Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Alert! Armchair soldier detected! (probably posting from pillow fortress...)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Just because they're the newest available doesn't mean they accurately represent how things are today.

Of course it's not true that women control everything, I don't think you'd see anyone rational trying to claim that. Something that is often overlooked though is the fact that a large amount of men in goverment positions is not the same thing as all men having more power than all women. Taking the dail example, it doesn't particularly matter to me whether the dail is mostly men, mostly women or mostly ducks.

Those three bodies are massively male dominated, agreed. I, for one, have no issue with anyone trying to make things a more equal playing field in those organisations. It's the implication that all of this somehow means the average male is better off than the average female that bothers me.

That's an inference as much as an implication, honestly. The Dáil is massively male dominated, that's a fact. The reasons behind that and the best way forward are up for debate obviously. As for whether or not it's good for women, I'd be very interested to for example hear an abortion bill debated in a female dominated dail. And I don't think you're being honest with yourself if you say if you woke up one day and the majority of the dail and police force were female, you'd say "grand, that probably won't affect me at all."

I think the poster's point was when you hear things like there's no need for feminism any more, it should just be called equalism or something, there are still huge areas where women are at a major disadvantage compared to men. That doesn't mean that the reverse isn't true in certain areas, especially family law, but nobody's denying that. If you look outside the western world, the need for feminism is still huge.This constant whataboutery is so annoying.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Depends on whether there are equal numbers from each gender/race/(whatever you want to substitute) applying for these positions.

If there are not equal numbers applying then WHY not? If you look at academia, why do faculties with a even split of genders graduating end up with a majority of the lecturing staff being male? Why does that happen even in faculties with a majority of students who are female? Maybe it's just that most women don't care to apply for nice jobs with good salaries? Or that they're not as good at them?

Just like teaching is dominated by women, it's unlikely that the domination of fields like lecturing, hospital consulting, boards of management in the corporate world by men is just coincidental or something that can be reduced down to "they don't apply for it".

efb

Jesus this really is a piśsing contest now

bodice ripper

efb wrote: »

Jesus this really is a piśsing contest now

to be fair, the thread was always going to derail once it became clear that everyone thinks radfems are mental.

efb wrote: »

Jesus this really is a piśsing contest now

M'eh, there's a 100 post rule it seems to me, go past that point and the likelihood of posts being directly related to the OP is pretty slim, the likelihood of arguments pretty high. I think we're doing well to still be talking about gender equality at all honestly, it's a wonder it isn't about dog licences or the definition of a hipster at this point :pac:

WilyCoyote

poundapunnet wrote: »

M'eh, there's a 100 post rule it seems to me, go past that point and the likelihood of posts being directly related to the OP is pretty slim, the likelihood of arguments pretty high. I think we're doing well to still be talking about gender equality at all honestly, it's a wonder it isn't about dog licences or the definition of a hipster at this point :pac:

Lets have a poll on how many think ElvisChrist6 (the OP in case we've forgotten) has a dog. Then we can have another poll on there being a licence/lack of licence for said dog/lack of dog.

Friend Computer

bodice ripper wrote: »

.

Oh my God!

That suit is incredible! And going by another photo, the shoes match it perfectly. Mmm, he could hold me down any day.

Balaclava1991

The radfem who wrote the piece the OP cites is probably (1) a child hood victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a male relative or friend of her family who has since craved a loving intimate relationship with a man but fears it risks resurfacing her trauma (2) a heavy set girl who does not get asked out much and hates her body (3) a closet lesbian who has frequently had to compete with men for the affections of beautiful bisexual women (4) a lesbian who tried sex with men once and came away horrified (5) Has a poor relationship with her father and brothers and has been pulled up for her bad attitude at work repeatedly by male superiors or (6) a combination of some or all of the above.

The piece reeks of extreme insecurity, desperate loneliness, extreme emotional neediness and is a cry for help and attention.

tritium

bodice ripper wrote: »

to be fair, the thread was always going to derail once it became clear that everyone thinks radfems are mental.

Yep always get sense of deja vu when these threads kick off. To be fair this one took a bit longer than expected

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It is massively male dominated, yes. The point is that I don't think that puts the average male at an advantage. Nor do I think a female majority would give the average female an advantage. Why would you be so interested to hear an abortion bill debated in a female dominated dail? You'd still have a lot of TDs making noises about how this is a catholic country and abortion should never be allowed. Besides, at the moment with our male dominated dail we still have fairly awful custody rights for men. But why let the facts get in the way?

It puts the average woman who might care to get into politics at a disadvantage, and your opinion that it doesn't benefit men is just speculation. Also given the connections-based approach that we seem to take in this country around things politicians have influence over, I'd say it does affect a lot of women negatively. I really don't know why more isn't done about the custody rights issue in this country, if I had to guess I'd say it's because it tends to affect younger people (in their 20s and 30s) and they're not big on voting. I don't believe I have to explain to you why I'd be interested in hearing an all female group of politicians from across the parties (ie not just some lefty agreeing-with-each-other thing organised by Ivana Bacik or the like) discuss an abortion bill. Can't find figures for Ireland unfortunately, but in America men over the age of 55 are the most likely to be pro-life, women more likely than men overall to be prochoice. If you think the situation regarding abortion here doesn't affect the average woman at some point in her lifetime, and if you think a male-dominated dáil has diddly squat to do with that, you are insane.

I'm not too bothered if you think I'm being honest with myself or not, I don't feel represented by the dail, I see no possible way I could feel any less represented, therefore it would not make a difference to me. As for the police force, well we had that very helpful poster on here pointing out that females couldnt deal with such work so obviously that would be a problem (I'm kidding on that last point. I can't say for sure how I'd react to a female police force).

Yeah fair enough, the daíl just sucks, with you on that :P

All right, this is a point where I think a lot of wires get crossed due to misinterpretation of what people are saying. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but when I say I'd prefer a push for equalism or whatever you want to call it as opposed to feminism, I don't mean we should be putting equal time and funds into mens rights as opposed to womens rights. On a global scale, yes, women are at a disadvantage. But there is a strong trend in modern feminism to push towards a swing of power in the opposite direction, rather than balancing the scales. That's a problem in itself. I think theres much more merit in groups who aim for equality, rather than the advancement of any one group. On a global scale, white people are better off than black people. Do we hear many anti-racists calling themselves black rights campaigners? No. Because the focus has moved toward equality for all. It should be the same for gender issues, and I've year to hear a valid reason why it isn't.

I do get what you're saying, but two things. What usually happens in these situations is it starts with somebody saying we don't need feminism, someone points out an area where there's massive inequality in men's favour, and then some man with sand in his pants comes along and starts the whataboutery. Or some mad radical feminist posts something like this, some sane feminist person says that's not what the majority of feminists are like, and then the whataboutery. It's assumed that if you are into feminism then you automatically think those men's rights/equalism whatever things are not important. There are feminist issues and there are masculinist issues but the structures, prejudices and processes underlying them are different. Treating them as two distinct areas is not saying one is more important than the other.

I don't know why not. I would say in terms of the lecturing staff, thats a case of the 'old guard' being on the way out, and within the next decade or so we'll see much more female lecturers. Most lecturers tend to be older, and the equality in graduates has only been seen relatively recently, so it makes sense that we're not going to see the impact of those changes for a few years yet. That doesn't mean they aren't happening though.

I don't know. I study film, studied history of art and english literature before. All subject areas with either a fairly even breakdown or a huge female majority, most of the staff not older than 50, most of the staff male. There would be women staff in the faculty, sure, they'd be tutors rather than lecturers, or most commonly they'd be secretaries. You may be right, it could change over the next while, we'll see.

It is fairly unlikely, but that doesn't equate to impossible. There are some women out there who have no interest in applying for such jobs. There are also plenty of men with no interest. It's very easy to draw gender lines here, since gender is such an obvious trait, in a physical sense. There are others though, height for example. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-tall-tale-height-matters/ That mentions more than half of US CEOS are over 6 feet tall. The average male height in the US is around 5'10, by the way, therefore the 'it's just because they're men' excuse isn't going to work here.

I didn't even think of that excuse.Discrimination on the basis of height or on the basus of good looks in general is rife, but it's pretty hard to legislate for, or just not on most people's radar. And I don't see the relevance of that to my point that WHY women don't apply for these jobs in as equal numbers as men needs to be looked at. You can't just brush off the question of few women in high up positions in a lot of fields with "they don't apply for it" and think that's the end of that, just like it'd be silly to say there are more black people than white in prison in America because they commit more crimes, end of story.

Fukuyama

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of engineers and scientists involved in manufacturing weapons are men. Many of these men have already had careers in the military hence the concept of the military industrial complex with many former officers in the military becoming military contractors and weapons manufacturers.

Someone still has to take the high ground.
Despite technology the business end of the military is still the rifleman, machine gunner and mortar man.
The infantry soldier must carry his weapon, ammunition, equipment, water, food, helmet, body armor, grenades, explosives and everything else he needs for extended combat operations on his body.
He must be able to march for hours at time carrying an immense load on his back up and down hills and mountains, through jungles, across deserts or arctic wastes in intense humidity, extreme cold, blazing heat and arrive at his objective and fight despite extreme exhaustion.
In the field a soldier will be covered in dirt and muck and will not bathe for weeks or months.
Infantry must also be prepared to fight hand to hand with trench shovels, bayonets or knives or bare hands.
Women have proven time and time again during tests of endurance to be simply incapable of doing the same job as men.
Women lack upper body strength, their bones break more easily and their reproductive system makes them more vulnerable to infection in extreme environments.
More importantly.
Few is any women are natural killers.
If women kill they kill with poison and they usually kill children and old people who were defenseless.
Women do not start fights in bars, they do not punch and kick men to death and they rarely is every take part in violent robberies.

You are plain wrong.

Many hold onto power for decades and others are killed by other psychopaths who rule for decades. The history of the world is about the constant rise and fall of leaders and their realms. The most powerful empires and nations have always been ruthless.

The North African theater was a sideshow. Hitler was preoccupied with the Eastern Front where the overwhelming majority of the combat in WW2 occurred. The overwhelming majority of Hitler's general obeyed him as did millions of men who continued fighting right up until the defeat in 1945.
The Americans and Russians were quite prepared to throw away their own men from strategic advantage and Stalin especially so.

Again you are dead wrong.

Churchill was a ruthless imperialist and warlord. He gassed Iraqis who rebelled against British occupation troops. He allowed millions of Bengals to starve to death. He presided over the British colonial wars in Kenya and Malaya. He signed off on the carpet bombing of German cities. He supported the terror policies of the Black and Tans and supported the creation of Northern Ireland.

So wrong again.

That is the definition of psychopathic behavior.

20% is not a slight gap.

The majority of power is in male hands is it not? I am not sure if you can say women are highly strung emotionally but women clearly must have some natural disadvantage which means they lose the power struggle?

Intimidation with physical strength is key facet of power. Might is right.

They only abandon them when another bully challenges the first.

Michael Collins was a ruthless man who ordered the assassinations of policemen and enemy agents.

Many young men enjoy fighting, are prepared to risk death and maiming and seek glory.

That is as old as Achilles and the Illiad.

Your username indicates that we were born in the same year as one another. Yet you sound like me when I was fifteen.

I think you have a hard-on for gunz, and bombz and armiiieezzz and soldierrzzz. Your understanding of power is totally wrong - a sword in a sheath is much more powerful than the one that's used regularly.

I really hope you never vocalise your opinions in real life. Your post made me cringe. Back to Call of Duty now...

efb wrote: »

I wholly (obviously) support men's rights too- the access rights being the main one

There's nothing very obvious about mentioning men's rights only when wishing to claim that you're not biased, while previously only focusing on women's rights and spending almost all your time on this thread attempting to dismiss or otherwise 'water down' any claim that men are discriminated against.

It's like those people who say "Obviously I'm not racist, but..."

jackofalltrades

poundapunnet wrote:

Can't find figures for Ireland unfortunately, but in America men over the age of 55 are the most likely to be pro-life, women more likely than men overall to be prochoice. If you think the situation regarding abortion here doesn't affect the average woman at some point in her lifetime, and if you think a male-dominated dáil has diddly squat to do with that, you are insane.

A poster on a thread in The Gentlemen's Club quoted an EU wide survey on social attitudes, where it showed women tended to have stronger pro-life views overall than compared to men. The margin was quite small anyway, I've searched for the post a view times but never managed to find it.

This is the closest I could find to a survey results breakdown by gender.(I know I would have a more neutral source)
http://prolifecampaign.ie/?page_id=2868

.“As we mark International Women's Day this week, it is interesting to note that more women than men support legal protection for the unborn child as shown in the recent poll by Millward Brown, commissioned by the Pro Life Campaign. The findings showed that 64% of women supported protection for the unborn as opposed to 62% of men.”

I think it's a myth the belief that if the Dáil had a gender balance, that more closely represented our society, that legislation on the X case would have been passed decades ago. Politicians are there at the behest of the electorate not their gender, they're servants to public opinion and special interest groups and nothing else.

tritium

poundapunnet wrote: »

I do get what you're saying, but two things. What usually happens in these situations is it starts with somebody saying we don't need feminism, someone points out an area where there's massive inequality in men's favour, and then some man with sand in his pants comes along and starts the whataboutery.

"Whataboutery": that wonderful catch all usually used to mean "my issue is to important to concern myself with your issues or concerns".

ted_dancin

their is no gender inequality in Ireland when it comes to pay as its against the law to pay someone less based on gender , race etc , that's very different of course from a particular male doctor being paid more than a particular female doctor , their may be many mitigating factors involved like time served etc , feminists are often very selective when it comes to the facts , understandable as they are pushing an agenda

travellers are also paid a lot less than most people yet its also illegal to pay a traveller less for prescribing you medicine in a surgery or representing you in court etc

inequality is very much subjective

jackofalltrades wrote: »

A poster on a thread in The Gentlemen's Club quoted an EU wide survey on social attitudes, where it showed women tended to have stronger pro-life views overall than compared to men. The margin was quite small anyway, I've searched for the post a view times but never managed to find it.

This is the closest I could find to a survey results breakdown by gender.(I know I would have a more neutral source)
http://prolifecampaign.ie/?page_id=2868

I think it's a myth the belief that if the Dáil had a gender balance, that more closely represented our society, that legislation on the X case would have been passed decades ago. Politicians are there at the behest of the electorate not their gender, they're servants to public opinion and special interest groups and nothing else.

That's very interesting! I'd always just assumed that the figures from the US would synch up with here. I don't think the legislation would have been passed decades ago, it'd have a better chance though.

tritium wrote: »

"Whataboutery": that wonderful catch all usually used to mean "my issue is to important to concern myself with your issues or concerns".

How wonderfully comprehensive a response to my post. Please let me introduce you to the concept of whatevery

[Deleted User]

B0jangles wrote: »

1. See garda stats by gender and rank in 2009 here:

http://i.imgur.com/eo2MMUo.jpg

Note that while you have 25% of gardaí being female at the lowest rank, the percentage tends to drop significantly the higher up in the ranks you go:

12% of Sergeants
7% Inspectors
5% Superintendents
6% Chief Superintendents
9% Assistant Commissioner
0% Deputy Dommissioner
And the Chief Commissioner is also a man

Have you got a timeline of new entrants by gender? Or do you think that new entrants get several promotions instantly? Or are you just being disingenuous?

2. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88546527&postcount=145

B0jangles wrote: »

In teaching women outnumber men and the lower levels, but the majority of senior positions are still held by men.

http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Se-Si-Gender-in-Irish-Education-Introduction-to-Chapter-9.pdf

Any stats for experience? Also the little fact that it's only in the last 10 years that many schools have been handed over by the brothers. Both my school now have female heads and the secondary school has a majority of year heads being women.

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, the parties choose who they want to put forward - if they choose only to put male candidates forward then the electorate has no choice but to vote for men only, or not to vote at all.

I'd never vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman, but I'd appreciate a wider choice of candidates - different ethnic backgrounds, genders - not an endless succession of Jim Jr, Pat Jr and Michael Jr , all from great political families don't you know...

As has been pointed out, and as I always point out, women make up a higher proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates so I can't see how the parties are holding them back. And women generally have the same success rate in getting elected as men.

poundapunnet wrote: »

If there are not equal numbers applying then WHY not? If you look at academia, why do faculties with a even split of genders graduating end up with a majority of the lecturing staff being male? Why does that happen even in faculties with a majority of students who are female? Maybe it's just that most women don't care to apply for nice jobs with good salaries? Or that they're not as good at them?

Why should there be equal numbers in everything? In my experience of college the vast majority of younger lecturers are female despite there being a close to 50/50 split in the class. Over in Arts it's all women.

Just like teaching is dominated by women, it's unlikely that the domination of fields like lecturing, hospital consulting, boards of management in the corporate world by men is just coincidental or something that can be reduced down to "they don't apply for it".

Probably more to do with less experience in general for women. As this changes (just like the civil service) that make-up of top positions will change.

hatrickpatrick

Dean0088 wrote: »

Well here's a reply from someone who doesn't agree with today's feminist movement.

I know I'm probably gonna be in the minority with this, particularly on the Internetzzzz, but I kind of agree with the feminists about porn...well...not ALL porn....but a lot of stuff. About a year ago I seen some porn that was made around the year 2000 and it was cheesy but kind of tasteful. As tasteful as two people humping in a purple upholstered limo can be. Whatever. If you go onto the homepage of PornHub nearly every thumbnail is of chicks being held in a way that suggests a level of force, pinned down etc... It's obviously faked but that's classed as 'normal'. Then there's the weird ****...

It's called BDSM, a lot of people are into it (myself included) and to be honest, if I hadn't found online groups to discuss it with others who are interested at a very young age, I would have grown up with a whole lot of unnecessary embarrassment and shame. As long as everyong being filmed has agreed to be and has agreed to what's in the video, it shouldn't be banned or censored.

Was on a 122 a couple of months ago. Load of lads aged 13/14 get on in school uniforms and immediately begin talking about fisting, deep throating girls etc... Their first encounter is either going to be a reality check or a rape charge. Its not that long since I was in their shoes but we didn't have high speed broadband at home (56k, wooo!), and barely anyone had laptops, the first iPhone was still a year or two away, so porn was a 200x400 pixel set of knockers loading for around a minute while listening for footsteps on the stairs.

My generation was exactly the same at that age and we all turned out fine with regard to relationships. Moreover, you can't censor the internet to protect one particular demographic. Do you ban pubs because of the possibility that kids might get in and order a drink?

I don't agree with censorship though. I can just see where they're coming from. Plus porn is killing the sex drive and mental health an entire generation of men.

I absolutely disagree with this. I think it's helped the mental health of a lot of people to be honest. Less sexual repression and embarrassment is a good thing for society in general.

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you got a timeline of new entrants by gender? Or do you think that new entrants get several promotions instantly? Or are you just being disingenuous?

Any stats for experience? Also the little fact that it's only in the last 10 years that many schools have been handed over by the brothers. Both my school now have female heads and the secondary school has a majority of year heads being women.

As has been pointed out, and as I always point out, women make up a higher proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates so I can't see how the parties are holding them back. And women generally have the same success rate in getting elected as men.

Why should there be equal numbers in everything? In my experience of college the vast majority of younger lecturers are female despite there being a close to 50/50 split in the class. Over in Arts it's all women.

Probably more to do with less experience in general for women. As this changes (just like the civil service) that make-up of top positions will change.

When I was reading up on the ratio of men to women in the Gardaí, I came across this thesis written by a serving guard for her Masters in Criminology.

Might be worth reading if you really are interested in hearing about the issues faced by women in the GS

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=aaschssldis

And on the topic of female representation in politics, I thought this was an interesting piece:

http://politicalreform.ie/2011/05/18/women-in-irish-politics-why-so-few-and-are-quotas-the-answer/

poundapunnet wrote: »

How wonderfully comprehensive a response to my post. Please let me introduce you to the concept of whatevery

'Whataboutary' appears to be an overused term at present.

I see the logic behind it, of course. If you start a thread on "women discriminated against in the work place" and some bloke butts in and points out "men discriminated against in the work place", then that is what 'whataboutary' was meant to describe - an attempted derailment of the discussion from the original topic.

Problem is, when you start a thread on "women more discriminated against in the work place than men" and some bloke butts in and points out how men are and perhaps this first claim is not true, then you'll still hear claims of 'whataboutary', despite the fact that it's actually a challenge to the premise of the original thread.

Yet even with clear cut cases of 'whataboutary', it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's there. All too often you'll have threads on how "women are the victims of domestic violence" that perpetuate the belief that only women can be the victims of domestic violence.

Unfortunately 'whataboutary' has become a means to censor dissent or distraction from feminist topics. Women are discriminated against, not people. Women are abused, not people. And if you attempt to correct this, then it's just 'whataboutary'.

Anyhow, 'whataboutary' or just plain disagree with feminism? Best get it out of your system quickly kids, as it could well be illegal before long.

tritium

poundapunnet wrote: »

That's very interesting! I'd always just assumed that the figures from the US would synch up with here. I don't think the legislation would have been passed decades ago, it'd have a better chance though.

How wonderfully comprehensive a response to my post. Please let me introduce you to the concept of whatevery

And since you seem so unwilling to consider the validty of others points, in return let me introduce you to the concept of ignorery

The Corinthian wrote: »

'Whataboutary' appears to be an overused term at present.

I see the logic behind it, of course. If you start a thread on "women discriminated against in the work place" and some bloke butts in and points out "men discriminated against in the work place", then that is what 'whataboutary' was meant to describe - an attempted derailment of the discussion from the original topic.

Problem is, when you start a thread on "women more discriminated against in the work place than men" and some bloke butts in and points out how men are and perhaps this first claim is not true, then you'll still hear claims of 'whataboutary', despite the fact that it's actually a challenge to the premise of the original thread.

Yet even with clear cut cases of 'whataboutary', it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's there. All too often you'll have threads on how "women are the victims of domestic violence" that perpetuate the belief that only women can be the victims of domestic violence.

Unfortunately 'whataboutary' has become a means to censor dissent or distraction from feminist topics. Women are discriminated against, not people. Women are abused, not people. And if you attempt to correct this, then it's just 'whataboutary'.

Anyhow, 'whataboutary' or just plain disagree with feminism? Best get it out of your system quickly kids, as it could well be illegal before long.

Your link is to A Voice For Men. It is a hateful site, its founder Paul Elam is a bully and a liar. He absolutely should be grouped with the disturbed woman in the OP.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam

http://manboobz.com/2014/01/06/a-voice-for-mens-paul-elam-finally-admits-that-hes-been-pocketing-an-unspecified-chunk-of-site-donations/comment-page-2/

I can't believe you don't see the irony in posting it in a thread talking about gender extremists.

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

'Whataboutary' appears to be an overused term at present.

I see the logic behind it, of course. If you start a thread on "women discriminated against in the work place" and some bloke butts in and points out "men discriminated against in the work place", then that is what 'whataboutary' was meant to describe - an attempted derailment of the discussion from the original topic.

I don't agree with this, but that's just me. To single out one gender's disadvantages where there's the potential that it is *not* a gender-specific issue )IE, both genders discriminated against in their own ways) is sexist.

It's a bit like when discussion of FGM comes up, but a poster is crucified for pointing out that a male baby's right to bodily autonomy doesn't gaerner nearly as emotive a response and questioning the reason for this particular sexist double standard. That can't be classed as wrong since it's an issue which effects both genders, and yet in only one case do you get massive political outcries, ad campaigns, etc.

B0jangles wrote: »

Your link is to A Voice For Men. It is a hateful site, its founder Paul Elam is a bully and a liar. He absolutely should be grouped with the disturbed woman in the OP.

I wanted to post a source for the proposed EU policy and that was the first link that Google threw up. Is that site the male equivalent of Jezebel.com then?

Still congratulations on focusing on the last line so as to dismiss an entire post. Nice one.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't agree with this, but that's just me. To single out one gender's disadvantages where there's the potential that it is *not* a gender-specific issue )IE, both genders discriminated against in their own ways) is sexist.

It's a bit like when discussion of FGM comes up, but a poster is crucified for pointing out that a male baby's right to bodily autonomy doesn't gaerner nearly as emotive a response and questioning the reason for this particular sexist double standard. That can't be classed as wrong since it's an issue which effects both genders, and yet in only one case do you get massive political outcries, ad campaigns, etc.

Actually, I do concede that point later in my post.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wanted to post a source for the proposed EU policy and that was the first link that Google threw up. Is that site the male equivalent of Jezebel.com then?

Still congratulations on focusing on the last line so as to dismiss an entire post. Nice one.

Actually, I do concede that point later in my post.

I remember your posts in previous threads on anything remotely to do with feminism, so I don't really feel like retreading that tired old ground.

B0jangles wrote: »

I remember your posts in previous threads on anything remotely to do with feminism, so I don't really feel like retreading that tired old ground.

If you really didn't feel like "retreading that tired old ground", you wouldn't have posted in the first place, not posted then indignantly refuse to engage after it's been pointed out that you're using dishonest discussion tactics?

Balaclava1991

Plus porn is killing the sex drive and mental health an entire generation of men.

Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing.