What do Anti-Feminists Really Want?

I don't put things into a male/female perspective (I'm male by the way, I know my screen name may be confusing). So, there you go, I walk around with a female sounding name (both on here and in real life). What do I want? Well I'm not an anti-feminist per se so I guess I can't answer your question.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...i'm betting that "the rape law" is a colloquialism parroted by those who dont know the law...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You bet wrong.

The law in the UK specifically defines rape as the vaginal, anal or oral violation of someone against their will, by penetration of the penis.

...i already posted the uk legal definition of rape BEFORE your above re-worded definition that says the same thing... what was the point in you repeating it?... answer: there was no point...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is no ''rape'' law, that regards the violation of a man by a woman, as an equal crime.

There is no charge of ''rape'' that can be levied against a woman rapist of a man.

...the area of law that you are using a colloquialism to refer to is called The Sexual Offences Act...

...to put it very simply - (1) in the uk, rape = forcing a PENIS into someone (male or female, any oriface)... (2) females do NOT have a penis... therefore, rape cannot apply to females...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
A female rapist can only be charged under the ''lesser'' offence of ''sexual assault'', and can only be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison for that crime.

A male rapist who has committed exactly the same crime, can be charged with rape, and legally serve an indefinite jail term.

...again - rape is NOT "exactly the same crime" as sexual assault... rape can only be committed by a male... sexual assault can be commited by either gender...

...lets see why you would think sexual assault is a lesser offense...

www.statutelaw.gov.uk...

1 Rape (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

...oh, i see - rape can get ya life in prison... i dont have a problem with that... why do you?... oh, thats right, females dont have a penis - so, according to uk laws, they cant legally commit rape... well, lets carry on and see what else uk law says about this topic...

2 Assault by penetration (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else, (b) the penetration is sexual, (c) B does not consent to the penetration, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

...well, there ya go, sherlock... a female CAN get life in prison for assault by penetration via a part of her body or anything else... you no longer have a valid argument (on this topic) - but - lets check out # 3 and # 4 just to make sure there are no future misunderstandings...

3 Sexual assault (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally touches another person (B), (b) the touching is sexual, (c) B does not consent to the touching, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

...you were right about the penalty, no more than 10 years... brownie point for you...

4 Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity, (b) the activity is sexual, (c) B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved— (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina, (b) penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis, (c) penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or (d) penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. (5) Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years

...well, lookie there!... another instance where a female can get life in prison for being a sexual criminal... the uk is very fair in their determinations - no gender bias...

...you lost the bet - but - to show theres no hard feelins (on this end), you're invited to my regularly schedule poker game next weekend...please, bring lots of cash... thank ya, thank ya very much..

Originally posted by Jenna
At first? Yes. Once my actions and words showed that I was working in the interest of equality, however, it should no longer matter what I call myself. Actions are more important than titles.

And why would you call yourself that in the first place ?

The name would no doubt provoke negative thoughts to most people, and does not indicate any support of equality.

Actions are more important than words, you are correct, but all the feminist actions I've seen have been to get the best deal for women; thereby, supporting my view that that is their true intent.

When I see or hear a feminist protesting or arguing against a pro-female law that is unfair towards men, then I'll possibly consider that the individual ''feminist'' in question may support gender equality, and labels herself in such a way, out of naïvety.

Ah, just what I wanted on a Saturday morning: an elipses-filled multiquoting battle.

Thank you, Wyn Hawks !

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...i already posted the uk legal definition of rape BEFORE your above re-worded definition that says the same thing... what was the point in you repeating it?... answer: there was no point...

The slight re-wording was a mistake on my part; I was trying to remember it off the top of my head.

The slight difference of the wording is not important, as the definition pretty much encompasses the point I was making; ie. it can only be carried out by a man on a woman, a man on a man.

I repeated in in the hope that you'd understand the discrepancy in UK law; obviously my hope was in vain.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the area of law that you are using a colloquialism to refer to is called The Sexual Offences Act...

...to put it very simply - (1) in the uk, rape = forcing a PENIS into someone (male or female, any oriface)... (2) females do NOT have a penis... therefore, rape cannot apply to females...

This is precisely what I'm objecting to !

That ''rape'' in UK law is only defined as a man raping a woman, or a man raping another man.

This is demonstrably biased against men.

It doesn't matter whether the crime is defined as ''rape'' or ''sexual assault''; that is an irrelevance. You might like to bog down this debate with semantics, but I'm not playing along with you this time.

The only problem here is in the discrepancy in the sentencing.

A woman raping a man is exactly the same crime as the other way around, yet one gets treated more leniently, because of the gender of the person involved.

Laws change, and it's time that this one caught up with the times.

Man has sex with a woman against her will = maximum life imprisonment.
Woman has sex with a man against his will = maximum 10 years imprisonment.

I don't expect feminists to disagree with this inequality, as we all know their true intentions, but if the law were the other way around, then I think we know what the reaction would be !

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...again - rape is NOT "exactly the same crime" as sexual assault... rape can only be committed by a male... sexual assault can be commited by either gender...
...lets see why you would think sexual assault is a lesser offense...

Of course it's exactly the same crime.

Someone forcing sexual intercourse on to someone else is exactly the same crime.

Sexual assault is deemed a ''lesser'' offence because it only carries a 10 year maximum tariff.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...oh, i see - rape can get ya life in prison... i dont have a problem with that... why do you?...

I believe that all rapists should get life in prison, regardless of gender.

The fact that men are treated more harshly ( ie. life in prison ), is not a problem to me; it's only the fact that, by inference, women are treated more leniently, that I object to.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
oh, thats right, females dont have a penis - so, according to uk laws, they cant legally commit rape... well, lets carry on and see what else uk law says about this topic...

My whole complaint on this issue is the UK laws surrounding rape.

You are using these same UK laws and definitions in an attempt to explain or even justify these laws.

Your whole argument on this particular issue is based on circular reasoning.

As previously mentioned on this thread, a man raping his wife was not illegal in the UK before the early 1990s; before this time, using your argument, someone could defend this by stating the UK law and it's definitions, to justify it.

Clearly a man raping his wife is exactly the same as a man raping a woman that he's not married to, but until recently this wasn't the case in UK law.

Just because this fact wasn't recognised legally, does not mean that the crime was any different.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...well, there ya go, sherlock... a female CAN get life in prison for assault by penetration via a part of her body or anything else...

I know what the law states.

A woman can be charged with rape, if she vaginally or anally penetrates someone else.

She can not be charged with this offence if she forcibly has heterosexual sex with a man. That is the discrepancy.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you were right about the penalty, no more than 10 years... brownie point for you...

...well, lookie there!... another instance where a female can get life in prison for being a sexual criminal... the uk is very fair in their determinations - no gender bias...

I'll repeat, as you still haven't go this one, a woman can not be charged with rape if she forcibly has heterosexual sex with a man.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you lost the bet -

Only in an alternative dimension.

I have adequately proved my point, as my argument is correctly outlined in the UK laws that you have quoted.

Now, do you want to post me my winnings via your PayPal account... ?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


"I've never done anything to supress or subjugate women, so why should I be held accountable for some unfortunate aspects of history, because I happen to share the same gender as some men who abused their position of dominance ?"

Ah yes Yes. But did you ever speak out against the routine abuse of power that we men hand out like a divine right?? Did you ever? Do you have awareness to see how women are often at the bottom of the totem pole just because of their gender because they do have the brains to go a lot farther than they have.

I am sick of this arguement which has been flogged to death when discussing others forms of oppression.

Originally posted by tiger5
Ah yes Yes. But did you ever speak out against the routine abuse of power that we men hand out like a divine right?? Did you ever? Do you have awareness to see how women are often at the bottom of the totem pole just because of their gender because they do have the brains to go a lot farther than they have.

I'm 29. I grew-up post ''women's liberation'', and most of the gender-related legal and social inequalities I have witnessed, are at the expense of men.

This is the main problem; under the pretext of ''evening out the balance up'', agenda driven feminists have exploited this by calling for laws and procedures that are discriminatory against men, and are just hanging on to the coat-tails of women in the past who have genuinely suffered.

Modern-day feminism is based on emotional blackmail and pulling out the ''gender card'' at a suitable juncture.


Feminist tactics don't work on me, as there is no way that I'll ever feel any blame, responsibility or guilt for the actions of another person !

Originally posted by tiger5
I am sick of this arguement which has been flogged to death when discussing others forms of oppression.

I enjoy debating gender issues, but I'm not particularly any more concerned with gender inequality than with any other form of inequality.

I view all inequality the same, but feminists show their true colours when they are so caught up with gender, and specifically women's issues.

They are out to get the best deal for women, regardless of whether it's fair.


If you look through all the gender debates on ATS, you'll notice that invariably feminists, and their ideals, tend to be shown up when non-feminists bring logic and reason to the table.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And why would you call yourself that in the first place ?

Eh, why not? Some men think all women are satan anyway.

When I see or hear a feminist protesting or arguing against a pro-female law that is unfair towards men, then I'll possibly consider that the individual ''feminist'' in question may support gender equality, and labels herself in such a way, out of naïvety.

Most of the time when laws are brought up here because someone thinks they are unfair to men, the only solutions provided by male posters are ones that would just make it unfair to women. Then the conversation becomes about those proposed solutions and arguing against those solutions gets twisted into supporting whatever law it's supposed to fix and is taken as just being out to 'get' men.

There's also the little issue of laws being different in each country. I believe you said you're in the UK? Some laws in the US are more equally enforced against both sexes than they are there. So when someone brings up rape laws and says only men can be considered rapists by law, I can find evidence saying otherwise because women can be and are convicted of rape here. Neither of us would be lying and we'd both be right, it's just a matter of location. Meanwhile, women really are treated as second-class citizens in some countries and I see nothing wrong with pointing out how unfairly they're treated and being more concerned with their rights.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


ANd where is your proof that anyone looks up to Ms Dworkin?? WHere are your statisitics?? Feminism defined itself as a movement to end sexist oppression. So what is your point? Do you have any other straw men to attack?

reply to post by Whereweheaded



Actual that is a falacious argue ment. It is the sad Neocon male that sits and cries himself to bed because most women would not give him the time of day because he is a reactionary wierdo that seeks to take them back to the bad old days.

Its the neocon agenda as spoken by the neocons. Hmm they sound like the old conservative end of the line political ideologues.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Wow anti femnist and anti education also.... Well I must disagree with you. As a matter of fact the modern college has because a politically boring and reppressive place. The sort of fun we got up to simply doesn't exist in the bland institution.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by The Quiet Storm

 

I think that men can have a men's movement. Too bad the one you have right now is full of men victimized by children, either by making them fathers or by making them screw them.

Actually there was such a thing as men's groups I knoiw as I went to one. It was full of men but we never connected socially as they were a certain type of angst-ridden man that frankly isn't me. They too liked to whine. I was only part of one group but didn't feel like exploring. Everyone seems wildly judgemental.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well actually perhaps they (feminists) should have checked in with men and asked them to form a focus group and select a name for a movement to end sexist oppression ( which strongly hurt women)>

Also since when doe a namer make sense.

Here are a few to play with
History
Caucasian
Democrat
Republican.

Take all of these at face value they can all be twisted to sound silly.

We should get rid of the English language. Actually we should ban all language>>

Right

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

and a confidence in my masculinity without a bunch of pitiful crybaby whining about how unfair the world is.

Wow I thought that I was the only one that felt like this. I do believe in equality for the greater good. I believe that the person that may get us out of this frightful global mess may be FEMALE. We men have done a great job collectively messing up just about every partof the planet.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Actually I am a lot older than you and I saw the excess of sexism thatyou did not. You may feel at 29 that you are an individual but you need to look around you very carefully as a lot is done in our name as individually that we are no part of. There is a genuine misogyny out there and a hankering to go back to the good old days as the past always lok glorious.

Now if the laws genuinely seek to be equal for all taxpayers then why complain. I do not believe that there are many bad laws... More a case of bad legal decisions.

Hatred is an easy activity understanding is by far more difficult. The next time you see a died in wool man hater remember that a man probably made her that way!

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Congratulations, you officially just proved that women get preferential treatment when it comes to laws on sexual offenses as a direct product of feminism seeking the preferential treatment of women and further gender inequality.

Which side are you even on?

Originally posted by tiger5

Hatred is an easy activity understanding is by far more difficult. The next time you see a died in wool man hater remember that a man probably made her that way!

So you're condoning hypocrisy as a form of retaliation?

I'm a gay man and trust me, I have much better reasons to "hate" straight men than most of these women do. But I don't hate them all, just the stupid ones, because generalizing is what simple people do. Feminists are often quite prone to gender generalization.

reply to post by Brood


"So you're condoning hypocrisy as a form of retaliation?"

So you are resorting to a complete straw man arguement? Why try to put words into my post - I cn do so myself



"I'm a gay man and trust me, I have much better reasons to "hate" straight men than most of these women do. But I don't hate them all, just the stupid ones, because generalizing is what simple people do. Feminists are often quite prone to gender generalization. "


And you are prone to gender generalisation also. What does your sexaulity have to do with anything? Do you think that only the Jocks condone sexism. Do you think that gay men are free of sexism? Or even woman hating??

I have a few bridges to sell you they are in New York.

I posted to look at the causes of man hating in some women. Do you have anything to contribute on the topic apart from Straw man arguements?

For the more discerning types in ATS. Why do some women become man haters? Is there such a thing? Why do some men hate women?

Originally posted by Brood
you officially just proved that women get preferential treatment when it comes to laws on sexual offenses

...are you referring to the uk sexual offenses act (law)?... if so, read it again... there is no gender bias there... both males and females can get life in prison for forced penetration of an oriface...

reply to post by vaevictis


These Girls just want to Have Fun..........