Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[Des-Bal]

Right, totally agreeing with what TJ says doesn't actually mean you agree with what TJ says.

Agreeing with something someone says doesn't mean agreeing with everything someone says. Hence; Hitler ate sugar.

[AiliailiA]

(Here's where Tahar Joblis tries to interest me in a self-selected study of men claiming high rates of violence against them by women, and brushes aside crime report figures as "men are ashamed to report violence by women".)

Oh, I'm not going to claim that men aren't the primary perpetrators of anti-male violence. It's not generically true over the bloody history of humanity, and it doesn't look like it's locally true right now.

If you take crime report figures at their flat value, men being attacked by other men, mainly outside of intimate relationships, is the primary mode of interpersonal violence, followed by women being attacked by men, then men being attacked by women, then women being attacked by women, the middle two modes happening mainly inside of intimate relationships.

If you adjust for the fact that men tend to underreport victimization by women... that doesn't change the figures nearly enough. All I'm saying is that those last three categories are actually a lot closer together than they seem from crime reports; I also see the nature of the problem as different. Recognizing and acknowledging abuse as being abuse goes a long way towards stopping it.

You've located the overlap of my opinion with your own very accurately. There isn't a word there I disagree with.

Bah. Let's see what Zephie has been posting in the meantime

[Des-Bal]

Looks like Chorozon disappeared immediately after I asked him to point to a specific instance of me being misogynist in any fashion (for the third time) so I'm going to go ahead and restate my challenge.

Chorozon: I hereby submit that I am a feminist and that I support total equality under the law for women. I also submit that the reason you continue levying accusations that I am a misogynist is because you are incapable of decoupling the ideas of someone disagreeing with you in any fashion and someone displaying irrational hatred of women. I challenge you to point to a specific instance of me being misogynist and if you are incapable of doing so abandon the premise that I am.

If you ever in any thread and any context make that pejorative accusation again I am going to direct you to this post and say nothing further.

[Forsher]

TJ is still pretending like a letter and two opinion pieces are evidence of a massive feminist conspiracy while continuing to repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Bobbit is somehow a folk hero (three opinion pieces don't make someone a folk hero), and Des-Bal is pretending like men are oppressed by big bad women.

Aaaaand this thread is now like all the other worthless threads Hairballs and his cabal infest.

Shame, there was actually decent discussion going on for a bit.

EDIT: Seriously Hairballs, the fact that you can say with a straight face that a letter to the editor makes the claim that a majority of feminists see Bobbit as a hero "debatable" shows just how intellectually bereft your posts and your claims are. You managed to produce a journal article, too. Good for you. I can produce journal articles saying that the Holocaust never happened. Yes, I am saying your claim is as intellectually respectable as Holocaust denial. Thats how much I respect you.

At least he bothers to defend what he says instead of saying a whole lot of things without explanation and then not defending them when challenged on said points. This is a behaviour that Chronzon has displayed in the very recent past. And in case you think he didn't see the post... well, it was kind of hard to miss (there's only one post left after it on that page). That said, he may just have quit the thread... he has no further posts, still that's arguably the same thing.

I dub this behaviour (from now) "claim and run". I'm not saying that Chronzon never sticks around, he does (stick around), but it is something that he does do.

That's a direct quote from the letter, not my own words. She has been described as a feminist folk hero; a number of so-called feminists have indeed defended her, even praised her.

Most? Debatable. Certainly the author of that letter was one, and she was not alone. But it's worth pointing out there are two senses of not criminal.

First, there is the idea that she did a good or justified thing. That's Valerie Solanas territory on the face of it; but also includes assertions of self-defense that sound reasonable until you realize that a penis is not exactly a pistol and a passed out man not exactly an imminent threat.

Second, there is the idea that while she did wrong, it was a wrong that she was driven to; she lacked agency, and was forced to commit her act by her husband's abuse. Lacking agency, she lacked responsibility; and lacking responsibility, she was not a criminal, but merely a victim.

The latter view is almost certainly more common than the former view, although I've provided proof of the existence of the former.

Three instances of a letter to the editor or editorial published in the New York Times, which isn't just taking any random wingnut. A thread on cafemom.com [not exactly a weird place, just mostly female] commenting on a more recent place, with the bulk of comments supportive of the idea of chopping penises off in response to infidelity. A panel full of commentators on a TV show on a major television show, commenting on a more recent case and laughing their asses off in grand misandrist fashion as they speculate on what he did to deserve it and crack jokes about it.

That is a pattern. There is a real anti-male vein of violent hostility, and an idea that it's OK to perpetrate violence on men. That if a woman perpetrates violence on a man, he must have done something to deserve it. As is seen in this treatment of her case. As is seen in virtually all coverage of all penis-chopping incidents ever - a chorus of people searching to find a way to blame the victim.

I'm not making up the idea that Lorena Bobbitt is described as a feminist folk hero. I can produce as many links verifying that as you want. Seriously. How many newspapers and magazines contemporary to the event do you want talking about how her act received applause from a significant segment of women, including a number of feminists? Perhaps you would like to see the positive reaction from a number of feminists described in an academic journal?

Now, there were objections, but let's not pretend that the editorials and letters to the editor in the NYT didn't represent a very real vein of opinion. It did. Some said she was striking back against abuse, marital rape, etc. Others said she was jealous and vindictive and chopped off his penis because she thought he cheated on him.

well she isn't a criminal. you know who else agreed with her? the jury.

Really? Yes, I see.

I have a feeling the prosecutor wasn't the best. Also, she was insane... literally, that was the argument.

Being a white male sucks.

you know what I hate most about it? not getting maternity leave.

Move to Germany, there's something similar.

Met a German couple taking advantage of it a few years ago (2009 or 2010).

If you ever get caught in a fire or other disaster (which I wish to no one) and you see a 5'2" 125 pounds, firewoman come to drag you out... you will appreciate your right to be equally toasted, so much better than the right to be actually saved.

The problem there is the 5'2 125 pound bit not the woman bit. We have the tendency to think of woman to intrinsicly mean a dainty woman. I've known women who were more than qualified to carry a two hundred pound man on their shoulders.

It depends what's going into the body and also the technique.

One of my shortest friends is perfectly capable of giving a taller and probably heavier friend a piggy back for at least a couple of metres (I'm not sure why he stopped carrying him).

what kind of weirdo puts up a poster advocating civil rights for men? I thought we always had them?

The same people advocating for a "white history month." What they fail to realize is that every month is white history month.

I doubt it.

Let's see... yep, spent a term last year learning about the Black Civil Rights Movement in the US. Not only have I never met an African-American it's a different bloody country!

Then we did Apartheid and how it divided New Zealand in 1981.

Of course, we also did the causes of WWII and then this year we've had terrorism (most people in that unit probably weren't described as white that often), the Vietnam War (most of them were Asian) and finally the Nazis (to be fair, most of them were white). In conclusion, it's FOREIGN PEOPLE HISTORY BUT THAT IS OKAY BECAUSE NEW ZEALAND IS BORING AND I HATE THE TOTALLY MAORI-BIASED PERSPECTIVE OF NEW ZELAND HISTORY* AND NEXT YEAR WE GET TO LOOK AT INTERESTING CULTURES LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE LONG DEAD AND FOREIGN STUARTS.

I say you're wrong. Other schools also do terrorism, the Amritsar Massacre (more foreigners) and the Suffragette Movement, as it relates to New Zealand BECAUSE WE GAVE WOMEN THE VOTE SO GET STUFFED REST OF THE WORLD BECAUSE WE WILL NEVER EVER LET YOU FORGET. Which, sadly, sums up NZ's view of post-Vietnam War International Relations PRETTY DAMN WELL.

*Basically it comes down to Edward Gibbon Wakefield was a bit of a dick (he was), Hobson and co. couldn't spell (but that's okay because neither could the Maori prior to European missionaries coming along, except that bit is left out and it is a really important consideration when it comes to explaining why stuff happens) and we were damn unfair and pretty rotten buggers who do not deserved guaranteed representation based on ethnicity like the Maori even though THAT DAMN TREATY specifically states that Maori will be equal with Brits. Did I mention Treaty Values is the latest in a long line of meaningless but everyday expressions?

That said, I have obviously not done NZ history for a bit but next year we will so I am fully prepared to correct that as necessary. I forgot to mention that I focussed on New Zealand and the North African Campaign last year and New Zealand in the Vietnam War this year so... well, that may not be strictly true.

Source please.

It's satire. What the fuck...?

Not done very well, no offence... it was too subtle and the satire lacked the bite it really needed. Remember the audience. These are people actively choosing to talk about a very iffy OP on a pretty repetitive topic.

Also, it's NSG... it's perfectly commonplace to find that sort of thing made entirely seriously.

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

I somehow doubt there are very many cases of that. It's a pretty bloody stupid motive.

Ooh! It's a woman.
Aargh! Save me from this random violence against women!
Actually, this is a mugging.
Carry on then.

"Men are more often victims of violence than women; therefore violence against men is a bigger problem than violence against women" is pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, when people talk about "violence against women," they're not referring to acts of violence where the victim merely happens to be a woman. Instead, what they mean is acts of violence committed upon women specifically or primarily because the victim is a woman--i.e. the simple fact of the victim's being a woman is the cause for the act of violence.

Uh what? "Oh look, there's a woman. I gotta punch her, be right back."

I've been beaten to the punch.

I'm too funny. That said, I say mine is better, being me.

You seem to have a short memory, I'm a feminist. I'm not saying men are being oppressed by women I'm saying that inequality is harmful regardless of who it happen to. You have on several occasions accused me of being misogynist: This is me calling you out, point out a specific time this has happened or shut your mouth.

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

The People: Define misogyny.
Chronzon: Anything that disagrees with something TJ says.
TJ: Give women the vote.

The People now laugh at Chronzon's definition, being fully convinced that his definition is stupid, contrary to established opinion (even if the Macquarie dictionary is updating their's) and a total cop out.

Just covering myself there... my problem is with the definition of misogyny presented by, or implicated by, Chronzon in this quoted post.

Hitler ate sugar. Try again.

Right, totally agreeing with what TJ says doesn't actually mean you agree with what TJ says.

Hitler's evil.
Hitler ate sugar.
Therefore, Sugar is evil.

That's what he is saying.

Hitler's evil.
Hitler ate sugar.
HItler ate sugar.

That's what you want him to be saying.

Hitler's evil.
Hitler ate sugar.
Sometimes evil people eat sugar.

That's what we should be saying.

What you are saying in what you have written follows.

I will prove that Des-Bal is a misogynist.
Go on then.
TJ is a misogynist.
So?
Des-Ball agrees with TJ. Therefore, Des-Bal is a misogynist.
Okay...

To source this.

The challenge is:

You have on several occasions accused me of being misogynist: This is me calling you out, point out a specific time this has happened or shut your mouth.

In other words, provide evidence of misogynistic behaviour on Des-Bal's part.

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

In other words, anything TJ says is misogynistic so because you agree with anything he says you are indulging in misogynistic behaviour.

I just went through and edited out the Chronozon spelling which sounds better than Chronzon because I keep adding an "o" to Chronzon's name.

[Frisivisia]

Right, totally agreeing with what TJ says doesn't actually mean you agree with what TJ says.

Agreeing with something someone says doesn't mean agreeing with everything someone says. Hence; Hitler ate sugar.

Hitler didn't eat sugar. Splenda-eating bastard.

[AiliailiA]

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

The People: Define misogyny.
Chronozon: Anything that disagrees with something TJ says.
TJ: Give women the vote.

The People now laugh at Chronozon's definition, being fully convinced that his definition is stupid, contrary to established opinion (even if the Macquarie dictionary is updating their's)

I heard about that. Like modern usage is defined by what is said in Parliament.

Totally whack if you don't mind me saying so. Does "unrepresentative swill" now mean "honorable members" ?

and a total cop out.

Just covering myself there... my problem is with the definition of misogyny presented by, or implicated by, Chronozon in this quoted post.

[AiliailiA]

Agreeing with something someone says doesn't mean agreeing with everything someone says. Hence; Hitler ate sugar.

Hitler didn't eat sugar. Splenda-eating bastard.

Vile dictator follows doctor's orders. But of course we're not supposed to laugh at Hitler.

[Novairia]

God bless... Wait, Canada?!

I didn't know the Canadians could destroy anything. Well other than white house, but that was almost 200 years ago.

We have to test destruction on a small scale every once in a while. You know, keeps us in practice just in case of round 2.

**EDIT: Keep the posters coming! Keep putting them up!**

[The UK in Exile]

TJ is still pretending like a letter and two opinion pieces are evidence of a massive feminist conspiracy while continuing to repeated the unsubstantiated claim that Bobbit is somehow a folk hero (three opinion pieces don't make someone a folk hero), and Des-Bal is pretending like men are oppressed by big bad women.

Aaaaand this thread is now like all the other worthless threads Hairballs and his cabal infest.

Shame, there was actually decent discussion going on for a bit.

EDIT: Seriously Hairballs, the fact that you can say with a straight face that a letter to the editor makes the claim that a majority of feminists see Bobbit as a hero "debatable" shows just how intellectually bereft your posts and your claims are. You managed to produce a journal article, too. Good for you. I can produce journal articles saying that the Holocaust never happened. Yes, I am saying your claim is as intellectually respectable as Holocaust denial. Thats how much I respect you.

At least he bothers to defend what he says instead of saying a whole lot of things without explanation and then not defending them when challenged on said points. This is a behaviour that Chronozon has displayed in the very recent past. And in case you think he didn't see the post... well, it was kind of hard to miss (there's only one post left after it on that page). That said, he may just have quit the thread... he has no further posts, still that's arguably the same thing.

one side making shit up and one side not bothering.

[Forsher]

At least he bothers to defend what he says instead of saying a whole lot of things without explanation and then not defending them when challenged on said points. This is a behaviour that Chronozon has displayed in the very recent past. And in case you think he didn't see the post... well, it was kind of hard to miss (there's only one post left after it on that page). That said, he may just have quit the thread... he has no further posts, still that's arguably the same thing.

one side making shit up and one side not bothering.

Suitably ambiguous that.

[New Edom]

The incident provides more proof that feminism is a movement without a moral compass. Consider the basic responses:

1. No True Scotsman type arguments.

2. The posters weren't about men's rights--they were just attacking WOMEN!

Now of course there are lots of ideologies that have responded this way to accusations about people within their movements. For example: the hand washing done by the Roman Catholic Church about pedophile priests, the hand washing done by evangelical christian leaders about homophobia and domestic violence. This always tarnishes the reputation of the ideology in question. It doesn't matter at that point how many charities they have, how many schools in impoverished areas they've started. It makes their reputations suffer because their leaders show a reluctance to admit to wrongdoing on the part of people who are part of their movement.

It's the same thing here. The only response that makes sense is to say "Freedom of speech for one is freedom of speech for all," or words to that effect. It doesn't matter WHY someone would dislike the posters, what matters is the character the ideology's leaders demonstrate. Thus far they have demonstrated none whatsoever concerning this issue.

[Galloism]

You seem to have a short memory, I'm a feminist. I'm not saying men are being oppressed by women I'm saying that inequality is harmful regardless of who it happen to. You have on several occasions accused me of being misogynist: This is me calling you out, point out a specific time this has happened or shut your mouth.

Well, the fact that you agree with anything Hairballs says, for starters.

What I find hysterical, and I do mean it mostly in a "wow, really?" sort of way, is that you refer to "everything tahar says" as misogynistic.

So, I did a brief search of Tahar's posting history, and I came up with these recent posts...

Similarly campaigns against domestic violence, rape prevention etc. target women because women are statistically more likely to be victims of this kind of violence.

Except that they aren't. Not unless you want to ignore [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]all the data putting them at parity or near-parity

Tahar Joblis corrected a sexist belief, that men are much less likely to be victims of domestic violence and rape. He stated that men and women are approximately equal in this regard.

Then, next post regarding equality between men and women, he makes a statement of belief...

I just see it this way: we live in a discriminatory society. Both men and women are discriminated against. In different ways, but discrimination nevertheless.

Agreed. I think we need to work against discrimination in all its forms.

Then, with regard to feminists...

5. The Seneca Falls document quote doesn't say that women should get everything in divorce courts. If that wasn't your point, feel free to correct me.

It doesn't say that. This was simply the end product of first wave feminism's efforts after several generations of work on the issue.

The point is that blaming the patriarchy for the legal tradition that women receive default custody of children [and/or property] - which is no longer a de jure reality, although there's some argument over whether or not that tradition persists de facto in the biases of family court - is incorrect.

1. Claiming there would be no war if women ran the world would be opposed as sexist by the vast majority of feminists.

I'm not sure. It certainly has been claimed by a number of supposed feminists. Usually not the most intellectually credible ones, but it's a popular myth that keeps popping back up.

2. "Public paranoia about sex between adult males" stems from religious conservatism. Only a few relatively marginal feminists opposed male homosexuality.

Historically speaking, the recent surge of public paranoia about adult males and children, which was my point in referring to the exit of men from teaching and the difficulty men currently face in engaging in child-nurturing behavior, is due to feminism.

You're treating both patriarchy and feminism as monolithic, when there have been different patriarchies and different feminisms in history.

Since I feel that there are very different patriarchies and very different feminisms - to the point where different feminists have had outright contradictory goals, even within the same vein, e.g., NOW in the seventies endorsing joint physical custody and NOW today working against joint physical custody - I'm not sure how you get the idea I'm treating them as monolithic.

He said that feminism is not monolithic, and, in fact, makes many contradictory efforts and claims, even within the same feminist organizations over time. That's not misogynistic. It's simply a statement of fact.

Before that, he did that large OP on whether the patriarchy is meaningful which was not hateful or discriminatory against women, but an indictment of feminist arguers and their method of blaming things on the patriarchy with scant proof that it's actually connected or even a good description of what the patriarchy is and isn't responsible for.

Then there was a long ass argument about whom child support was actually, in practicality, owed. I was involved in that one, so I'm probably not the most objective judge of what is and isn't "misogynistic" with regard to that.


I'm not going to go through the thousands of Tahar's posts searching for misogyny, but there's none recent, unless saying that women and men are very similar in all kinds of violent and disgusting ways that they're thought to be different is hateful to women. If that's the case, well, that tells a lot about the misandry commonly felt towards men.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not going to go through the thousands of Tahar's posts searching for misogyny, but there's none recent, unless saying that women and men are very similar in all kinds of violent and disgusting ways that they're thought to be different is hateful to women. If that's the case, well, that tells a lot about the misandry commonly felt towards men.

Choronzon has called me misogynist before. I denied the characterization; Choronzon was unable to point to anything other than the fact that I had started a thread critical of the idea that men are a universally privileged class.

Basically, I am called a misogynist for one of three reasons:

• First, I am a man and questioned a treasured article of feminist dogma for whatever version of feminism the name-caller subscribes to, e.g., the myth that only 2% of all accusations of rape filed are false accusations.
• Second, I describe women as being very much like men, e.g., in saying women are not much less likely to engage in sexual coercion.
• Third, I suggest we should offer equal legal protection of the law to men, e.g., in defining rape.

When it comes to the first item, I'm a victim of female privilege. If I were a woman, I'd be allowed to question a treasured article of feminist dogma without being called a misogynist. I might not find much agreement and might be called a gender traitor by more extreme respondents, but generally not a misogynist.

When it comes to the second and third items... Galloism has what I suspect is the correct insight: You view what I'm saying as misogynist if you think that men are such horrible people that treating men and women as if they are similar and should be treated the same is a grave injustice to women. Or, in other words, you come from misandrist premises.

Same thing with the posters in question in the OP. These posters: 1 2

The posters are asking that we simply not discriminate against men and work to end violence against men, just as we work to end violence against women. That's all. One of them is snarky, one of them is straight, and yet some people found both offensive and angrily ripped them down. To say "men's rights are human rights" is somehow misogynist. To imply that we've failed male victims of violence by ignoring them is somehow misogynist.

I disagree with that characterization, and I think when people make that mischaracterization, it says something bad about them.

[SanctusEmpire]

I'm not going to go through the thousands of Tahar's posts searching for misogyny, but there's none recent, unless saying that women and men are very similar in all kinds of violent and disgusting ways that they're thought to be different is hateful to women. If that's the case, well, that tells a lot about the misandry commonly felt towards men.

Choronzon has called me misogynist before. I denied the characterization; Choronzon was unable to point to anything other than the fact that I had started a thread critical of the idea that men are a universally privileged class.

Basically, I am called a misogynist for one of three reasons:

• First, I am a man and questioned a treasured article of feminist dogma for whatever version of feminism the name-caller subscribes to, e.g., the myth that only 2% of all accusations of rape filed are false accusations.
• Second, I describe women as being very much like men, e.g., in saying women are not much less likely to engage in sexual coercion.
• Third, I suggest we should offer equal legal protection of the law to men, e.g., in defining rape.

When it comes to the first item, I'm a victim of female privilege. If I were a woman, I'd be allowed to question a treasured article of feminist dogma without being called a misogynist. I might not find much agreement and might be called a gender traitor by more extreme respondents, but generally not a misogynist.

When it comes to the second and third items... Galloism has what I suspect is the correct insight: You view what I'm saying as misogynist if you think that men are such horrible people that treating men and women as if they are similar and should be treated the same is a grave injustice to women. Or, in other words, you come from misandrist premises.

Same thing with the posters in question in the OP. These posters: 1 2

The posters are asking that we simply not discriminate against men and work to end violence against men, just as we work to end violence against women. That's all. One of them is snarky, one of them is straight, and yet some people found both offensive and angrily ripped them down. To say "men's rights are human rights" is somehow misogynist. To imply that we've failed male victims of violence by ignoring them is somehow misogynist.

I disagree with that characterization, and I think when people make that mischaracterization, it says something bad about them.

I agree, Many of these women have been victims of misogynist behaviour and they are simply venting. Its like two sides of the same coin a little but where the coin tends to land in favour of men more. Theres no denying that men are victims of discrimination too but to get all upset over this issue is a little bit gay dont yall think? Women have had the bad end of the stick for quite a while now so if there are those men here who are raising their fists in uproar over this then maybe they should be advocating the abolishment of women having the vote and denying them education.

I have a bigger issue with little rascals tagging everywhere!!! I advocate chasing the little bastards down and giving them a damn good beating!!!

[Novus Niciae]

I don't even get all the feminism vs masculism bullshit.
Why can't we just be both?
I mean, if you advocate equal rights for both genders through advocating women's rights (feminism) and you also advocate equal rights for both genders through advocating men's rights (masculism) both at the same time how the fuck could you be considered some sort of bigot?

Because feminazis are jealous of the success a lot of men have, so they turn to using hate and discrimination to try to get things their way and get a handicap under the guise of affirmative action. Just more hypocritical liberal bullshit.

I would say it is more likely that they are deep cover conservatives deliberately sabotaging the credibility of the feminist movement. Because that is the overall effect they are having.

[New Edom]

Choronzon has called me misogynist before. I denied the characterization; Choronzon was unable to point to anything other than the fact that I had started a thread critical of the idea that men are a universally privileged class.

Basically, I am called a misogynist for one of three reasons:

• First, I am a man and questioned a treasured article of feminist dogma for whatever version of feminism the name-caller subscribes to, e.g., the myth that only 2% of all accusations of rape filed are false accusations.
• Second, I describe women as being very much like men, e.g., in saying women are not much less likely to engage in sexual coercion.
• Third, I suggest we should offer equal legal protection of the law to men, e.g., in defining rape.

When it comes to the first item, I'm a victim of female privilege. If I were a woman, I'd be allowed to question a treasured article of feminist dogma without being called a misogynist. I might not find much agreement and might be called a gender traitor by more extreme respondents, but generally not a misogynist.

When it comes to the second and third items... Galloism has what I suspect is the correct insight: You view what I'm saying as misogynist if you think that men are such horrible people that treating men and women as if they are similar and should be treated the same is a grave injustice to women. Or, in other words, you come from misandrist premises.

Same thing with the posters in question in the OP. These posters: 1 2

The posters are asking that we simply not discriminate against men and work to end violence against men, just as we work to end violence against women. That's all. One of them is snarky, one of them is straight, and yet some people found both offensive and angrily ripped them down. To say "men's rights are human rights" is somehow misogynist. To imply that we've failed male victims of violence by ignoring them is somehow misogynist.

I disagree with that characterization, and I think when people make that mischaracterization, it says something bad about them.

I agree, Many of these women have been victims of misogynist behaviour and they are simply venting. Its like two sides of the same coin a little but where the coin tends to land in favour of men more. Theres no denying that men are victims of discrimination too but to get all upset over this issue is a little bit gay dont yall think? Women have had the bad end of the stick for quite a while now so if there are those men here who are raising their fists in uproar over this then maybe they should be advocating the abolishment of women having the vote and denying them education.

I have a bigger issue with little rascals tagging everywhere!!! I advocate chasing the little bastards down and giving them a damn good beating!!!

I'm sorry but honestly--when you say 'the bad end of the stick' you make it sound like we're talking about Afghanistan or something. Feminists do not deserve a get out of jail free card from bad behaviour. No one does--just because you for example had a rotten childhood doesn't mean you get the right to trash the property of people who resemble your parents.

[SanctusEmpire]

I agree, Many of these women have been victims of misogynist behaviour and they are simply venting. Its like two sides of the same coin a little but where the coin tends to land in favour of men more. Theres no denying that men are victims of discrimination too but to get all upset over this issue is a little bit gay dont yall think? Women have had the bad end of the stick for quite a while now so if there are those men here who are raising their fists in uproar over this then maybe they should be advocating the abolishment of women having the vote and denying them education.

I have a bigger issue with little rascals tagging everywhere!!! I advocate chasing the little bastards down and giving them a damn good beating!!!

I'm sorry but honestly--when you say 'the bad end of the stick' you make it sound like we're talking about Afghanistan or something. Feminists do not deserve a get out of jail free card from bad behaviour. No one does--just because you for example had a rotten childhood doesn't mean you get the right to trash the property of people who resemble your parents.

If they have broken laws as a result of their actions then they should be held accountable. Was it public property? whats the penalty for defacing public property? I know, lets physically slap them in the face. Private property? well lets look at economic detriment here. They ripped some posters I know! Lets physically slap them in the face again and impose the cost of replacing those posters on them shall we. Are these not plausible and realistic responses to their actions? Or would you prefer we take it to a higher court where the taxpayer will pay thousands if not millions.

Afghanistan? Christ mate you taking it that far?

[New Edom]

I'm sorry but honestly--when you say 'the bad end of the stick' you make it sound like we're talking about Afghanistan or something. Feminists do not deserve a get out of jail free card from bad behaviour. No one does--just because you for example had a rotten childhood doesn't mean you get the right to trash the property of people who resemble your parents.

If they have broken laws as a result of their actions then they should be held accountable. Was it public property? whats the penalty for defacing public property? I know, lets physically slap them in the face. Private property? well lets look at economic detriment here. They ripped some posters I know! Lets physically slap them in the face again and impose the cost of replacing those posters on them shall we. Are these not plausible and realistic responses to their actions? Or would you prefer we take it to a higher court where the taxpayer will pay thousands if not millions.

Afghanistan? Christ mate you taking it that far?

What I'm saying is that Canada is hardly Afghanistan. All that is being said is that they shouldn't have done it. But wait, you're right. Feminists shouldn't be held accountable in any way for their actions, and to imply that they should means that we want to slap them in the face, rather than simply say "they shouldn't have done this, it show's a crappy attitude."

[SanctusEmpire]

If they have broken laws as a result of their actions then they should be held accountable. Was it public property? whats the penalty for defacing public property? I know, lets physically slap them in the face. Private property? well lets look at economic detriment here. They ripped some posters I know! Lets physically slap them in the face again and impose the cost of replacing those posters on them shall we. Are these not plausible and realistic responses to their actions? Or would you prefer we take it to a higher court where the taxpayer will pay thousands if not millions.

Afghanistan? Christ mate you taking it that far?

What I'm saying is that Canada is hardly Afghanistan. All that is being said is that they shouldn't have done it. But wait, you're right. Feminists shouldn't be held accountable in any way for their actions, and to imply that they should means that we want to slap them in the face, rather than simply say "they shouldn't have done this, it show's a crappy attitude."

No they shouldnt have ripped those posters up, that flys in the face of free speech in a democracy. But they did so they must be held accountable according to democratic justice. Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament and we celebrate HIM to this day. Friday the 13th was the day the Knights Templar were brutally disbanded and yet we have found a way to celebrate that event. Do we have a holiday or societal event that celebrates burning witches at the stake? No we dont!

My point is this, These women were venting and I am man enough to let it go because I live in a democratic society in 2012 where I have allowed myself to evolve in my acceptance of women and their rights as equals in comparison to the views and attitudes of my grandfathers generation. I am not intimidated by women neither do I have a superioty complex with women quite the contrary actually. They are sexual arts of work

[The UK in Exile]

What I'm saying is that Canada is hardly Afghanistan. All that is being said is that they shouldn't have done it. But wait, you're right. Feminists shouldn't be held accountable in any way for their actions, and to imply that they should means that we want to slap them in the face, rather than simply say "they shouldn't have done this, it show's a crappy attitude."

No they shouldnt have ripped those posters up, that flys in the face of free speech in a democracy. But they did so they must be held accountable according to democratic justice. Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament and we celebrate HIM to this day. Friday the 13th was the day the Knights Templar were brutally disbanded and yet we have found a way to celebrate that event. Do we have a holiday or societal event that celebrates burning witches at the stake? No we dont!

My point is this, These women were venting and I am man enough to let it go because I live in a democratic society in 2012 where I have allowed myself to evolve in my acceptance of women and their rights as equals in comparison to the views and attitudes of my grandfathers generation. I am not intimidated by women neither do I have a superioty complex with women quite the contrary actually. They are sexual arts of work

actually we celebrate the fact that guy fawkes was caught and hung.

[New Rogernomics]

I oppose feminism, because I support Gender Neutrality. Feminists divide society into notions of male and female genders and in doing so re-enforce and support gender stereotypes. Being gender neutral means men and women are treated as equal, rather than different.

Gender neutrality (adjective form: gender-neutral) describes the idea that language and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing people by their gender, in order to avoid discrimination arising from the impression that there are social roles for which one gender is more suited than the other. A common example occurs in the opposition to gender-specific job titles such as stewardess and policeman in favor of terms that do not convey gender such as flight attendant and police officer.

[SanctusEmpire]

No they shouldnt have ripped those posters up, that flys in the face of free speech in a democracy. But they did so they must be held accountable according to democratic justice. Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament and we celebrate HIM to this day. Friday the 13th was the day the Knights Templar were brutally disbanded and yet we have found a way to celebrate that event. Do we have a holiday or societal event that celebrates burning witches at the stake? No we dont!

My point is this, These women were venting and I am man enough to let it go because I live in a democratic society in 2012 where I have allowed myself to evolve in my acceptance of women and their rights as equals in comparison to the views and attitudes of my grandfathers generation. I am not intimidated by women neither do I have a superioty complex with women quite the contrary actually. They are sexual arts of work

actually we celebrate the fact that guy fawkes was caught and hung.

By ingniting explosions

[Genocidonia]

ABLOOHOO POOR MEN WE ARE SO OPPRESSED

Don't stop at destroying the posters, beat whoever put them up

[Nidaria]

Since when did feminists care about anyone except women?

[Genocidonia]

Since when did feminists care about anyone except women?

Man, it's almost as if these feminists focus on women's issues!

Hey, how can you be a right winger and still care about morality? Doesn't capitalism degenerate societal values into something like a culture of atomistic hedonism? Aren't the virtues of capitalism contrary to Christianity in every way? How can you even be religious if you don't think society exists?