The latest Feminist deflection

a reply to: Dark Ghost

As black women go she's very pretty. I was not able to hear a word she was saying in the article. The pictures were too distracting.

originally posted by: blueyedevilwoman
This type of rhetoric makes me ashamed to be female.

S&F

Please don't. (I do appreciate you agreeing with my views, but let's not take things too far.) Moreover, there are men who ALSO believe and preach this nonsense. (They also happen to be feminists...gee I wonder what attribute is causing them to believe and say these things?)

It is akin to me saying "hey, a man living in Ethiopia raped a woman yesterday. That really makes me ashamed to be a man!" which is the WORST example of guilt-by-association.

You are an individual who happens to be female. Feel free to define yourself as an individual and act in a way that showcases who you are!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I haven't seen the documentary, so I can't comment on it - but I would like to say a few words about your disgusting victim-shaming comments.

Me? Dark Ghost? I did't victim shame anyone. Do you have the right person?

Let me clue you in on something. It doesn't matter if a woman gets drunk. It doesn't matter if a woman wears skimpy clothes. It doesn't matter if a woman walks down the street completely naked. A man has NO RIGHT to rape a woman. Period.

Agreed. When did I say that he did? Are you sure you have the right thread here? I am the OP of this thread, but you are accusing me of saying things of which I did not say.

Same goes for a woman raping a man. The victim is not at fault. The rapist is ALWAYS the ONLY one to blame. ALWAYS.

Agreed. Again, why are you saying this to me?

I'm also a little upset that you think it's a waste of time publishing a story about a woman getting raped. Using your logic, why would we publish stories about victims of any crime at all?

I didn't say or imply it was a waste of time. Read the opening post again. I said this victim's tragedy was used for political gain by feminists.

Having had you respond in the EXACT way in which you just did makes my opening post more likely to be true. (I wonder who starred your post? MRAs? Objective Observers? Perhaps other feminists? Yeah, I think I can make an educated guess as to which group did star your post.)

As a human being who is not under feminist indoctrination and wants to showcase those who are: please continue responding! You are strengthening the validity and truthfulness of my opening post. Get all your feminist buddies to do the same. Please, continue!

As a fellow human being: please stop posting, you are not only strengthening Dark Ghost's opening post and all those who agree with him, you are also showing that you lack basic comprehension skills.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You said this:

Perhaps her chances of being sexually assaulted might have not been so high if she had not got drunk to the point where her vision became blurry and was in no position to fight off her attackers?

You are focusing on what you think the young woman did wrong.

You also said this:

what good does such a graphic story achieve besides making the victim mentioned in the story and OTHER victims who read it more traumatised?

That implies you think the story serves no good purpose.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

[Dark Ghost]Perhaps her chances of being sexually assaulted might have not been so high if she had not got drunk to the point where her vision became blurry and was in no position to fight off her attackers?[Dark Ghost]

The above is you quoting my original reply out of context (not surprised though when you have already shown you are very capable of misrepresenting my position via knee-jerk reactions to what you THINK I said.)

In regards to the FULL original quote you claimed to be referencing, do you think her (the victim featured in the linked article) chance of being harmed (in any form) was increased, wouldn't matter either way or was deceased by her decision to consume so much alcohol that her vision became blurred?

You are focusing on what you think the young woman did wrong.

No, I am asking why her experience cannot be used to help PREVENT MORE rapes (not ALL rapes, but MORE rapes) from happening to other women in the future. Is that a reasonable question?

You also said this:

what good does such a graphic story achieve besides making the victim mentioned in the story and OTHER victims who read it more traumatised?

That implies you think the story serves no good purpose.

Really? I am asking what purpose does this graphic story achieve besides making the victim mentioned in the story (yes, I have acknowledged she was a victim) AND other victims who read it more traumatised?

Where, where did I say/imply/suggest/deceptively suggest that the story serves no good purpose?

All I implied is that I have a strong feeling the story was used for the wrong reasons: for feminists to detract from criticism that threatens the validity of their moment (showcasing this horrible story to distract from publicity MRAs are getting for a documentary that is critical of feminist ideology.)

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Do you think she her chance of being harmed (in any form) was increased, wouldn't matter either way or deceased by her decision to consume so much alcohol that her vision became blurred?

It. doesn't. matter.

If the people flying on the plane that the terrorists hijacked and flew into the world trade center hadn't gotten on the plane, they wouldn't have died. Should we be focusing on the fact that if those people hadn't gotten on the plane their chance of dying would have decreased? Shouldn't we be focusing on what the terrorists did wrong and not what the victims did wrong?

No, I am asking why her experience cannot be used to help PREVENT MORE rapes (not ALL rapes, but MORE rapes) from happening to other women in the future. Is that a reasonable question?

No, we need to focus on what the rapists are doing, not what the victims are doing. We need to change the rapists' behavior, not change the victim's behavior.

All I implied is that the story serves the wrong purpose: for feminists to detract from criticism that threatens the validity of their moment.

So, should the story have been published or not (in your opinion)?

I have experienced talking to those who hold the feminist views and those who don't. From both genders as well.

I don't understand the victim-hood that seems to come with one side, nor the lack of understanding from the other.

What I do see, is a legitimate way to help everyone instead of pointing the finger. I don't buy into a lot of the supposed myths and do buy into people's choices to define their lives as they see fit.

Ehh...what am I saying? I am a Human Rights activist. No one gender needs to bash the other. We need to support each other. No victims here.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
It. doesn't. matter.

If the people flying on the plane that the terrorists hijacked and flew into the world trade center hadn't gotten on the plane, they wouldn't have died. Should we be focusing on the fact that if those people hadn't gotten on the plane their chance of dying would have decreased? Shouldn't we be focusing on what the terrorists did wrong and not what the victims did wrong?

I feel like I would be insulting my own intelligence and that of anybody other than you if I responded to that as if it were a remotely comparable analogy. I don't feel like insulting myself or anybody else's intelligence for no valid reason, sorry.

No, we need to focus on what the rapists are doing, not what the victims are doing. We need to change the rapists' behavior, not change the victim's behavior.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you arguing AGAINST my suggestion that this tragic example of rape ought to serve a purpose to help prevent future potential rape victims from going through a similar situation? And, you want to educate everyone that rape is wrong? (Because evidently you feel this hasn't been done before?)

Does changing the rapists involved in this particular story's behaviour help the victims they have already raped? Are the two men more likely to not rape again after we educate them that rape is wrong?

So, should the story have been published or not (in your opinion)?

You have refused to answer my very reasonable previous question, why am I obligated to answer your obviously loaded question? (Here's a tip: I'm not)

originally posted by: dfnj2015
99.99% of CEOs are white males. Woman make 60% the rate of pay as men in the same jobs with the same job experience. I do not have a problem with women trying to pass public policies to address any real grievances.

I thought this thread was about gender. Why are you bringing race into it?

I have heard of 69, 72, 78, 79 before but this is the first time I have heard of a 60% wage gap.

Woman are the most beautiful thing on the planet. Nothing is more satisfying and fulfilling than being with a woman that wants to be with you. Because of this great power, there are many men who are misogynists. Feminists may have some legitimate grievances. Especially ugly women with bad attitudes. I think we can acknowledge feminist issues exist but it certainly is not clear how to address them.

Oh dear.

What inherently makes a woman more beautiful than a man? I am a heterosexual male, I am far more sexually attracted to women than I am to men, but aside from my sexual orientation, what other attribute makes them more beautiful (or less beautiful) than a man?

I've seen countless beautiful 20 year old girls driving much better cars than I drive. Does that mean we need men's movement to address the issue? I don't think so. There's probably many women out there who do not even support feminist issues.

Read what you just wrote. Think about what you just wrote. The issue is not women. The issue is feminism. Are you aware that males can be feminists too? Did you know that?

I think the wage issue is legitimate. I think anything we can do to address making wages higher is a good thing. CEOs are sucking up an ever increasing percentage of the GDP. Workers making the median wage continue to be driven into poverty wages. I don't have a problem with government policy designed to increase woman's workers wages. Some kine of passive incentive policy like tax break or just appealing to CEOs to have enlightened self-interests. High wages means more customers. More customers means a CEO's money becomes more valuable. Greed makes money worth more.

The wage gap (as it has been presented by feminist groups and government bodies influenced by feminist groups) is a MISREPRESENTATION and MISINTERPRETATION of how wages are paid in a capitalist economy.

1) If you can show me a single study that shows a disparity of more then 2% between a female who has worked the same amount of hours doing the same job as a male who has worked the exact same hours doing the exact same job, then I will change my mind, I will fight for equal pay because then it would be an issue that exists and can be fixed.

2) If you can show me a single genuine pay slip that has a section that states: "male rate is X" and "female rate is Y" then I will change my mind instantly.

3) If the wage gap as you have presented were a reality, can you present me with a valid reason why any company would choose NOT to hire more female employees over male employees when by doing so, they would be saving more money while having the exact same job being done in the same amount of time, resulting in higher profits, AND they could NOT have legal action taken against them for doing so — one of the key goals of a capitalist economy without any risk of legal action as a result. Why not?

Seriously, satisfy my need for these 3 answers and I will quit ATS immediately after and never return.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Pick any analogy you want. How about this: if that man hadn't been wearing that tight t-shirt and those tight jeans, that woman wouldn't have been so tempted to rape him. Or, if that man had drunk a few less beers, that group of women wouldn't have been able to hold him down and rape him. Or, if that man hadn't called his wife a fat cow while they were arguing, she wouldn't have beat him up.

All of those examples imply that the man (victim) should have changed his behavior, and don't focus at all on whether what the women did was wrong.

Not to mention the fact that this girl was a teenager who was gang raped, and you have the nerve to say that if she hadn't gotten drunk, she would have been able to fight all of them off. Give me a break.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

“The reality of The Red Pill, however, is much more sinister. This documentary is decidedly anti-feminist and anti-woman, focusing not on the ways in which the systemic issues of patriarchy may also adversely affect men, but instead placing the blame on women and feminism specifically for men’s issues.”

Oh god, and all of it said without irony. Not only does the film refuse to use the stupid theories of feminism, but it also doesn't maintain the pristine image of women. It wouldn't be so hypocritical of a statement had feminism not blamed men for woman's issues for the past half century.

It's hard to believe a film must not be shown because it doesn't align with the pseudoscience of pressure groups and activists. This censorship is fascist in undertaking.

Besides, what patriarchy?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like I said before, I haven't watched the documentary, so can't comment on it specifically, but the article did mention that it discusses the higher rates of suicide with men. I was reading an article on that very subject recently written by a psychologist who said it was because men were less likely to ask for help - they just hold it in until they can't stand it anymore. This, along with men not wanting to admit that a woman physically abused them tells me that men have a problem admitting weakness. That could very well be a symptom of patriarchy, where men are supposed to be considered the stronger sex.

Systemic issues of patriarchy: men don't cry; men don't ask for help; men don't admit weakness.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I haven't seen the film either, but if a dogma needs to engage in censorship in order to avoid criticism, it's because the dogma was weak to begin with.

Men cry. Men ask for help. Men admit weakness. No, men don't tend to act like women while doing so, but it's because they have a different biology, different ways of dealing with things, not because an oppressive patriarchy makes them. The idea that people are blank slates, where the rules of society are etched into the brain, has been quite discredited.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Pick any analogy you want. How about this: if that man hadn't been wearing that tight t-shirt and those tight jeans, that woman wouldn't have been so tempted to rape him. Or, if that man had drunk a few less beers, that group of women wouldn't have been able to hold him down and rape him. Or, if that man hadn't called his wife a fat cow while they were arguing, she wouldn't have beat him up.

I will take you up on the first offer of making a comparable analogy, but AGAIN please don't force me to insult my own intelligence or anyone else's besides your own, by pretending the analogies you have given are remotely relatible to the original situation in the opening post.

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.

My moral of the story: What happened to him is heartbreaking, I wouldn't want that to happen to me ever. I believe we should publicise this story as a way of showing that drinking so much that your vision becomes blurred is not a good idea because it makes you more vulnerable to danger and less likely to be able to defend yourself.

YOUR current moral of the story: The man that performed the robbery is an evil degenerate idiot. There is NOTHING the victim could have done, NOTHING that would have stopped him from cracking his head, passing out and having his possessions taken by this poor excuse for a human being. I believe we should publicise the story as way of showing that people ought not steal from others just because they are passed out on a street. NEVER is it there fault. NEVER are they to blame. The robber is always to blame!

How about THAT for an analogy?

All of those examples imply that the man (victim) should have changed his behavior, and don't focus at all on whether what the women did was wrong.

Am I going to have to ask you nicely after EVERY reply you make not to misrepresent MY argument?

No, you are either unintentionally failing to comprehend the point I was making, or you are purposely choosing to misrepresent my position and choosing to attack something you THINK I said, but in reality did not. Which is it? I am honestly starting to wonder at this stage which one it is.

Not to mention the fact that this girl was a teenager who was gang raped, and you have the nerve to say that if she hadn't gotten drunk, she would have been able to fight all of them off. Give me a break.

Ok, let's be clear here before you start to become hysterical. I asked you a question earlier to clarify YOUR position on whether YOU think getting drunk to the point of your eyes going blurry increases, makes no difference, or decreases your chance of being able to defend yourself.

I know my argument and I am VERY confident I understand exactly what I said and what I meant when saying it.

Why don't we eliminate any confusion for you, me or anybody else reading: what is your answer to that question?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Oh god, and all of it said without irony. Not only does the film refuse to use the stupid theories of feminism, but it also doesn't maintain the pristine image of women. It wouldn't be so hypocritical of a statement had feminism not blamed men for woman's issues for the past half century.

It's hard to believe a film must not be shown because it doesn't align with the pseudoscience of pressure groups and activists. This censorship is fascist in undertaking.

Besides, what patriarchy?

You know LesMisanthrope, you and I tend to agree on 99% of topics. There was a thread recently (freedom of speech themed one) where we happened to disagree quite strongly. (I was questioning my ability to be reasonable and uphold logic as well as maintain my sanity as a result because I couldn't believe we didn't see eye to eye on such an important topic.)

But now you come out here and demonstrate that NO, I am NOT crazy. I am not out of my mind. I am being consistent and truthful. Thank you.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like I said before, I haven't watched the documentary, so can't comment on it specifically, but the article did mention that it discusses the higher rates of suicide with men. I was reading an article on that very subject recently written by a psychologist who said it was because men were less likely to ask for help - they just hold it in until they can't stand it anymore.

Men do ask for help.

If they are not mocked, they are blamed or simply not believed.

Its horrible for women to cry, its funny if a man does.

This, along with men not wanting to admit that a woman physically abused them tells me that men have a problem admitting weakness.

What good does it do for men to admit anything when the female is the perpetrator. Nobody ever believes them and rarely ever anything is done about it. And the very few times something is done, its a slap on the wrist compared to what men would get.

Admitting weakness?
Apply what you just said on the other foot.

That could very well be a symptom of patriarchy, where men are supposed to be considered the stronger sex.

Systemic issues of patriarchy: men don't cry; men don't ask for help; men don't admit weakness.

Patriarchy my foot.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah well, I come from a different generation than you, so maybe that's why I see it differently. Men of my generation were taught as children that boys aren't supposed to cry. Men of my generation tend not to stop and ask for directions. Men of my generation would have a very hard time admitting that they were raped or beaten up by a girl. Men of my generation may have a hard time with a woman paying for everything on a date. I'm not a hundred years old either, so it's not like the issues of the "men are supposed to be stronger" patriarchy is something only seen in history books. It still exists for a lot of men today.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Ah well, I come from a different generation than you, so maybe that's why I see it differently. Men of my generation were taught as children that boys aren't supposed to cry. Men of my generation tend not to stop and ask for directions. Men of my generation would have a very hard time admitting that they were raped or beaten up by a girl. Men of my generation may have a hard time with a woman paying for everything on a date. I'm not a hundred years old either, so it's not like the issues of the "men are supposed to be stronger" patriarchy is something only seen in history books. It still exists for a lot of men today.

You know kaylaluv, for a person that is as physically beautiful as you, and a person who can as frequently demonstrate that she is a kind and compassionate, and reasonable person on many topics, it REALLY is a shame you can allow yourself to be so consumed by such a terribly ugly ideology that all those qualities I mentioned before start to pale in comparison.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah well, I come from a different generation than you, so maybe that's why I see it differently. Men of my generation were taught as children that boys aren't supposed to cry. Men of my generation tend not to stop and ask for directions. Men of my generation would have a very hard time admitting that they were raped or beaten up by a girl. Men of my generation may have a hard time with a woman paying for everything on a date. I'm not a hundred years old either, so it's not like the issues of the "men are supposed to be stronger" patriarchy is something only seen in history books. It still exists for a lot of men today.

I think it's mostly that men do not want to cry. It's a vulnerability that might have gotten us killed in another epoch.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Trust in your logic and reason, friend. Others will not always be around to confirm our biases.