Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

Reku · 07-11-2012 2:08pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Up until the '60 or so, school teachers WERE mostly men - once women started getting involved the societal status of teachers (and incidentally the salaries) dropped and the men started to leave. Similarly dangerous jobs like being a soldier were originally legally only allowed for men, it's only recently that women have been permitted to take up these types of roles.

I could ask you a similar question; if Ireland has become too skewed in favour of women rights (as many here seem to feel) why is it that the three most powerful institutions of the state - the government, the police force and the judiciary are still overwhelmingly male-dominated?

It's a known issue that women avoid jobs that are dangerous or require long, "not-family-friendly", hours, why don't feminists tackle the issue instead of trying to rewrite the rules to get the desired result? Could it be that they want the benefit but without the risk? Men are simply less risk-adverse, we will risk death, no social/personal life and no family, for the sake of a job, more readily than women will. Which in turn is perhaps a large part of why men are more prone to substance abuse and suicide.
Is it the fault of the other half of the population if one half can't even be arsed to try for a job (only about 10% of the independent candidates for the last election were female, so party politics had nothing to do with it). Also if you actually look up at the make-up of the government, including all the civil servants who make most of the day to day decisions in the running of our country, you'll find that your argument is moot on that "powerful institution" (figures from 2000 show it to be 67% female).

Why are there so few binwomen? Again are you going to blame the system somehow regarding that one? A feminist group in the UK whipped up a fury over how male council workers were paid more on average than female ones, ignoring (probably intentionally:rolleyes:) the specific roles of said workers. When it was looked at, the main reason for this was the pay difference between those performing clerical duties and those performing refuse collection.

B0jangles wrote: »

Given the status quo, the laws which discriminate against men were drafted by and voted upon by men, BUT the laws which discriminate against women were drafted by and voted upon by mostly men.

Who were elected by a nearly 50:50 man:woman population base, so if women feel underrepresented, women should blame themselves: both for failing to put themselves forward and for failing to vote for those who they feel can actually represent them (apparently a man cannot represent a woman by your arguments).
Women have had voting rights for more than a generation so I don't see how it's men's fault if they're not being represented in Government.
My #1 vote went to a female candidate in my area, as, as far as I am concerned, she is the best person for the job, I don't care what gender she is. IMO the average female politician is no different to the average male one, they're just as much a money-grabbing-useless-waste-of-space as the men:(.

iptba · 07-11-2012 9:51pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I have never said or thought that most men are awful; most of the men I know are decent, kind, thoughtful and caring people. There is, however a subset of Irish men who appear to believe that because the world no longer pretty much exclusively caters to them and their needs that this is evidence of a takeover by women.

When did the world "pretty much exclusively cater to the men's needs"? When they were conscripted to armies/fight local tribes (while the womenfolk were protected at home)? When they had to do a lot more dangerous jobs than now while again the work done by women was on average much safer? History can be analysed in more than one way.

And who are you to say what we can and cannot think? If people see things like gender quotas, which effectively mean discrimination against men, why can't they be unhappy and complain? Why can't they point out that there are areas men do worse in and look for change there? How is it some sort of evidence of not being "decent, kind, thoughtful and caring" to be concerned about such social justice issues?

Feminism is like a trade union for 50% of the population - without people giving other views, society can get very unbiased. We don't allow trials where only one side, either the defendant(s) or plaintiff(s) is (/are) represented, but that is effectively what happens in many academic discussions, media and political discussions, education, etc. on gender, etc.

B0jangles wrote: »

Basically they are men who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

It was the feminists in the video who were tearing down the posters. Where is the sharing in gender studies research? Where is the sharing in equality funding? It is women, women's groups and feminists who have the lion's share of power, influence, resources and money and it's they/you who don't want to share it.

Piliger · 07-11-2012 11:05pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Basically they are men who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

How patronising and offensive some women can be.

Is it any wonder that men are faced with a segment of the female population who feel 'entitlement' as the core identification of their gender. When they don't achieve then they want to be given an unfair advantage. When they don't succeed, they want an unfair boost. When they over achieve they want men held back. When they are challenged to show some understanding of men's role, they become patronising and offensive.

Discussions of Men's Rights, as usual, is side tracked and undermined by disruptive feminists who are not satisfied with promoting their equality but want to sabotage any effort by Men to look for their own equality.

K-9 · 07-11-2012 11:40pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I have never said or thought that most men are awful; most of the men I know are decent, kind, thoughtful and caring people. There is, however a subset of Irish men who appear to believe that because the world no longer pretty much exclusively caters to them and their needs that this is evidence of a takeover by women.

Basically they are men who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

I have never said or thought that most women are awful; most of the women I know are decent, kind, thoughtful and caring people.

Basically they are women who cannot comprehend the idea of sharing. So toddlers basically.

Zulu · 09-11-2012 9:05am

Zulu wrote: »

Straight question: If an abortion referendum could be held, but where only women could vote, would you support/prefer that? (ie: would you like to see a vote on abortion where men were excluded)

Any chance of getting an answer to this B0jangles?

py2006 · 09-11-2012 1:20pm

Piliger wrote: »

How patronising and offensive some women can be.

Is it any wonder that men are faced with a segment of the female population who feel 'entitlement' as the core identification of their gender. When they don't achieve then they want to be given an unfair advantage. When they don't succeed, they want an unfair boost. When they over achieve they want men held back. When they are challenged to show some understanding of men's role, they become patronising and offensive.

Discussions of Men's Rights, as usual, is side tracked and undermined by disruptive feminists who are not satisfied with promoting their equality but want to sabotage any effort by Men to look for their own equality.

Here, here.

Very well put. Especially that last line. It happens far too often on here which is quite worrying.

Piliger · 09-11-2012 5:09pm

py2006 wrote: »

Here, here.

Very well put. Especially that last line. It happens far too often on here which is quite worrying.

Indeed. Mainly because tGC is open to women who come to disrupt and derail men's topics ..........

I have often had issues with Mods on Boards, but here I wish that they would be more proactive and not just obsess with insults, but recognise intentional disruption and intentional undermining of important topics.

Ottway · 12-11-2012 1:54am

Piliger wrote: »

Discussions of Men's Rights, as usual, is side tracked and undermined by disruptive feminists who are not satisfied with promoting their equality but want to sabotage any effort by Men to look for their own equality.

Excellent post in full, but just on this last part, reminded me of the following video I seen a few years back now were local Feminists disrupted a Men's Rights group that were discussing domestic violence. Just listen to them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

iptba · 12-11-2012 2:18pm

Ottway wrote: »

Excellent post in full, but just on this last part, reminded me of the following video I seen a few years back now were local Feminists disrupted a Men's Rights group that were discussing domestic violence. Just listen to them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Here's the YouTube description:

Men's activists hold a public forum to discuss the possibility of giving male victims of domestic violence some of the social services that are currently only available to female victims. Feminists, who strongly oppose any recognition of male victims of abuse, disrupt the forum and try to shut it down. They oppose free and open discussion of gender issues.

The conference was held in Ottawa, Canada six or seven years ago. It was organized by two fathers' groups in Ottawa. The keynote speaker was Canadian Senator Anne Cools. You can easily find information about her on the web.

She has been a radical feminist and in 1974 she founded one of the first shelters for abused women in Canada. In the 1990s she changed her views and became a vocal defender of fathers and has campaigned for greater access between children and fathers after divorce. She is also a strong advocate for battered husbands and that was the topic of her speech at the conference (Family Violence). She still has a seat in the Canadian Senate.

In total there were eight videos of the feminists disrupting the conference, but I picked the second one as being most representative. In the end, the feminists, cursing and spitting, were removed by security.

This video is reproduced with the permission of www.fathers.ca

Ottway · 12-11-2012 3:03pm

iptba wrote: »

Here's the YouTube description:

Cheers, hadn't read that.

The keynote speaker was Canadian Senator Anne Cools. You can easily find information about her on the web. She has been a radical feminist and in 1974 she founded one of the first shelters for abused women in Canada. In the 1990s she changed her views and became a vocal defender of fathers and has campaigned for greater access between children and fathers after divorce. She is also a strong advocate for battered husbands and that was the topic of her speech at the conference (Family Violence). She still has a seat in the Canadian Senate.

The above in particular is quite interesting as that is precisely what happened Erin Pizzey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey). She set up the first woman's shelter in the UK and was radical feminist also. She began to study domestic violence and noticed that men were as much abused as women were in the UK and that the women tended to be "abused" in multiple relationships and so began to question her thinking.

She wrote two books, Prone to Violence and Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear and Feminists went nuts, literally. They poisoned her dog, made death threats and eventually she had to leave the UK and was effectively written out of the history books. You would have thought someone that set up the first battered women's shelter in the UK would be heralded and celebrated by Feminists and that each and every Women's Study course worldwide would know her name, but they don't, or at least not from those sources anyway.

She recently sued Macmillan Publishers as they linked her to a feminist group that had bombing campaign in London throughout the early 1970s. She won, as not only was she not a member of The Angry Brigade, but she had in fact reported their activities to the Police.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1167483/Erin-Pizzey-When-Andrew-Marr-accused-terrorist-like-bomb-going-chest.html

iptba · 12-11-2012 4:32pm

Ottway wrote: »

The above in particular is quite interesting as that is precisely what happened Erin Pizzey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey). She set up the first woman's shelter in the UK and was radical feminist also. She began to study domestic violence and noticed that men were as much abused as women were in the UK and that the women tended to be "abused" in multiple relationships and so began to question her thinking.

She wrote two books, Prone to Violence and Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear and Feminists went nuts, literally. They poisoned her dog, made death threats and eventually she had to leave the UK and was effectively written out of the history books. You would have thought someone that set up the first battered women's shelter in the UK would be heralded and celebrated by Feminists and that each and every Women's Study course worldwide would know her name, but they don't, or at least not from those sources anyway.

She recently sued Macmillan Publishers as they linked her to a feminist group that had bombing campaign in London throughout the early 1970s. She won, as not only was she not a member of The Angry Brigade, but she had in fact reported their activities to the Police.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1167483/Erin-Pizzey-When-Andrew-Marr-accused-terrorist-like-bomb-going-chest.html

For anyone interested, she has a website: http://www.erinpizzey.com/

I often think of behaviour and responses such as in the video when I hear the phrase "end the silence on domestic violence" by organisations/individuals only highlighting domestic violence against women.

iptba · 12-11-2012 7:51pm

FWIW

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/braindamaged-man-awarded-38m-for-bottle-assault-by-exgirlfriend-3291600.html

By Tim Healy
Monday November 12 2012

A MAN left severely brain damaged 12 years ago after his then-girlfriend threw a bottle during a row and hit him on the head has been awarded around €3.8m under a criminal injuries compensation scheme, the High Court has been told.

Jason Clarke (43) suffered the assault on New Year's Eve, 2000, outside the Blue Light pub in Glencullen, Dublin.

Mr Clarke, who had been studying to be a physiotherapist at the time, suffered a burst blood vessel in his brain, causing him to have two or three strokes. He also lost consciousness which he did not regain for another three months and is now in a wheelchair.

He had been with a group of friends in the pub when a row broke out and his then-girlfriend struck him. The row continued outside the bar and she threw a bottle at him, striking the back of his head, the High Court heard.

She was arrested a month after the incident, pleaded guilty to assault and received a suspended jail sentence.

donfers · 12-11-2012 9:03pm

I read in the Sunday times that there is an "I holla back" (I think it's called that) being set up by feminists encouraging people to take photos of guys who wolfwhistle or make comments etc

the article says that they want people to report bad behaviour by MEN,but they also ask that "racial identifiers" not be used during the reporting - i'm not sure what that means?

anyway i was thinking maybe of posting to their page and saying that sometimes in my experience going out, i have been harassed by women, especially hen nights or large groups of women, usually drunk, they make suggestive comments, try to grope etc and then of coruse when you aren't automatically delighed by this approach, they call you gay etc. - i wonder would the fanpage accept reports of this kind, probably not, not that that kind of stuff bothered me too much nor that i think it's legally acceptable to do that, but i guess when you are on the right side of the pc bandwagon you can get away with this kind of garbage

one of the girls in the article even said that a group of young guys on the bus were making sexist comments at her and nobody on the bus spoke up for her, here is the perfect example of the hypocrasy of these people, they expect others, presumably men to come to their rescue when it serves their needs but on the other hand they go on about being empowered and independent etc etc - if you are empowered and independent then i would suggest looking around the bus expecting some guy to come to your rescue is not really in tandem with your belief-system...trying to have their cake as usual

finally i read in that same paper an article by aine o connor, taking up the resident feminist column while justine mccarthy is absent calling for a quota on the number of females in the broadcasting/media sector, that someone apparently educated can come out with such guff and not an eyelid is batted at it tells you everything you need to know - it shows how far they can go that basically they can advocate fascism and as I said people won't dare call them on it for fear of being met with the usual ad hominem hysteria

for example, earlier on this thread i said that the type of women who tear down those posters need an easy target to lash out at and that is usually white men

the point being that white men can be criticised without fear of being labelled or persecuted in some way

of course some of the reactions completely missed the point and came out with the usual predictable ad hominem hysteria suggesting somehow that this point meant i thought white men were repressed, or that white men are the great victims or its racist etc etc etc

all nonsense, the simple point is they can be attacked as a group with little consequence for the attacker, that's why on tv shows, tv adverts, newspaper articles etc etc you will stuff said and done to white men that is done to nobody else, and yes the majority of the tiny elite superclass that control things are white men - so what?99.9% of us are confronting most of the same issues

so next time you read an article or watch some panellist on a daytime tv show say "I'd give him a slap" or "he's completely useless, bless him" or some other derorgatory comment and it's all jolly good fun then ask yourself would you laugh of the comment was about you?

and of course the implicit message in so many news stories it that men are namless, insignificant and expendable, terrorists bomb hotel, 99 dead including 17 women and children

Finally i read today online that a woman is divorcing a guy because he won't re-enact scenes from the novel fifty shades of grey and again we get the "humourous" comments such as "he was probably rubbish in bed", "bin him and find a real man" "I would have thought any man would have been delighted with that" - substitute the sexes here and see if it would be so humourous

women say they have to face this kind of stuff every day, the pressure to look good, being objectified, being harassed and commented on and judged based on their looks etc (Incidentally i could have commented on the looks of the people who started the i holla back page but i haven't) - but there is a general societal intolerance to this kind of stuff, yes it happens sometimes but society tends to view it as unacceptable, now compare that to how men are treated where almost any comment, gesture, physical act is viewed as fair game simply because it is carried out on someone who is male - the reason why so many males don't seek support for this kind of stuff is, because by and large the impression is that mockery or abuse targeted at them is generally acceptable except in extreme cases

the first step that needs to be taken is people speaking out when media types come out with crass offensive garbage, and not just speaking out when the target is a woman or comes from a minority group, it may not be fashionable to speak up for men, so few do it, but despite the grand charade that we run the world, we don't, nobody has a monopoly on suffering and whenever it happens and to whomever it happens, questions should be asked

Piliger · 13-11-2012 1:24am

donfers wrote: »

the first step that needs to be taken is people speaking out when media types come out with crass offensive garbage, and not just speaking out when the target is a woman or comes from a minority group, it may not be fashionable to speak up for men, so few do it, but despite the grand charade that we run the world, we don't, nobody has a monopoly on suffering and whenever it happens and to whomever it happens, questions should be asked

You said it 100% correct there. We need to SPEAK UP.

Yes women do suffer many things worse than men. This is true. But men suffer other things we don't whinge about. And what is offensive, and what needs to be challenged, is that just because women have some legitimate issues and problems that none of us deny - that men are then denied ANY recognition for what happens to us ! Violence against men in the home is happening on a regular basis - but it is completely air brushed from society and from the media because women suffer more ..... and the same for a long list of other issues.

We, men, need to speak up more when we see sexism against MEN. We need to write letters when we see sexism in the courts, or the media. We need to make society see that it is NOT acceptable to air bush men's issues out of existence. And we need to grow up and realise that we are part of society, as much as women. Just because you haven't experienced it personally doesn't mean it's not relevant to YOU. Maybe not today .... but tomorrow ?

donfers · 13-11-2012 4:31am

Piliger wrote: »

You said it 100% correct there. We need to SPEAK UP.

Yes women do suffer many things worse than men. This is true. But men suffer other things we don't whinge about. And what is offensive, and what needs to be challenged, is that just because women have some legitimate issues and problems that none of us deny - that men are then denied ANY recognition for what happens to us ! Violence against men in the home is happening on a regular basis - but it is completely air brushed from society and from the media because women suffer more ..... and the same for a long list of other issues.

We, men, need to speak up more when we see sexism against MEN. We need to write letters when we see sexism in the courts, or the media. We need to make society see that it is NOT acceptable to air bush men's issues out of existence. And we need to grow up and realise that we are part of society, as much as women. Just because you haven't experienced it personally doesn't mean it's not relevant to YOU. Maybe not today .... but tomorrow ?

the grand irony of course is that the lobsided societal sympathy and preoccupation with womens' issues as opposed to mens only exacerbates the idea of them as weaker sex - always looking for support on some issue, always being singled out when they achieve something or when something goes wrong for them, always a massive queue of populists wanting to rush to their aid

so in a way us guys who are trying to highlight mens issues are levelling the playing field by saying men are vulnerable and in need of help too, not superbeings who are immune to everything society throws at them while feminists are inadvertently contributing to the idea of weak needy female

so who wants to write a thesis about how feminists are the greatest sexists of all while mens rights types are essentially gender equality warriors;)

py2006 · 14-11-2012 2:43pm

donfers wrote: »

the grand irony of course is that the lobsided societal sympathy and preoccupation with womens' issues as opposed to mens only exacerbates the idea of them as weaker sex - always looking for support on some issue, always being singled out when they achieve something or when something goes wrong for them, always a massive queue of populists wanting to rush to their aid

so in a way us guys who are trying to highlight mens issues are levelling the playing field by saying men are vulnerable and in need of help too, not superbeings who are immune to everything society throws at them while feminists are inadvertently contributing to the idea of weak needy female

so who wants to write a thesis about how feminists are the greatest sexists of all while mens rights types are essentially gender equality warriors;)

'Feminists are Sexist'

That sure is a thesis title that would grab attention.

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 8:19pm

Zulu wrote: »

Any chance of getting an answer to this B0jangles?

Sorry for the long gap, I've been busy.

This is an interesting question, My initial knee-jerk reaction is that no-one should ever be disenfranchised no matter how specific to a particular group the question is. But that brings to the front the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" as in, in if civil rights in the US had been put to a popular vote then black Americans would probably still be second-class citizens in their own country.

Do you doubt this? Switzerland still uses the principle of the popular vote, or direct democracy to decide many issues and as a result women only got the right to vote in the Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden as a result of a swiss supereme court ruling in 1990. The male voting populace of that canton were still fully committed to denying women the right to a vote up until then. In fact, women only even started to get the vote in Switzerland in 1959.

After quite a lot of consideration I think that the rights of any minoroty group should not be decided by any majority and instead be decided by an overseeing legal quorum. Courts are most definitely not perfect but they are a lot better that ignoramuses that are asked to decide on issues that will never affect them directly.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 8:27pm

Firstly - thanks for the response, no hassle on the delay (life is far more interesting).

So long story short, you'd favor tyranny or an elite class to democracy (for fear of "tyranny of the majority"). Interesting position but it's pretty far from what I'd deem acceptable. I'd rather the masses have a say over their own destiny.

Also, I'd note I asked a very direct, concise, straight question, to which you answered indirectly and arguably obtusely.

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 8:35pm

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly - thanks for the response, no hassle on the delay (life is far more interesting).

So long story short, you'd favor tyranny or an elite class to democracy (for fear of "tyranny of the majority"). Interesting position but it's pretty far from what I'd deem acceptable. I'd rather the masses have a say over their own destiny.

Also, I'd note I asked a very direct, concise, straight question, to which you answered indirectly and arguably obtusely.

But given that something like civil rights or abortion rights are not "the masses have (ing) a say over their own destiny." it is the masses having a say over the rights of a minority.

I have a profound problem with a large proportion of the electorate having as much of a vote in abortion rights when for them it is a totally theoretical question, as it is most definitely not for the people who will have to carry the pregnancies in question. As far as I am concerned it is a question of the civil rights of a minority being sujected to the vote of a majority who will never ever be physically subjected to the situation in question.

If you were truly concerned with the rights of the masses in this particular question then surely you would be in favour of only women being allowed to vote in Abortion referenda?

After all, they are the only ones physically affected by unwanted pregnancy?

Zulu · 14-11-2012 8:47pm

B0jangles wrote: »

If you were truly concerned with the rights of the masses in this particular question then surely you would be in favour of only women being allowed to vote in Abortion referenda?

After all, they are the only ones physically affected by unwanted pregnancy?

I'm not sure: are you deliberately ignoring the father and the child?

Abortion affects more than just the woman, so no.

Clearly you don't respect the views of the fathers. Disregarding the opinions of people based on their gender is blatantly sexist.
J'accuse.

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 8:54pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not sure: are you deliberately ignoring the father and the child?

Abortion affects more than just the woman, so no.

Clearly you don't respect the views of the fathers. Disregarding the opinions of people based on their gender is blatantly sexist.
J'accuse.

Until men can carry pregnancies within their own bodies their opinions have to be secondary to the women who can actually become pregnant. The alternative is women having to ask permission to have abortions from the men in their lives.

And that's just ridiculous isn't it?

Isn't it?

Zulu · 14-11-2012 9:00pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Until men can carry pregnancies within their own bodies their opinions have to be secondary to the women

Indeed, so your position is that men are secondary to women in our democracy.

The alternative is women having to ask permission to have abortions from the men in their lives.

No it's not, the alternative is that every mature citizen has a single vote and each vote is equal.

And that's just ridiculous isn't it?

What I find ridiculous is woman vote > man vote. Ridiculous & sexist.

That's pretty fucking pathetic frankly.

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 9:06pm

Zulu wrote: »

Indeed, so your position is that men are secondary to women in our democracy.

No it's not, the alternative is that every mature citizen has a single vote and each vote is equal.

What I find ridiculous is woman vote > man vote. Ridiculous & sexist.

That's pretty fucking pathetic frankly.

When it comes to the specific circumstance of carrying a pregnancy, only women can and have to do so; this is not a political fact it is a basic reality of existance. When a woman wants to have an abortion and her male partner wants to have the baby; his opinion becomes valid when the pregnancy can be transported from her body into his.

Until then the choice about whether to continue with the pregnancy is hers alone and if you have a problem with this then you should take your argument up with basic fundamental human biology.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 9:13pm

B0jangles wrote: »

... if you have a problem with this then you should take your argument up with basic fundamental human biology.

Your point is that only women should be allowed to cast a vote that impacts them. In doing so, you are giving women the "democratic" opportunity to have a say over what other women do in their society; what other women can or can't do. You do not offer this opportunity to men.

So mothers get a say; fathers don't.
So sisters get a say; brothers don't.
So wives get a say; husbands don't.
So daughters get a say; sons don't.

If you can't see whats fundamentally wrong with that position you are, simply put, a bigot.

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 9:21pm

Zulu wrote: »

Your point is that only women should be allowed to cast a vote that impacts them. In doing so, you are giving women the "democratic" opportunity to have a say over what other women do in their society; what other women can or can't do. You do not offer this opportunity to men.

So mothers get a say; fathers don't.
So sisters get a say; brothers don't.
So wives get a say; husbands don't.
So daughters get a say; sons don't.

If you can't see whats fundamentally wrong with that position you are, simply put, a bigot.

You are attempting (very clumsily I might add) to put words into my mouth. I opened this discussion by saying I was profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of disenfranchising any part of the electorate.

The conclusion I reached is that decisions on human rights like this should not be put to a popular vote since that is de facto a tyranny of the majority.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 9:29pm

B0jangles wrote: »

You are attempting (very clumsily I might add) to put words into my mouth.

Not at all - feel free to correct me.

Is it not your position, with respect to abortion, that a womans vote should be worth than a mans?

I opened this discussion by saying I was profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of disenfranchising any part of the electorate.

But you went on to describe a position where you'd be happy to do just that!

You see this is exactly part of my problem with feminism: the pretense of equality hiding a reality of elitism and sexism.

donfers · 14-11-2012 9:30pm

would you state that only homosexuals should have a vote on a referdum to legalize gay marriage?

and on abortion, would you also exclude women from the vote who have never been pregnant?

what next - maybe changes in criminal law should only be voted on by those with at least one criminal conviction in their past - the rest of us don't know what's it like - sounds only fair

almost reads like a justification for fascism - and ignores one simple thing, something minor and inconvenient and throughly distracting no doubt, something called SOCIETY

you know like the stupid little world we live in and the fact that the things we do sometimes have an effect on others

B0jangles · 14-11-2012 9:35pm

I realise that this the the MRA forum and that nothing I say will ever have any traction with the majority of the men here; however I feel that I have to point out that I did say:

"I think that the rights of any minoroty group should not be decided by any majority and instead be decided by an overseeing legal quorum. Courts are most definitely not perfect but they are a lot better that ignoramuses that are asked to decide on issues that will never affect them directly."

But hey, keep telling yourselves that I am a fascist feminist and that you are an oppressed minority. Maybe if you keep shouting it loudly enough someone who is not a guy exactly like you will belive you.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 9:42pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I realise that this the the MRA forum and that nothing I say will ever have any traction with the majority of the men here; however I feel that I have to point out that I did say:

"I think that the rights of any minoroty group should not be decided by any majority and instead be decided by an overseeing legal quorum. Courts are most definitely not perfect but they are a lot better that ignoramuses that are asked to decide on issues that will never affect them directly."

To which I responded:

So long story short, you'd favor tyranny or an elite class to democracy (for fear of "tyranny of the majority"). Interesting position but it's pretty far from what I'd deem acceptable. I'd rather the masses have a say over their own destiny.

But hey, keep telling yourselves that I am a fascist feminist and that you are an oppressed minority.

Actually I said you were a bigot. And my issue isn't that men are an oppressed minority, but rather there are people out there that are happy to dismiss the views of other based on their gender. My issue is that there are people out there that are happy to sideline other simply because they have a penis. My issue is with sexism - plain and simple.

Maybe if you keep shouting it loudly enough someone who is not a guy exactly like you will belive you.

Sure why would you heed my point, I'm only a man right? Besides it's far easier to live in ignorance isn't it?

Ignorance breeds bigotry.

donfers · 14-11-2012 9:50pm

B0jangles wrote: »

I realise that this the the MRA forum and that nothing I say will ever have any traction with the majority of the men here; however I feel that I have to point out that I did say:

"I think that the rights of any minoroty group should not be decided by any majority and instead be decided by an overseeing legal quorum. Courts are most definitely not perfect but they are a lot better that ignoramuses that are asked to decide on issues that will never affect them directly."

But hey, keep telling yourselves that I am a fascist feminist and that you are an oppressed minority. Maybe if you keep shouting it loudly enough someone who is not a guy exactly like you will belive you.

1. be thankful that you can at least use this platform to offer up your enlightened thoughts on bypassing democracy, it is not a courtesy that is offered everywhere on these boards

2. less of the strawmen stuff would also be helpful, where did anybody say "we are an oppressed mnority" - that kind of stuff is unhelpful and undermines your credibility

3. you are entitled to your opinion just as others are entitled to criticise it especially considering it is quite radical

Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

Comments