The latest Feminist deflection

a reply to: Dark Ghost

No insecurity about my beliefs here. I wouldn't even really categorize myself as a feminist. I just believe that everyone regardless of color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc should be afforded the same treatment.

If any men's rights are being threatened it's the same ones everyone else are set to lose. All in the name of safety and patriotism. That's why it seems so ridiculous to me to rock the neck beard-Fedora look and hate on women simply because men don't have it as good as they did in generations past. There is a real threat to everyone's rights and it ain't women.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Feminism is the same as it has always been. Men have always hated feminists since they came about; funnily enough the modern versions of these haters acknowledge the gains of previous feminists but refuse to budge on their remaining traditions for further gains for feminists and women in general.

That's a nonsensical point, especially given that feminism has been separated into "waves", each with different ends, by feminists themselves.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
No insecurity about my beliefs here. I wouldn't even really categorize myself as a feminist. I just believe that everyone regardless of color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc should be afforded the same treatment.

In Western countries like the USA or Australia, what right do men have that women do not? Women should not be grouped in with the other groups you mentioned as those groups are actual minorities (except creed which is too general). Women are not a minority.

If any men's rights are being threatened it's the same ones everyone else are set to lose. All in the name of safety and patriotism. That's why it seems so ridiculous to me to rock the neck beard-Fedora look and hate on women simply because men don't have it as good as they did in generations past. There is a real threat to everyone's rights and it ain't women.

Oh dear.

I feel a like I need God to grant me strength to absorb what I just read (yes, I am an atheist) reading that.

Please tell me that's your way of taking back everything you have said so far and now concede you may have been wrong in at least some of your assumptions about me, MRAs or people that oppose feminist ideology.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

None of those are examples of rights being violated or lost. The only one you could potentially argue is the first example. But even then the right to a fair trial doesn't apply to civil suits.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's a nonsensical point, especially given that feminism has been separated into "waves", each with different ends, by feminists themselves.

How can feminists themselves not realise this is a problem? They accuse anybody who criticises feminism of not understanding what it is, how it is defined or what it aims to achieve...meanwhile they themselves do not have a consistent position on what it is, how it is defined or what it aims to achieve.

This is a serious problem. We are actually helping them by pointing this out. We are showing what is wrong and what needs to change. But they still refuse to acknowledge there is a consistency problem. Unreal.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
None of those are examples of rights being violated or lost. The only one you could potentially argue is the first example. But even then the right to a fair trial doesn't apply to civil suits.

None of those are examples of rights being violated or lost? O.o

A fair trial each time which ends up favouring the mother 85-95% of the time? I am not one to EVER argue for equality of outcome, but seriously maybe I should start trying to in this case if you think those numbers are reasonable.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Feminism is the same as it has always been. Men have always hated feminists since they came about; funnily enough the modern versions of these haters acknowledge the gains of previous feminists but refuse to budge on their remaining traditions for further gains for feminists and women in general.

That's a nonsensical point, especially given that feminism has been separated into "waves", each with different ends, by feminists themselves.

Even if the goals of the different generations of feminists have been different, the overarching idea of what feminism is and wants has always been the same. Equality for women and the sexes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even if the goals of the different generations of feminists have been different, the overarching idea of what feminism is and wants has always been the same. Equality for women and the sexes.

Mission accomplished, yet they are still around. Their behavior gives us a different picture of feminism beyond what they pretend to stand for.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Even if the goals of the different generations of feminists have been different, the overarching idea of what feminism is and wants has always been the same. Equality for women and the sexes.

I apologise, LesMisanthrope, for jumping in when he was directing the question to you, but I have to head to bed now and cannot participate again until tomorrow.

"Equality for women and the sexes"? Kinda sounds like: All humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others.

I'll be back tomorrow.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Who said feminism was specifically about equal rights? It's about equal treatment. The reason there are laws that require companies to higher a certain number of people from certain demographics is because white males are still disproportionately overrepresented in pretty much every industry.

This fact alone means that anyone that is not a white male will have a leg up on any competition. I know people always talk about how this prevents people from hiring based on merit. But the truth is that wasn't happening in the first place. A person is more likely to react well to someone that looks like them. So if most positions that are in charge of hiring are white males then they are more likely to hire another white male. Regardless of qualifications.

Hopefully down the line these laws will become obsolete because there is an accurate representation of democratic across the workforce.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Like I said. Divorces are civil cases. Right to a fair trial doesn't apply. You're the ones that have chosen to bring your issues before a judge. You're the ones that couldn't come to an amiable agreement on your own.

Hell, does a civil suit even technically count as a trial?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Am I the one complaining about your lack of evidence when reading your replies? Am I the one who barged into YOUR thread and chose to get involved in a discussion I was completely unprepared for? Thinking YOUR OP was completely fabricated nonsense or based on YOUR own opinions exclusively? My position has been consistent and reasonable from the opening post up until this very reply. I have no obligation to retype the same thing over and over again because you don't want to even consider what I am saying is true. I'm not sure who you think you are, but no you do not have the power to demand such things at present.

Yeah because highlighting a point from a previous thread you find important to the discussion at hand, copying it and pasting it into the thread is SOOOO hard and taxing on you.

By the way, weren't you the one getting cocky about me getting emotional earlier? You are clearly coming unhinged right now.

You know, Socialism has a rather nice broad definition. Would you like to discuss the definition of Socialism? Would that give us a good grasp on what exactly the whole system involves? Would we be privy to the negative consequences of implementing it after just reading the definition?

I'd rather not hear about your misconceptions about Socialism in this thread while currently trying to debate your misconceptions of Feminism.

1) How are women less equal than men in society?

Wait. You DO think that women are equal to men in society? I mean come on. Are you just feigning ignorance here? The answer to this question is a Google search away.

2) If "things start pushing past equality" (even if it is so that they can "last") then you are not speaking about equality. You are speaking about special rights.

I know. I was doing what is called in debate "conceding a point" and acknowledging that there are some feminists who take their ideology too far. But that is the case for any ideology. It doesn't paint the whole as bad though.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Even if the goals of the different generations of feminists have been different, the overarching idea of what feminism is and wants has always been the same. Equality for women and the sexes.

I apologise, LesMisanthrope, for jumping in when he was directing the question to you, but I have to head to bed now and cannot participate again until tomorrow.

"Equality for women and the sexes"? Kinda sounds like: All humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others.

I'll be back tomorrow.

That sounds like you are inventing a strawman out of bias and willful misunderstanding, but hey do you. It's YOUR thread and you can fallacisize if you want to.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even if the goals of the different generations of feminists have been different, the overarching idea of what feminism is and wants has always been the same. Equality for women and the sexes.

Mission accomplished, yet they are still around. Their behavior gives us a different picture of feminism beyond what they pretend to stand for.

It is NOT mission accomplished yet. Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so. There is quite clearly still a gender gap existing in this country. Denying it doesn't make it not exist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is NOT mission accomplished yet. Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so. There is quite clearly still a gender gap existing in this country. Denying it doesn't make it not exist.

Yes there is, and all of it is due to the choices women make.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh really? Explain yourself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh really? Explain yourself.

In free societies, women choose which education they want, what kind of work they want to do, how much time they want to take off, etc. Their choices directly lead to the gender pay gap.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm not taking sides here so there's no reason to by hostile to me or what I'm saying. I'm just figuring out what everyone's position is.

So it seems to me that we are talking about privileges though and not rights.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And their choices also led to the disproportionate number of white males in almost every industry?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. I think you mean "equal societies". In a free society the people who don't like women are free to discriminate against them and not hire them, pay them less, not let them take time off, and other things that lead to the gender pay gap.