Welcome to Gaia! ::

Riviera de la Mancha

Most of your examples were dealing with the justice system. In case you haven't noticed, most judges throughout the country are men. So, unless you are going to argue these men are all secret double agents or the lion's share of these rulings come exclusively from the few female judges out there, those points don't evidence a 'War on Men'.

It matters not who enforces the laws. In some of the cases, the laws themselves are the problem. Take paternity fraud; laws (supported by feminists and social conservatives) have been passed limiting the amount of time after birth that a father can ask to be removed from responsibility of a child who isn't his. As a rule, statutes of limitations are not bad. However, considering the nature of the crime, the man can find out the child isn't his, and if the time limit has passed, he is still forced to provide for the child until he or she reaches 18. It is a situation where the crime can be still taking place well after the limit has passed, but he would have no recourse.

That fact that most judges are men doesn't mean a war cannot still be occurring against them. In an alternate reality where women made up most of Congress, would laws banning abortion be any better? Of course not. The fact that those with authority are of one gender doesn't prevent said gender from being unfairly treated. Is prison rape no longer a gender problem because men are the ones committing it? They are still men be abused. The abuser and abused aren't meaningfully connected merely because they have the same genitalia.

Also, 20% to 33% of judges are women, depending on the court. No small number (I'm under no illusion that they are the main perpetrators, though).

Quote:

The few examples that remain are small samplings that can't constitute a 'war' (like your asserted 8-10% allegation of rapes as 'at least partly' false)

How do you figure? That's not an insignificant figure. By that logic, the comments about rape and abortion by the GOP aren't attack/a war on women because most women and raped and impregnated.

Quote:
self-imposed (men forfeiting control of personal wealth to women)

Perhaps you are right that it isn't an example of a war, but feminists would be quick (and were quick) to cry foul when the opposite is the case.

Quote:

or simply the by-product of natural processes (men dying sooner than women).

You are probably right that some is natural, and that some is the result of choices made by men. But the men far outnumber women in work-related deaths, deaths from violent crime, and military deaths. Let me be clear, it isn't women who cause these deaths (at least directly), but they are a result of cultural differences that would have women in an uproar if the tables were turned.
A Drunk Damsel's avatar

Wheezing Gawker

9,950 Points
  • The Perfect Setup 150
  • Tycoon 200
  • First step to fame 200
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Booty Tickle
Considering the fact that mean usually rule the house hold

In what way?

Quote:

don't get periods

Getting a period is a war on women? neutral

Quote:

don't have to worry about not getting a job based on their a**/tits

Speak for yourself.

Quote:
don't have to spend excess money buying bras, tampons, birth control pills and makeup.

All of these things can be purchased exceedingly cheaply, some are not necessarily, and none constitute a war on women.

Quote:
They don't have to worry about birthing children AND if they get a woman pregnant they can give up their rights to the child and not have to pay child support.

That is not my understanding of the law.

Quote:
Men don't have to fight to get equal pay

Equal pay for what?


Quote:
they didn't have to fight for the right to vote

neutral Sure we did. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War (or the Civil War, to an extent)? Our battle for suffrage was much bloodier.

Quote:

men are usually physically stronger , men don't have to shave their legs/ under arms, you have by feet? So what most men take pride in their big feet.


Quote:
So where is the war again?

Nothing you said was a rational response to my proposition.
1. Financially, in some cultures it's acceptable for the husband to beat his wife to " Keep her in check".
2. No it's not but it's something you'll NEVER have to deal with.
3. Has a woman ever winked at you and said "hey babe nice tits?"
4. How many men would date a woman if she purchased none of those things? With mainstream media poring out images of beautifully photoshopped women that is what most men look for.
5. Ok.
6. Equal pay for doing the same work as everyone else.
7. Men already could vote just certain ones, you were not decimated for your gender, but for how much money you had, which is how it has been for YEARS.
I was generally commenting on all the s**t a woman has to go through to be socially acceptable.
AKB0048
The father not wanting custody does count for the discrepancy. Having a child when you're not married is considered a burden since it's difficult to support a child on a one-person income. Not saying that there aren't dads who fight for custody, but the court-reported reason why custody of children fall towards women is because men simply don't ask for it.
I'm not convinced. I'm sure that's no small part of it, but based on anecdotal evidence there are many fathers who do want the children. Yes, anecdotal evidence is far less than ideal, but I almost universally hear, when the topic is mentioned, fathers bemoaning the fact that the mother has custody.

Quote:

The FBI report for unfounded is around 6-8%, what it is for most crimes. And unfounded does not mean falsely accused by the way. Rape accusations only have a 1 in 4 chance of the person being arrested and an even lower conviction rate. Your chances of getting your rapist arrested, much less convicted, are particularly dismal if you're for some reason unconscious whether drunk or asleep.
This is regrettable, but what is your point?



Speaking of the Slate article, this page addresses pretty clearly using government statistics of why those numbers are misleading.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
http://theenlivenproject.com/the-story-behind-the-infographic/ The picture above was made based on this data.

This website sufficiently addresses that chart.

Quote:

A clear reference would be the De Anza rape case where the victim was gangbanged, but no one was actually convicted of anything because the victim was so drunk that she couldn't remember anything. And this is in-spite of three witnesses not only being present (they saw her passed out and being violated, and broke into a room full of guys taking turns where one guy was keeping a look out), but rescuing the victim and taking her to the hospital.

There was another case recently in California where the guy raped a sleeping woman who was drunk (she woke up in the process) and pretended to be her boyfriend (who was in the vicinity, just not in the room) until there was enough light in the room where she saw it wasn't and freaked the ******** out. His case was taken to re-try on charge that his victim wasn't married according to some 1800s California law. The law basically says it's rape to have sex with someone while pretending to be their husband. But the court when reviewing this case interpreted this law very strictly and said in this case, the rapist was pretending to be her boyfriend, not her husband. Of course, they were very quick to shove off responsibility by saying that it's the law's fault for being retarded and people should hurry up and get it changed.

And prosecutors themselves often say that say that rape cases, even the few that are actually reported, are extremely hard to try and convict. In the example of the De Anza rape case, there wasn't even a criminal charge brought against anyone and two different district prosecutors said there wasn't enough of a case. The victim then tried to sue for damages and everyone was pretty much let off the hook.

I think an even better example would be the huge shitstorm going now where women have been officially permitted into combat roles in the US.

Or you can look at the Steubenville rape case where a young woman is being hauled around by her hands and feet and someone would still say "Well, maybe she was just having a good time."

Sad, and I don't doubt that the rate on unconvicted rapists is tragically high, but it is better for a 100 rapists to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. I don't mean to sound flippant, and I hope every rapists gets the punishment they deserve, but punishing (socially, if not legally) someone for something they didn't commit is an unspeakable evil.
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
Booty Tickle

1. Financially, in some cultures it's acceptable for the husband to beat his wife to " Keep her in check".
I pointed out that in the US, at least, women control much more of the household wealth than men. That is indeed bad, but it is not the case in the Western world, which is with what this discussion is concerned.

Quote:

2. No it's not but it's something you'll NEVER have to deal with.

So? You'll never have to deal with getting kicked in the balls. Is that a war on men?

Quote:

3. Has a woman ever winked at you and said "hey babe nice tits?"

Yes.

Quote:

4. How many men would date a woman if she purchased none of those things? With mainstream media poring out images of beautifully photoshopped women that is what most men look for.

Media has nothing to do with it. Aesthetic taste in the opposite sex is larger a matter of biology. This is why the beauty ideal has been remarkably similar throughout the ages and cultures.

Quote:
5. Ok.

If you have evidence that this is the law, please present it.

Quote:

6. Equal pay for doing the same work as everyone else.

But do they do the same work as everyone else?

Quote:

7. Men already could vote just certain ones, you were not decimated for your gender, but for how much money you had, which is how it has been for YEARS.
I was generally commenting on all the s**t a woman has to go through to be socially acceptable.
They couldn't vote where it mattered. Why do you think we founded this country?
What are you talking about? Who was decimated for how much money they had?
AKB0048's avatar

Handsome Shounen

17,150 Points
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Hotblooded Hero 50
You do realize using anecdotal evidence versus court reported evidence is pretty weak, right?

My point is, there are just as many people falsely accused of other crimes. And people are more likely to be falsely convicted for other crimes than for rape. Yet why is it for rape that people automatically assume the victim is lying? Why do people not assume someone is lying when their car gets stolen?

Also, you should read some of the stuff posted by that site you linked because there's a lot of stuff faulty with it. Rather than addressing the actual information and statistics, they attack the person who made the graphic. Even more interestingly enough, they accuse someone of using old statistics and then equally cite old statistics.

Quote:
She then cites the percentage of rapes reported from a 1999 study from the National Center for Policy Analysis. From there, to figure out the percentage of rapes that end up as felony charges, she cites a 2006 DOJ study that focused on defendants in large urban counties.


He bolds 1999 to emphasize that the study is infact old and perhaps outdated

He then turns around and cites a source from 2001. :V And that's about as far as I got before I decided his whole spiel was probably bullshit.

Where Pretty Lies Perish
I'm not convinced. I'm sure that's no small part of it, but based on anecdotal evidence there are many fathers who do want the children. Yes, anecdotal evidence is far less than ideal, but I almost universally hear, when the topic is mentioned, fathers bemoaning the fact that the mother has custody.

Sad, and I don't doubt that the rate on unconvicted rapists is tragically high, but it is better for a 100 rapists to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. I don't mean to sound flippant, and I hope every rapists gets the punishment they deserve, but punishing (socially, if not legally) someone for something they didn't commit is an unspeakable evil.


And I disagree with this. Mainly because, would you want 100 murderers running around the street so that one man isn't found guilty? There's no doubt that the legal system has it's fair share of faults, but I would say that point of view is more idealistic than pragmatic.

But the issue with the idea that a high amount of rapes are "false reports" (when they're not) is that it scares victims from reporting because they think no one will believe them and even worse, nothing will be done while they suffer a tremendous amount of backlash for speaking up about something harmful done to them.

Once again, looking at the Steubenville case, a lot of people think she was some drunken whore asking for it by dressing skanky and going to some party with guys she didn't know... but the victim is actually an honors student, and very likely was very familiar with her rapists prior to the incident (small town and the whole town believes the rapists are "good kids" ). And from the pictures that were posted, she was wearing a t-shirt and shorts. It's not that people who do dress provocatively should be treated any different, but it's very funny how many things people assume about this girl when knowing zero information about her aside her accusing someone of rape. And after she spoke up, police have to patrol her house because her family was threatened. And all her friends ostracized her because of how much that town values the football team.

So yes, while it is very tragic if someone is falsely accused of rape, that is no excuse for the way people are automatically treated when they come forwards with a rape claim.
AKB0048
You do realize using anecdotal evidence versus court reported evidence is pretty weak, right?

Yes, and I said as much. Mind citing the report?

Quote:

My point is, there are just as many people falsely accused of other crimes. And people are more likely to be falsely convicted for other crimes than for rape. Yet why is it for rape that people automatically assume the victim is lying? Why do people not assume someone is lying when their car gets stolen?

Well one issue is that rape is about the most serious crime you can assume someone of for your own interest. You can't accuse someone of murdering you, and to accuse someone of murdering someone else without murdering the person yourself, risking conviction. Rightly or not, accusing someone of sexual misconduct (not trying to understate the horror of rape, merely referring to such crime generally), is seen, and has been used as a form of vengeance. I'm sure it's happened, but to my knowledge that happening with accusations of theft is less common.

Quote:

Also, you should read some of the stuff posted by that site you linked because there's a lot of stuff faulty with it. Rather than addressing the actual information and statistics, they attack the person who made the graphic. Even more interestingly enough, they accuse someone of using old statistics and then equally cite old statistics.

Quote:
She then cites the percentage of rapes reported from a 1999 study from the National Center for Policy Analysis. From there, to figure out the percentage of rapes that end up as felony charges, she cites a 2006 DOJ study that focused on defendants in large urban counties.


He bolds 1999 to emphasize that the study is infact old and perhaps outdated

He then turns around and cites a source from 2001. :V And that's about as far as I got before I decided his whole spiel was probably bullshit.

That's a fair point, and he loses marks for that. To be fair, though, his point was that the graph cherry-picks statistics, even opting for the lowest and or highest of a range when convenient. He was relatively hesitant to affirm any broad statistics of his own. I think his point was to show that the stats currently available can be used to affirm what one wants, and that the creator of the graph was disingenuous in not indicating as much. Secondly was his annoyance with the fact that the graph was spread quickly and assumed to be the indisputable truth. And sorry, I'm always doubtful of government statistics, especially ones with possible political implications. And I work for the government.

Where Pretty Lies Perish
I'm not convinced. I'm sure that's no small part of it, but based on anecdotal evidence there are many fathers who do want the children. Yes, anecdotal evidence is far less than ideal, but I almost universally hear, when the topic is mentioned, fathers bemoaning the fact that the mother has custody.

Quote:

And I disagree with this. Mainly because, would you want 100 murderers running around the street so that one man isn't found guilty? There's no doubt that the legal system has it's fair share of faults, but I would say that point of view is more idealistic than pragmatic.

Yes.
And I'm not alone, I was paraphrasing (very liberally) for Ben Franklin.
I don't mean to sound like a bleeding heart, but as everyone is, of right, entitled to living their own life as they please provided they don't harm others, to imprison someone for a doing nothing is to deprive them of existence. In the event that it's a mistake, it's a nigh unforgivable one. In the event that it's on purpose, or accepted as a necessary evil, it's worse than murder.

Quote:

But the issue with the idea that a high amount of rapes are "false reports" (when they're not) is that it scares victims from reporting because they think no one will believe them and even worse, nothing will be done while they suffer a tremendous amount of backlash for speaking up about something harmful done to them.

Once again, looking at the Steubenville case, a lot of people think she was some drunken whore asking for it by dressing skanky and going to some party with guys she didn't know... but the victim is actually an honors student, very likely was very familiar with her rapists prior to the incident (small town and the whole town believes the rapists are "good kids" wink . And from the pictures that were posted, she was wearing a t-shirt and shorts and not like booty hanging out shorts. But the kinds of shorts that you normally see girls these day wear. And after she spoke up, police have to patrol her house because her family was threatened. And all her friends ostracized her because of how much that town values the football team.

So yes, while it is very tragic if someone is falsely accused of rape, that is no excuse for the way people are automatically treated when they come forwards with a rape claim.

I agree. It's a difficult issue.
AKB0048's avatar

Handsome Shounen

17,150 Points
  • Alchemy Level 10 100
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Hotblooded Hero 50
Where Pretty Lies Perish

Yes, and I said as much. Mind citing the report?


Unfortunately, I can't find the actual report where I am now though I am positive there is one, but here

Article written by a divorce law attorney

Custody law FAQ from a law firm

Divorce Stats

What these basically say is- most divorces are settled out of court with both parents agreeing that the mother should get custody of the children. However, most sources I've dug up says that if a father fights for custody, he is more likely to win. Now there are a lot of statistics for "sole custody" but that's a little debatable because men usually fight for joint custody. Meaning, if you're looking at raw male versus female numbers for fully custody, you're going to see some pretty ridiculous numbers because there are more women who fight for full custody.

And for the last one, while I'd like more solid numbers from a more recent report, it does line up with information I've seen from other sources, so at present I have no reason to doubt it. But, if that information can be pulled from the Census Bureau as indicated, I'll look for those statistics myself when I can.

Quote:

Well one issue is that rape is about the most serious crime you can assume someone of for your own interest. You can't accuse someone of murdering you, and to accuse someone of murdering someone else without murdering the person yourself, risking conviction. Rightly or not, accusing someone of sexual misconduct (not trying to understate the horror of rape, merely referring to such crime generally), is seen, and has been used as a form of vengeance. I'm sure it's happened, but to my knowledge that happening with accusations of theft is less common.

You can easily accuse people of attempted murder or a third party can accuse someone of murder on your behalf (this is usually the state, but a party like a relative or whoever can bring the case forwards as a lawsuit for damages). People try to get each other falsely convicted for a lot of things.

And the percentage of false accusations for all those crimes are about the same. But, the public perception is that there are a lot of false rape accusations when there are not. That doesn't mean there are no false rape accusations, but it's very damaging when you're more way more likely to be assumed to be a liar when you come forward with rape than if you came forward saying that someone tried to kill you.

Quote:

That's a fair point, and he loses marks for that. To be fair, though, his point was that the graph cherry-picks statistics, even opting for the lowest and or highest of a range when convenient. He was relatively hesitant to affirm any broad statistics of his own. I think his point was to show that the stats currently available can be used to affirm what one wants, and that the creator of the graph was disingenuous in not indicating as much. Secondly was his annoyance with the fact that the graph was spread quickly and assumed to be the indisputable truth. And sorry, I'm always doubtful of government statistics, especially ones with possible political implications. And I work for the government.

Even if his point is cherry picking, which is understandable, I have no doubts that part of that image is to create shock value, he still does not really dispute any of the actual statistics used for that image. So while maybe a bit embellished, that does not make what that image represents (the fact that rape is horribly under reported and has a very slim chance of conviction, much less false conviction) any less true.

And I'd much rather believe government statistics over statistics of a third party. Though you are correct that statistics and studies can easily be biased, but at the same time if you're going to question the source, then you have to consider ALL statistics taken from the source to be a bit dubious, not just the ones that might inconvenience you.

Where Pretty Lies Perish

Yes.
And I'm not alone, I was paraphrasing (very liberally) for Ben Franklin.
I don't mean to sound like a bleeding heart, but as everyone is, of right, entitled to living their own life as they please provided they don't harm others, to imprison someone for a doing nothing is to deprive them of existence. In the event that it's a mistake, it's a nigh unforgivable one. In the event that it's on purpose, or accepted as a necessary evil, it's worse than murder.

And I'm a strong believer of "two wrongs do not make a right". Yes, being falsely accused is very bad, but what about the rights of those who are harmed? Do they not have a right to justice and to live free of fear of being harmed again? You can't simply discount one over the other and the legal system isn't designed for that. It's by people and for people and as a product of people it is prone to make mistakes. However, if it makes a mistake then all other cases be damned, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the system is working as best intended as it can, that's all we can ask of it. If there is a mistake with a false conviction, then we should work to fix it as best as possible, not let criminals run free for fear of a mistake.

EDIT: That isn't to say that the legal system shouldn't take due caution. But even with due caution mistakes are made. And I wouldn't say a mistake made one way is any less worse than a mistake made the other.
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

They're getting votes from wife beaters, fascists, religious fundamentalists and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds. That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

They're getting votes from wife beaters, fascists, religious fundamentalists and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds. That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.
So are feminist organizations that take donations from people like Catherine Comins (who would not spare men who are falsely accused of rape the pain inherent to it because they can gain from the experience), Sharon Osbourne (who finds men having their junk cut off over asking for a divorce is funny), or Valerie Solanas (who wanted to kill all the men) just as tainted as the Republican Party? Because I can guarantee you, feminism at this juncture is just as if not more driven by a hatred of men as Republican social conservatives are driven by a hatred of women.

And I can give you examples of very anti-male examples of literature put out by mainstream feminist publications if you don't believe me. Mainstream among feminists, anyway.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Robot Macai
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

They're getting votes from wife beaters, fascists, religious fundamentalists and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds. That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.
So are feminist organizations that take donations from people like Catherine Comins (who would not spare men who are falsely accused of rape the pain inherent to it because they can gain from the experience), Sharon Osbourne (who finds men having their junk cut off over asking for a divorce is funny), or Valerie Solanas (who wanted to kill all the men) just as tainted as the Republican Party? Because I can guarantee you, feminism at this juncture is just as if not more driven by a hatred of men as Republican social conservatives are driven by a hatred of women.

And I can give you examples of very anti-male examples of literature put out by mainstream feminist publications if you don't believe me. Mainstream among feminists, anyway.


d**k Masterson's book got published too, what else is new? Also, Sexploytation, which is literally a treatise on how all women are whores, was mainstream as well.

And dude, Valerie SOlanis is DEAD. That brain damaged whore rots in Hell, she ain't giving donations to nobody. s**t, as broke as she usually was, I doubt she had much money to give.
GunsmithKitten
Robot Macai
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

They're getting votes from wife beaters, fascists, religious fundamentalists and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds. That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.
So are feminist organizations that take donations from people like Catherine Comins (who would not spare men who are falsely accused of rape the pain inherent to it because they can gain from the experience), Sharon Osbourne (who finds men having their junk cut off over asking for a divorce is funny), or Valerie Solanas (who wanted to kill all the men) just as tainted as the Republican Party? Because I can guarantee you, feminism at this juncture is just as if not more driven by a hatred of men as Republican social conservatives are driven by a hatred of women.

And I can give you examples of very anti-male examples of literature put out by mainstream feminist publications if you don't believe me. Mainstream among feminists, anyway.


d**k Masterson's book got published too, what else is new? Also, Sexploytation, which is literally a treatise on how all women are whores, was mainstream as well.
Okay. What's your point?
Robot Macai
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse

And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
In there defense, one of those fields is ignorant and contemptible.

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

They're getting votes from wife beaters, fascists, religious fundamentalists and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds. That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.
So are feminist organizations that take donations from people like Catherine Comins (who would not spare men who are falsely accused of rape the pain inherent to it because they can gain from the experience), Sharon Osbourne (who finds men having their junk cut off over asking for a divorce is funny), or Valerie Solanas (who wanted to kill all the men) just as tainted as the Republican Party? Because I can guarantee you, feminism at this juncture is just as if not more driven by a hatred of men as Republican social conservatives are driven by a hatred of women.

And I can give you examples of very anti-male examples of literature put out by mainstream feminist publications if you don't believe me. Mainstream among feminists, anyway.
Neither of the women described have made donations of any importance.

Even if they did donate to some nefarious straw-feminist group instead of the Republican Party, one of them has political clout and the other is a feminist organization.
Booty Tickle
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Booty Tickle
Considering the fact that mean usually rule the house hold

In what way?

Quote:

don't get periods

Getting a period is a war on women? neutral

Quote:

don't have to worry about not getting a job based on their a**/tits

Speak for yourself.

Quote:
don't have to spend excess money buying bras, tampons, birth control pills and makeup.

All of these things can be purchased exceedingly cheaply, some are not necessarily, and none constitute a war on women.

Quote:
They don't have to worry about birthing children AND if they get a woman pregnant they can give up their rights to the child and not have to pay child support.

That is not my understanding of the law.

Quote:
Men don't have to fight to get equal pay

Equal pay for what?


Quote:
they didn't have to fight for the right to vote

neutral Sure we did. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War (or the Civil War, to an extent)? Our battle for suffrage was much bloodier.

Quote:

men are usually physically stronger , men don't have to shave their legs/ under arms, you have by feet? So what most men take pride in their big feet.


Quote:
So where is the war again?

Nothing you said was a rational response to my proposition.
1. Financially, in some cultures it's acceptable for the husband to beat his wife to " Keep her in check".
2. No it's not but it's something you'll NEVER have to deal with.
3. Has a woman ever winked at you and said "hey babe nice tits?"
4. How many men would date a woman if she purchased none of those things? With mainstream media poring out images of beautifully photoshopped women that is what most men look for.
5. Ok.
6. Equal pay for doing the same work as everyone else.
7. Men already could vote just certain ones, you were not decimated for your gender, but for how much money you had, which is how it has been for YEARS.
I was generally commenting on all the s**t a woman has to go through to be socially acceptable.


Before I respond to you I do want to say that I do think there is a lot of sexism in the US I just don't think your examples are the best.

1. That has nothing to do with the United States which is where the "war on women" propaganda comes from and is about.
2. And women never have to worry about awkward boners. Both sexes have to deal with things that the other sex will never understand.
3. Sexism in hiring doesn't have to do with having boobs or a nice a**. It has to do with pregnancy and ingrained sexism such as men wanting to hire men and women not wanting to hire women due to fear of the new woman overtaking them.
4. Bras are necessity for some women. It has nothing to do with appeal.
A woman who doesn't take birth control and is dating and/or having sex is an idiot.
As for the tampons and make up, I don't use either and yet I date. And actually, studies show that men do not want to marry those beautifully photoshopped women. Their instincts still push them towards women with wide hips and a body capable of bearing children. The reason it seems like they want that is because they are bombarded with those images and are told that that is who they should be striving to date. It is culture effecting male perspective. It has nothing to do with men themselves.
6. You are completely right about the equal pay part. Though it has to do with pregnancy more than anything. Women get paid less because there is a chance they will be out having a baby or babies. That's also why they don't get promoted as often. The higher ups worry about us being out for maternity leave. Especially if you're younger. We need better handing of maternity and paternity leave. It should be it's own thing and it should not be looked down on for using it. The US actually handles that kind of leave worse than any other first world country. Maternity leave actually counts as disability leave. Which is why most women use sick time or other PTO instead. Which actually still puts us as a disadvantage since we have to use our accrued time rather than actual maternity time off.
The whole war on women thing is kinda ridiculous. Its more so to do with abortion and its a legitmate concern. Pro life vs pro choice is still an ongoing debate in this country, even after the Supreme Court ruling so many decades ago. I myself am pro-choice to a degree (I don't have the time to explain fully), but honestly both sides are screeching. Its kinda annoying really too.
Thing is though one side tries to pass such ridiculous legislation that it honestly does ******** over their side. Have you heard of some of the anti-abortion bills being passed? I'm sorry but I don't believe a woman should be forced to pay for a rape kit, or that the raptist has a right to determine whether the woman is allowed an abortion or not. The list goes on.

Pro-choicers also have their fare share of idiotic speakers but its more so the pro-lifers who are trying to pass this legislation which just doesn't make any sense. I can understand if you wanna limit abortion and all, but I'd rather do that through limiting pregnancies period. How? I'm not sure, but if you wanna limit abortions, don't use these ******** scare tactics and idiotic measures.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games