happen. Maybe, to put it in proper perspective, Dark should have said the passed out drunk got knifed for his stuff. Would that have been serious enough for you? Instead of recuperating with a cracked skull in the hospital, then he would have ended up planted 6' under.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I see the problem, and I am agreement with you. I read your post as if you think I disagree- am I misinterpretting?

The only thing I would add is that obviously not ALL feminists are doing this- as you yourself pointed out, this film was made by a feminist. So obviously, there are fanatic feminists, and there are rational ones, willing to look at the issues with open eyes.

You can call the ones who actually shut down the documentary as being "radical" if you like, although they were NOT using radical beliefs to justify their behaviour - they said the documentary was anti-feminist, anti-woman and that MRAs who didn't even MAKE the film wanted to set back women's rights by 50 years...without knowing the films content or hearing what was in it. And here is the key point you are missing: given what I have just said in this very paragraph: they had enough POWER to have it shut down. Which means either "moderate" feminists agreed with their justifications to shut it down, or failed to publicly condemn or try to reason with these "radical" feminists before they could have it shut down. Do you find it believable that ONLY radical feminists were aware of this group's decision to attempt to have the documentary shut down?

THAT is a serious problem in regard to feminism's credibility if it wants to be viewed as a movement that wants equal rights for all. If feminists ONLY want equal rights when it comes to helping women and don't care about men's rights, come out and say it, be honest. Then this move at least makes sense from their point of view. But most who identify themselves as feminists are saying they want EQUAL RIGHTS for all. If you want equal rights for all, then it is impossible to justify the behaviour of these feminists who had the documentary shut down. They care more about any potential threat to women's rights than they do about potential threats to men's rights, which would PROVE they are not advocating EQUAL rights.

Feminists in this very thread have kept saying "the definition is obvious, the definition is obvious", when I challenged them to demonstrate that it was obvious, they were contradicted. Another pro-feminist then admitted his view of the definition didn't match that of the feminist whose own definition was contradicted! (If you think I am lying to make a point, please go back and check earlier replies in this thread.)

Are you still confused?

would make the same point for anyone saying the mens rights movement is irrational and misogynist- some MRA's are, some aren't. I have had discussions with Elam, and he is a pretty balanced and intelligent person. That does not mean they all are.

Please see above.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Wow Ghost, is your real name Elam?

originally posted by: InTheLight
Wow Ghost, is your real name Elam?

I detect an attempt to attack my credibility.

Who is Elam? What does he or she have to do with this thread?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
Wow Ghost, is your real name Elam?

I detect an attempt to attack my credibility.

Who is Elam? What does he or she have to do with this thread?

Read the sources that you posted.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Read the sources that you posted.

Which source are you referring to? Did I use a source in one of my previous replies in this thread that you have an issue with?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
Read the sources that you posted.

Which source are you referring to? Did I use a source in one of my previous replies in this thread that you have an issue with?

That would require you to actually read the sources you posted so you can understand my post. I have no issue, yet, with anything until you reply.

Or, is this a sinister feminist deflection?

originally posted by: InTheLight
That would require you to actually read the sources you posted so you can understand my post. I have no issue, yet, with anything until you reply.

Or, is this a sinister feminist deflection?

Ok now I understand: you are accusing me of using a source that supports my argument without properly reading the source? Is that correct? If so, can you please direct me to the previous POST where I linked the source you are referring to. I cannot find it and am not going back so many pages when you are the one who referenced it.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
That would require you to actually read the sources you posted so you can understand my post. I have no issue, yet, with anything until you reply.

Or, is this a sinister feminist deflection?

Ok now I understand: you are accusing me of using a source that supports my argument without properly reading the source? Is that correct? If so, can you please direct me to the previous POST where I linked the source you are referring to. I cannot find it and am not going back so many pages when you are the one who referenced it.

Spoon feeding OPs is not in my vocabulary. Just google 'Elam' (damn that was embarrassing (not for me)).

originally posted by: InTheLight
Spoon feeding OPs is not in my vocabulary. Just google 'Elam' (damn that was embarrassing (not for me)).

I did before my last reply.

The first page comes up with references to the bible. What does the Bible or bible groups have to do with this topic?

So your implication that I am lazy is wrong. My implication that you ARE probably the lazy one is being confirmed because you refuse to link me to the post you said has a source you are taking issue with. (The one who was triggered is YOU. Nobody else has said anything about a source I used in the past, only you. Until you show me this post with me using the source, what you are saying has no relevance to your original reply which accused me of something you still have not made clear you are accusing me of.)

I am under no obligation at this stage now to do anything you want.

Why do you feel embarrassed on my behalf? I don't feel embarrassed. Do you think everyone reading this is as stupid as you assume they are? That they cannot see what you are trying to do?

Your silence indicates to me (and probably every non-feminist reading this thread) that either you have failed to destroy my credibility as you had hoped, OR you realise what you did was wrong and in poor form and now regret it, but refuse to acknowledge this.

If you disagree, simply reply and say why.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I tried to avoid this thread... really, I did. I closed it three different times. God, I wish I were stronger.

But... I'm not.

I remember when feminism was young. I was all for it. If a woman can and does the same job as a man, why shouldn't she make as much? Rape... any sexual assault, actually... is wrong, a crime, and should be vigorously pursued and the perpetrator severely punished. Period.

But then came the question of when is sexual assault sexual assault? Women can easily trap men in situations where they at least appear to be guilty of such. If a man and a woman are alone, and the woman screams "rape," who is believed? Most of the time it is the woman.

Feminism did not care about this dynamic. Innocence or guilt was irrelevant. All that was relevant was the word of the woman. That is why I personally rejected Feminism.

Dark Ghost earlier asked a question: if women make less than men, why are women not employed more than men? The answer is obvious from my last paragraph: women in close proximity are a legal risk to any man's liberty. It doesn't require any action on the part of the man to create this risk... only existence as a male in the wrong situation. I personally avoid close contact with women unless I am certain they are anti-feminist and their integrity is above reproach. I'm sure most CEOs do as well. It has become an unwritten rule of survival in society, created and promoted by Feminism.

And in the process, less uproar is created when rape does occur, because now there's this little doubting voice in the back of peoples' minds: "Did he really do it?"

The brutal truth is that men and women are different. Aside from the anatomically obvious, their biological responses to external stimuli are different, and their emotional responses are different. Males typically are more aggressive, stronger physically, and less emotional. Women are typically more dependable, more intelligent, and have greater emotional strength. Biologically, women are instinctively driven to attract males, while men are instinctively driven to respond to the attraction with sexual activity.

Of course (and I only have to state the obvious here because feminists may be watching), these are generalizations and anyone can find specific cases that do not follow general tendencies.

Humans also have intelligence, however, and this allows us to overcome most of those biological desires. Most, not all. Thus, we can have laws that prohibit rape and expect them to be followed. In the process of having laws, we must have the concept of fairness and reason; otherwise those laws become little more than a method used to bully individuals randomly. For example, if a sexual encounter is purely consensual until 0.001 second before consumption, is the consumption still consensual? A feminist will say no, but a realist will say initially yes, but no if not de-escalated quickly. The woman had a duty to call it off sooner, although the man has a duty to accept the change in consent as quickly as practical. That is reason.

If a woman dresses seductively, goes to a bar, flirts with men, and gets drunk as a skunk, is she liable for any ensuing rape? Legally, no! Morally, no! Realistically... she contributed by placing herself in known danger. That does not mean she should be required to wear a burka at all times (I cannot believe that was even suggested), but it does mean having friends nearby, controlling how much she drinks, or at least keeping the flirting to lower levels. It is no different than a guy going to a rough bar, getting drunk as a skunk, and cussing some dude with a bad attitude and limbs the size and consistency of redwood tree trunks. He us not responsible legally for having the stuffing beat out of him, but he is realistically guilty of contributing to his own beating. He should not have taken the actions he took, and all the law can do is lock up Mr. Redwood Tree. It cannot prevent the beating from happening.

If the purpose is to stop sexual assault, the suggested course will be to educate women on potential dangers and aggressively pursue legal violations, while also discouraging false allegations. If the purpose is to extract revenge on men for the crime of being men, the suggested course will be to hold women harmless in all situations, indeed, to encourage dangerous behavior, aggressively pursue legal violations, and encourage allegations with respect to actual truth behind them.

Which course does Feminism support?

This will fall on deaf ears, of course. I know that. Like I said, I tried to keep my trap shut... I really did!

TheRedneck

As a man in the process of experiencing my countries shameful legal system,mostly the field of Family Law( man there's phrase that needs rewording ! ) I had to respond with a hearty FU*KING BRAVO !
Im going insane trying to fight for my daughter's rights to have a father remain in her life & fark does your realist REALITY ring true for me personally.
Recent broadening of our Family Law and specifically DV/FV definitions has seen to behaviours that constitute these acts expanded as to with child abuse.
Having laid bare warts and all to female judge presiding, taking ownership of being a party to some toxic verbal altercations that sadly our little one did witness a few of towards the end . Despite stating this was a reason that primarily convinced me that I had to be the least lazy of 2 of us & end it for daughters sake. I readilly admitted "hell yes!" I called her some vile derogatory names in midst of & probably even invented new ones I was so p*ssed. Accepted shamefully that child witnessing anything like that is now classed as child abuse & was only included in broadened definitions of such a few months before seperation.I never hit her & would remove myself & lock in computer room anytime the self harm tactics would eventuate-usually when she caught red handed, like showing her chat logs from cybersex affairs she did & forgot to erase when on my pc & I at work or waking up finding her with wallet in hand that she'd found even after hiding it in pillow case before I slept( emotional & financial abuse as defined in new interpretations)- Oh reminiscing good times ! NOT ! My take on it all was we finally did end what was dysfunctional & not getting better. Reality says we will forever have ties as we BOTH made a child together.Court aware she has perjured throughout & has documented mental ill health history along with evidence to back up everyone of my claims, even handwritten letters apologyzing for actions.
She on other hand blames me 100% for all & any issues remotely connected to our history & uses as reasons to why she seeks courts help to basically alienate me from child.
Reasons for the appealed judgment touch on competing "claims to family violence" ( NO ! claims are allegations with no proof, I have proof therefore my"claims" are facts )saw me get screwed due to my history of perpetrating family violence that ex was the "victim" of.
I therefore must have played both roles in the verbal conflicts & imagined her behaviours complete with writing myself apologies in her exact same handwriting !! Go figure hey !! To that woman posting about victim status.....Any ideas ?
Ask for help? Cry ? Tell people ? Lady I did all that & some . Perhaps if I'd concocted a story of how she drugged & pegged me may have altered results !!! Feminazi's is just $'s now.

a reply to: fotsyfots

You hit the nail on the head...the shameful legal system...get protesting that.

originally posted by: InTheLight
You hit the nail on the head...the shameful legal system...get protesting that.

Ok so you ARE still reading this thread. Gotta say the end of my last reply seems very likely to be true now.

In regards to this reply: what makes the legal system shameful?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
You hit the nail on the head...the shameful legal system...get protesting that.

Ok so you ARE still reading this thread. Gotta say the end of my last reply seems very likely to be true now.

In regards to this reply: what makes the legal system shameful?

Oh ghost that is trapped in darkness, read the last poster's offering.

a reply to: InTheLight

So a member sharing his agreement with another poster whose post was in line with my overall argument, then decides to show he agrees and share his personal relation to the overall issue. In other words, the member you are replying to pretty much agrees with what another member (that member who replies in SUPPORT of my views) said, explains why and then YOUR response is to say "yes the legal system is shameful, protest the legal system! that is what you SHOULD be protesting!".

Then I ask you to clarify why you said the legal system is broken and you reply to me that I failed to read the member's reply of which I knew you were replying to?

This really is poor form InTheLight. You must be pretty desperate that my opening post has rung true with so many people that you sense a threat, which is causing you to continually try and destroy my credibility.

If you are doing that to convince other feminists then you are wasting your time: my credibility in THEIR view was destroyed the moment I said there are serious issues with feminism that need to be addressed.

If you are doing it to convince non-feminists then you are ALSO wasting your time. They are not as gullible and stupid as you think. There eyes have been opened and you cannot close them.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

As usual, you are off kilter...off track. But, we all know that, except you.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
here is the key point you are missing: given what I have just said in this very paragraph: they had enough POWER to have it shut down. Which means either "moderate" feminists agreed with their justifications to shut it down, or failed to publicly condemn or try to reason with these "radical" feminists before they could have it shut down. Do you find it believable that ONLY radical feminists were aware of this group's decision to attempt to have the documentary shut down?

I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in my post you responded to

I often wonder why the more intellectually balanced MRA's or feminists, don't attempt to curb their colleagues behavior which gives them all a bad name. They sit by silently instead.

I followed that with some of my suspicions on why they do that... but I won't repost the entire thing. If you didn't read it the first time, it's still up. But obviously I DID get that key point from the beginning.

THAT is a serious problem in regard to feminism's credibility if it wants to be viewed as a movement that wants equal rights for all.

Exactly. It is true for feminisim as well as the MRA. Sit by and let a percentage of your members act like irrational jerks and you are giving the wrong impression of your movement.

Are you still confused?

Sorry, you'll have to let me know where I was confused. I didn't feel it.