Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[Frisivisia]

Look at the title of this thread.

The thread title is stupid and doesn't effect whether or not the organization is sexist.
I could title a thread "Alien gives speech" and then give a post about Obama, but it wouldn't make him a xenomorph.

Congratulations, you win the "totally not giving a fuck about what people are actually saying" award!

[The Truth and Light]

Also, fuck the absolutely ridiculous, shameful, disgusting implication that domestic violence is just an inevitable fact of life and not a serious social problem that should be addressed. Ugh.

Fucking preach.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, fuck the absolutely ridiculous, shameful, disgusting implication that domestic violence is just an inevitable fact of life and not a serious social problem that should be addressed. Ugh.

I agree. That was a strange choice of words. Especially when domestic violence effects both genders.

[Cosara]

It does not matter how many rights you give women, domestic violence will always be there. These feminists claim that they are being repressed and don't have equal rights. I am asking for ONE case of them not having equal rights and ONE case of them being repressed.

Maybe the whole "not voting until 1920" thing, or the fact that even now many are hell-bent on making sure women don't have rights to their own bodies.

1) I mean MODERN case of them being repressed and not having the same rights.

2) As far as I remember, Abortions are still legal in ALL 50 states.

[Ostroeuropa]

The thread title is stupid and doesn't effect whether or not the organization is sexist.
I could title a thread "Alien gives speech" and then give a post about Obama, but it wouldn't make him a xenomorph.

Congratulations, you win the "totally not giving a fuck about what people are actually saying" award!

How?
I asked for evidence that the group is misogynistic.
He said "Thread title."
If I asked for evidence that Obama is an alien, saying "Thread title" would be equally stupid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sometimes, violence is necessary. But sometimes it isn't.

I am Latino, so I don't have any such "white privilege", if anything I am prone to harsh discrimination by anti-immigration assholes. However, because I am, I don't know, respectful, people tend to make an exception; those why are complete assholes just because I am Latino are not worth my attention. I may argue against it, but they are not worth my attention so much I am going to go and pull this kind of things off on a Neo-Nazi or Anti-Immigration campus meeting.

What, protesting?

No, pulling alarms off and telling them to fuck off.

They are stupid, and therefore not worth my salt. However, let them be idiots, people are always going to be idiots and you can only change so many people. Violence isn't the answer in many cases, but in some cases it is justified. Plus, by letting them be a complete bunch of morons and criticizing them instead of directly confronting them and using illegal actions (like pulling alarms off) against them, you are making a better impression than this.

[Frisivisia]

Maybe the whole "not voting until 1920" thing, or the fact that even now many are hell-bent on making sure women don't have rights to their own bodies.

1) I mean MODERN case of them being repressed and not having the same rights.

2) As far as I remember, Abortions are still legal in ALL 50 states.

1) 1920 is modern.

2) Not in North Dakota or Kansas (until the courts strike their shit down), and it's all but impossible in many red states.

[Cosara]

Congratulations, you win the "totally not giving a fuck about what people are actually saying" award!

How?
I asked for evidence that the group is misogynistic.
He said "Thread title."
If I asked for evidence that Obama is an alien, saying "Thread title" would be equally stupid.

For once, I side with Ostroeuropa.

[Avaerilon]

It does not matter how many rights you give women, domestic violence will always be there. These feminists claim that they are being repressed and don't have equal rights. I am asking for ONE case of them not having equal rights and ONE case of them being repressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

I could name several million more, but come ON.

I think we're talking about Western nations, where laws have been enacted to give women more rights than in the past. It's in these nations that the biggest genuine case for the MRM is, since some of the laws have gone too far in trying to do a good thing, and some laws that protect women don't afford any protection for men. There are also some obviously sexist laws that discriminate against men in numerous Western nations. That said, there are male rights issues in non-Western nations,just as there still are female rights issues in Western nations.

[Frisivisia]

Congratulations, you win the "totally not giving a fuck about what people are actually saying" award!

How?
I asked for evidence that the group is misogynistic.
He said "Thread title."
If I asked for evidence that Obama is an alien, saying "Thread title" would be equally stupid.

He was saying that the sentiment displayed in the thread title was an example of the misogyny displayed all too often in the "Men's Rights" movement.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, fuck the absolutely ridiculous, shameful, disgusting implication that domestic violence is just an inevitable fact of life and not a serious social problem that should be addressed. Ugh.

Domestic violence is disgusting. I don't think anyone can say anything about it in the contrary except assholes who are delusional.

[Progressive-Conservative Republics]

Typical misandry. And people vehemently defend it from even their own sex in hopes of sexual reward. This is why men are vastly becoming the extinct sex.

[Cosara]

1) I mean MODERN case of them being repressed and not having the same rights.

2) As far as I remember, Abortions are still legal in ALL 50 states.

1) 1920 is modern.

2) Not in North Dakota or Kansas (until the courts strike their shit down), and it's all but impossible in many red states.

DEFINING modern as: Of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

1920s is remote past (over 90 years ago!)

[Ostroeuropa]

How?
I asked for evidence that the group is misogynistic.
He said "Thread title."
If I asked for evidence that Obama is an alien, saying "Thread title" would be equally stupid.

He was saying that the sentiment displayed in the thread title was an example of misogyny.

The OP isn't a member of the organization, to my knowledge. Lemme check.
He doesn't claim to be, which you think he would if he was.
So...again, what?

[The Rich Port]

Maybe the whole "not voting until 1920" thing, or the fact that even now many are hell-bent on making sure women don't have rights to their own bodies.

1) I mean MODERN case of them being repressed and not having the same rights.

2) As far as I remember, Abortions are still legal in ALL 50 states.

Saudi Arabia, Afghanista, and Pakistan. Or do those not count because they're not Christian or American or some other stupid fucking criteria you pull out of your fucking ass?

[Frisivisia]

1) 1920 is modern.

2) Not in North Dakota or Kansas (until the courts strike their shit down), and it's all but impossible in many red states.

DEFINING modern as: Of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

1920s is remote past (over 90 years ago!)

The 1920's is not the remote past, and either way, the fact that women only got the right to vote so recently is ridiculous.

[Frisivisia]

He was saying that the sentiment displayed in the thread title was an example of misogyny.

The OP isn't a member of the organization, to my knowledge. Lemme check.
He doesn't claim to be, which you think he would if he was.
So...again, what?

Jesus fucking Christ, you're obtuse. You asked for an example of misogyny, he granted one.

[The Rich Port]

DEFINING modern as: Of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

1920s is remote past (over 90 years ago!)

The 1920's is not the remote past, and either way, the fact that women only got the right to vote so recently is ridiculous.

It's so remote, my great-grandfather, who was a teenager in the 1920's, is STILL ALIVE.

[Nailed to the Perch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

I could name several million more, but come ON.

I think we're talking about Western nations, where laws have been enacted to give women more rights than in the past. It's in these nations that the biggest genuine case for the MRM is, since some of the laws have gone too far in trying to do a good thing, and some laws that protect women don't afford any protection for men. There are also some obviously sexist laws that discriminate against men in numerous Western nations. That said, there are male rights issues in non-Western nations,just as there still are female rights issues in Western nations.

I'm having a "can't look away from the train wreck" moment.

On the one hand, your ideas about laws that have "gone too far," "protect women [but] don't afford any protection for men," and are "obviously sexist...[and] discriminate against men" are likely to make my head hurt. On the other, they're also likely to be pretty funny.

Aw, fuck it, into the train wreck I go. Please cite specific examples of the aforementioned laws.

[Ostroeuropa]

The OP isn't a member of the organization, to my knowledge. Lemme check.
He doesn't claim to be, which you think he would if he was.
So...again, what?

Jesus fucking Christ, you're obtuse. You asked for an example of misogyny, he granted one.

No, I asked for an example of the ORGANIZATION BEING PROTESTED being misogynistic.

Congratulations, you win the "totally not giving a fuck about what people are actually saying" award!

[Frisivisia]

Typical misandry. And people vehemently defend it from even their own sex in hopes of sexual reward. This is why men are vastly becoming the extinct sex.

0/10

[Cosara]

1) I mean MODERN case of them being repressed and not having the same rights.

2) As far as I remember, Abortions are still legal in ALL 50 states.

Saudi Arabia, Afghanista, and Pakistan. Or do those not count because they're not Christian or American or some other stupid fucking criteria you pull out of your fucking ass?

The fact of the matter is that American Feminists are saying that they are being oppressed by the so-called "Partriarchy" and have no rights.
In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it would be fair to say that they have no rights, but women have ever right that men do in the United States.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Jesus fucking Christ, you're obtuse. You asked for an example of misogyny, he granted one.

No, I asked for an example of the ORGANIZATION BEING PROTESTED being misogynistic.

Which "organization" do you mean, to be clear?

[Avaerilon]

DEFINING modern as: Of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.

1920s is remote past (over 90 years ago!)

The 1920's is not the remote past, and either way, the fact that women only got the right to vote so recently is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous women got the vote only within the previous Century. It is also ridiculous that in many developed countries, a woman cannot legally commit rape against an adult male, or another adult female, I believe. Certainly in the UK, where the most recent Sexual Offences Act defines "rape" as "penetration by force," rather than both "penetration by force" or "forced to penetrate."

[The Rich Port]

Typical misandry. And people vehemently defend it from even their own sex in hopes of sexual reward. This is why men are vastly becoming the extinct sex.

It's not a "hope" if it already happened.

This is like saying soldiers fight in wars just so they'll get disability checks when they loose a leg, or that people throw themselves in front of cars in hopes of banning cars.