Never forget what feminism is really about

[richard_daily]

Richard Daily has repeatedly said that arguing with a feminist or opposing their extremist beliefs is the same as hating women.

Nice lie.

I've never said that.

I've said (correctly) that you are afraid of women. I'm sorry that women scare you so much.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nice lie.

I've never said that.

I've said (correctly) that you are afraid of women. I'm sorry that women scare you so much.

IDK....you seem to think that recognizing some "feminist" out there less than selfless crusaders for equality = hating women.

Not much of a stretch to think you would also think that disagreeing with any of them is also hating women.

 

[RobDownSouth]

IDK....you seem to think that recognizing some "feminist" out there less than selfless crusaders for equality = hating women.

Not much of a stretch to think you would also think that disagreeing with any of them is also hating women.

#AscriptionAgain x 2

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Nice lie.

I've never said that.

I've said (correctly) that you are afraid of women. I'm sorry that women scare you so much.

Not a lie. You have repeatedly said that arguing with a feminist or opposing their extremist beliefs is the same as hating women.

In fact you just did it again right here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

#AscriptionAgain x 2

You need to look up the definition of ascription....and learn how to read further back before you jump in the conversation.

What do LT, BB and all the other woman haters in this thread have in common?

They all want to tell women how feminism SHOULD be.

They are the exact reason why feminism is important and necessary today.

So far the only ascription here has been on the part of Daily.

 

[richard_daily]

Not a lie. You have repeatedly said that arguing with a feminist or opposing their extremist beliefs is the same as hating women.

In fact you just did it again right here.

No, that's not what I said.

You're a liar.

And you're afraid of women.

Those are facts.

 

[Saint_Ann]

No, that's not what I said.

You're a liar.

And you're afraid of women.

Those are facts.

And you get your jollies beating on women. That makes you a much bigger slime than LT will ever be.

IMHO.

 

[KimGordon67]

Note she never substantiates this. We're supposed to accept that it's wrong because she said so.


I refuse to listen because every point you made was based on unfounded speculation. You never once provided any cited facts to back up any of your counter arguments. Not one.


LOL tell Richard Faily that, he seems to think hatred of feminism is the same as hatred of women.


But the feminist movement is responsible for our current state of divorce laws, including the screwed up nature of spousal support.

Sigh.
It's wrong because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the core of feminism.

When we first started arguing, back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I provided plenty of citations and evidence and links to research to back up everything I said. That was routinely ignored or willfully misinterpreted, so I just stopped bothering. (That's not peculiar to you - it's pretty much been the case with the way all my interactions on the GB have developed. No one's interested in evidence, just rhetoric.)

What RD says is not my problem. I've actually repeatedly (and even I think in this thread) said your issue is with feminism, not women.

The previous state of the divorce laws worldwide was pretty woeful. The reason you've ended up in the mess you have is because of the individualistic American refusal to provide adequate social support. In other countries, alimony disappeared decades ago because sole parents had access to something that at least vaguely resembles adequate social support (although that's now debatable). There's still child support, but no one in their right mind would continue to support a spouse from whom they were divorced, and property is just split on a 50/50 basis except for some really quite specific exceptions which need to be backed up by a fair bit of proof. The push it towards 50/50 shared care of children too - that's one of the issues I have with some arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time, something I personally disagree with. As a feminist.

 

[KimGordon67]

Again, I never blamed feminism as the causation of divorce, I'm saying that feminism influences court judgements.

I also dont care about all "divorces" globally, although, that argument doesn't really help your position that much, given that a lot of countries have a variety of laws both simplistic and complex, can vary from male-favoring and male-hating. I care about US/Canada divorces, you dont care much for child custody stats or who initiates divorces first, so I have a hard time understanding why you're even conducting conversation in this thread if you aren't willing to accept factual information, you simply write it off with a cop out like "your shitty divorce isn't cause of feminism!", you just refute with a baseless statement like "no its not!". I never even stated that I got married to begin with...

I also admire your shaming language, categorizing this imaginary divorce as "shitty", as if to insinuate a poor life choice, which I would agree, marriage is indeed a "shitty" concept, especially when someone can choose to not bother trying and give up, easily snaking 1/2 of your finances without question. A number of feminists, who also share part of your tyrannical legion, often take advantage of men in order to further their personal agenda.

Be lucky you're even married, you wouldn't last a week in the current dating climate being single, you'd resort to a unit full of cats and having sour grapes over "I'm such a good feminist, why doesn't anyone want to commit to me!"

#notallfeminazis #marriageisshitty

My reference was to the shittiness of the divorce, not it's occurrence - divorces come in many shapes and forms, and some are crappy. But that's not feminism's fault.

See my response to LJ above regarding the stupid situation with the bulk of North American divorces. As a feminist, I personally think it's ridiculous.

And actually, I do fine in the current dating pool. Thanks for your concern though.

 

[Adder4321]

This thread pretty much proves why I never take what people call themselves seriously. Because people can claim to be whatever they want without actually standing for any of the things that they claim to.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, that's not what I said.

Yes it is what you said. You said it's okay for women to abuse men and opposing this makes a man afraid of women. You just said it again in this very post.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Sigh.
It's wrong because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the core of feminism.

A movement is judged by the behavior of its adherents.

When we first started arguing, back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I provided plenty of citations and evidence and links to research to back up everything I said.

There has never been any citations that refute the fact that rape is reported in at least 30 percent of female/female relationships, and the studies that show women initiate the majority of non-reciprocal violence have never been subsequently refuted. They are government studies, not shit from feminist rags.

People don't respect your arguments because you routinely try to spin doctor your way out and you disregard other people's citations. You are the evidence-ignoring, rhetoric-spewing person you accuse us of being.

The previous state of the divorce laws worldwide was pretty woeful. The reason you've ended up in the mess you have is because of the individualistic American refusal to provide adequate social support. In other countries, alimony disappeared decades ago because sole parents had access to something that at least vaguely resembles adequate social support (although that's now debatable). There's still child support, but no one in their right mind would continue to support a spouse from whom they were divorced, and property is just split on a 50/50 basis except for some really quite specific exceptions which need to be backed up by a fair bit of proof. The push it towards 50/50 shared care of children too - that's one of the issues I have with some arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time, something I personally disagree with. As a feminist.

That's the problem here - those arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time is the arm of feminism with ALL the political and media power. ALL. They make the policies. You do not.

The feminists with the media power make fun of male victims of everything. No one - absolutely no one on television, no popular blogs, no well known activists - oppose this.

You pass off the Sharon Osbourne incident with a crowd of women cheering the dismembering of an innocent man as something in the past - but then you're quick to bring up shit that happened to women in the past. You routinely clam up when I challenge you about this. This is why feminism is so hopelessly corrupt: your hypocrisy is rock strong and it is proud.

 

[KimGordon67]

I judge a movement by the behavior of a few of its adherents.

Fixed your post.


There has never been any citations that refute the fact that rape is reported in at least 30 percent of female/female relationships, and the studies that show women initiate the majority of non-reciprocal violence have never been subsequently refuted. They are government studies, not shit from feminist rags.

Your original assertion said "I refuse to listen because every point you made was based on unfounded speculation. You never once provided any cited facts to back up any of your counter arguments. Not one." That's not the same as what you've said above, which relates to one very specific point. (Also 'government studies' are often undertaken by feminists. I've done some work on government-funded research myself.)

People don't respect your arguments because you routinely try to spin doctor your way out and you disregard other people's citations. You are the evidence-ignoring, rhetoric-spewing person you accuse us of being.

I frequently directly address your evidence. You routinely either ignore me when I do, or willfully misunderstand what I've said, or only address a partial aspect of my point.


That's the problem here - those arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time is the arm of feminism with ALL the political and media power. ALL. They make the policies. You do not.

The feminists with the media power make fun of male victims of everything. No one - absolutely no one on television, no popular blogs, no well known activists - oppose this.

You pass off the Sharon Osbourne incident with a crowd of women cheering the dismembering of an innocent man as something in the past - but then you're quick to bring up shit that happened to women in the past. You routinely clam up when I challenge you about this. This is why feminism is so hopelessly corrupt: your hypocrisy is rock strong and it is proud.

Responses in bold above - I ran out of time, but the latter points aren't really worth responding to.

 

[ConfusedSheep]

My reference was to the shittiness of the divorce, not it's occurrence - divorces come in many shapes and forms, and some are crappy. But that's not feminism's fault.

See my response to LJ above regarding the stupid situation with the bulk of North American divorces. As a feminist, I personally think it's ridiculous.

And actually, I do fine in the current dating pool. Thanks for your concern though.

Considering how combative you are about feminism, its safe to think that most of the nuances of your comments have negative connotation.

You fail to recognize that there is even a matriarchy among women. Power differential grows between females, they're turning into the tyrannical beasts they thought they were battling. Just remember that when you look into the abyss long enough, the abyss looks back. Feminism is an ironic inverted self sacrifice of humanity that benefits the few over the many. You're willing to weaken large groups of men and women so that you accomplish short term success with long-term failure, this is proven by the affirmative action of raising entry numbers for minorities (especially females) applying to universities, saturating college programs with high school dropouts that soak up student loans, default on them, and universally cause increases in taxes/public service costs to make back the net loss. Stupid shit like this is exactly why you have dumber individuals regulating the social climates on school facilities, professors indoctrinating impressionable youth, voting in more incompetent people into governments which only further fucks society, and these are only a few chain reactions from the liberals (which also promote feminist ideology) and women that passed this kind of legislation in parliament! Most of what I mentioned is exactly what has happened in Canada.

Well that's a confusing statement, how can you be doing fine in the dating pool if you're married? Kind of goes against the idea of marriage in the first place. Even if the partner is fine with it, wasnt the premise of marriage that you bind yourself to 1? Why marry at all? Or maybe it's an "open marriage" which is completely different to a typical marriage. Regardless, I dont really expect a rational or even articulate response from you at this point, you've shown yourself to lack the capacity of open conversation in good faith.

 

[coati]

What's more concerning is that these Orwellian means of control through language have moved from top levels and have now become internalized by many laypeople.

Wait a minute, are you telling me that feminism might not really be about cutting men's dicks off, the very premise of this thread?

 

[PollDancer]

Fred Astaire was a woman in drag?

 

[richard_daily]

Yes it is what you said. You said it's okay for women to abuse men and opposing this makes a man afraid of women. You just said it again in this very post.

You're a liar.

What I said, is that you're afraid of women.

You will always be afraid of women.

You will always be alone.

 

[KimGordon67]

I haven't read all the posts, but I assume that the OP is referring to 'militant or radical Feminists'? Those who are more concerned with gaining power over men, than with fixing pockets of oppression.
True feminists imo seek to eliminate injustice and abuse and to achieve a relatively equal society. Within limits, because you can't expect a woman to chop a tree as well as a man does, or a man to sing and dance.


The terms 'Feminism' 'Liberalism, Conservatives' and so on are now so broadly and inappropriately used, that it's sometimes hard to know what people are referring to.
All these ambiguous terms should be abandoned, and we need to reinvent the political language. Like ConfusedSheep said. Otherwise the divisiveness will only increase.

Might be a good idea to read all the posts. LJ never specifies radical feminsm. At best he may refer to 'mainstream' feminism, but usually it's just 'feminism'.

 

[KimGordon67]

Considering how combative you are about feminism, its safe to think that most of the nuances of your comments have negative connotation.

You fail to recognize that there is even a matriarchy among women. Power differential grows between females, they're turning into the tyrannical beasts they thought they were battling. Just remember that when you look into the abyss long enough, the abyss looks back. Feminism is an ironic inverted self sacrifice of humanity that benefits the few over the many. You're willing to weaken large groups of men and women so that you accomplish short term success with long-term failure, this is proven by the affirmative action of raising entry numbers for minorities (especially females) applying to universities, saturating college programs with high school dropouts that soak up student loans, default on them, and universally cause increases in taxes/public service costs to make back the net loss. Stupid shit like this is exactly why you have dumber individuals regulating the social climates on school facilities, professors indoctrinating impressionable youth, voting in more incompetent people into governments which only further fucks society, and these are only a few chain reactions from the liberals (which also promote feminist ideology) and women that passed this kind of legislation in parliament! Most of what I mentioned is exactly what has happened in Canada.

Well that's a confusing statement, how can you be doing fine in the dating pool if you're married? Kind of goes against the idea of marriage in the first place. Even if the partner is fine with it, wasnt the premise of marriage that you bind yourself to 1? Why marry at all? Or maybe it's an "open marriage" which is completely different to a typical marriage. Regardless, I dont really expect a rational or even articulate response from you at this point, you've shown yourself to lack the capacity of open conversation in good faith.

So you can throw out random personal attacks, and then I'm expected to explain their irrelevance in great detail in a thread that has no connection to that topic?

The rest of your post is just ranting from someone whose obviously a bit scared because white middle aged middle class hetero men don't have total control of everything anymore.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you can thtow out random personal attacks, and then I'm expected to explain their irrelevance in great detail in a thread that has no connection to that topic?

The rest of your post is just ranting from someone whose obviously a bit scared because white middle aged middle class hetero men don't have total control of everything anymore.

They haven't for a very long time, longer than most living people today have been alive.

What world do you live in??

And why do you hat white middle aged middle class hetero men so much?

 

[KimGordon67]

They haven't for a very long time, longer than most living people today have been alive.

What world do you live in??

And why do you hat white middle aged middle class hetero men so much?

Where exactly did I say I hated them?

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, I'm interested in finding more about it because my views came from talking to random people so I might well be wrong.
I came across a few men who were bitter that their stay at home ex-wives of just a few years cleaned them out financially. Or so they claimed.



I thought that - But for the Medical Insurance System- it provides adequate benefits.



What you mentioned: what country are you referring to?
Because it all seems fair.

The only caveat being that the 50/50 share in assets doesn't seem ideal if one spouse did the hard work and earned a lot, while the other person worked and earned little.
Is there any gender bias in these cases?

No, because that's assuming that engaging in paid employment is the only material value that can be brought to a marriage. If you set up an equal relationship in good faith, that's the basis on which you exit it. If you want anything else, either have a pre-nup or make some other arrangements on separation. You can contract out of the 50/50 split.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Where exactly did I say I hated them?

You didn't but you do speak of and about them in a very combative and negative manner.

Almost as if middle aged middle class white guys are the enemy.


So I ask why, which was my mistake I should have asked why you seem to think it's still the 1950's and what is your beef with middle age middle class white guys?

 

[KimGordon67]

You didn't but you do speak of and about them in a very combative and negative manner.

Almost as if middle aged middle class white guys are the enemy.


So I ask why, which was my mistake I should have asked why you seem to think it's still the 1950's and what is your beef with middle age middle class white guys?

I can't help the tone you read into my words. Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men. I don't really understand what your point is. If you're trying to paint me as some reactionary man-hater, you've got a long road ahead of you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I can't help the tone you read into my words.

Tone didn't have anything to do with it.

The fact that you assume someone bitching about feminism is a middle class, middle aged, straight white male does.

Because there are PLENTY of yellow, red, light brown, darker brown and black man pigs out there that bitch about feminism plenty. I and others have met them, they've been documented in pretty much every community on the planet and they come in all shapes, sizes, religions, color, socioeconomic and education level.

But you assumed straight, middle age, middle class, white male.

Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men.

Yea that excuse doesn't work for white middle class straight men either.

I don't really understand what your point is. If you're trying to paint me as some reactionary man-hater, you've got a long road ahead of you.

Yea you do, that's why you brought it up.

And I don't have to try to paint you as anything, you've done a fine job of painting what you are all on your own.

I'm just asking questions.