Chessmistress wrote:It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".
Wait, what?
Advertisement
by Esternial » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:45 pm
Chessmistress wrote:It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:59 pm
Crysuko wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".
Sigh. Radfems shout endlessly about a patriarchy and yet their evidence for it's existence is shoddy at best.
Riddle me this: if we live in a rape culture then why does having rape charges levied on someone essentially ruin their name forever?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Settrah » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:23 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".
by Chessmistress » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:25 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Crysuko wrote:Sigh. Radfems shout endlessly about a patriarchy and yet their evidence for it's existence is shoddy at best.
Riddle me this: if we live in a rape culture then why does having rape charges levied on someone essentially ruin their name forever?
The simple explanation would be that only a tiny fraction of rapes are successfully prosecuted.
You're talking rubbish, we're not going to take
Another view close up; that like
What view are you talking about?
You've a cheek, you started it
I give up
You're really good
For nothing, you're talking rubbish
You see, him, he thinks i'm reaaally good
Because of boys
We put on nylon stockings
We pull each other's hair
Because of boys
And what people might say
We're always crying
Because of boys
We get worked up for real
Because of boys
Because of boys
Rifle
it's the word which comes to mind
When I think of my girl-friends
And me, I've had my fill
No joke, of your courses
Of the pill
I'm hallucinating
you ought to be vaccinated
All that for a poser (of a lad)
You're depressing, you can have him
If that's your style
Because of boys
We put on nylon stockings
Because of boys
We're always crying
It's the fault of the ma
Of the magazines
The Maries the Claires
The Marie-Claires
The Figs, the McDonald's beyond clear
The women of today and of yesterday
It's the fault of the ma
Of the magazines
The Maries, the Frances
The Marie-Frances
Practical women who aren't fed up with
Cosmo, vogue and all the rest
Because of boys
We strain our brains
We melt like ice cubes
Because of boys
I lie you lie we lie
We're slippery like soap
Because of boys
We fall out for good
Because of boys
by Balkenreich » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:33 pm
by Chessmistress » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:34 pm
Settrah wrote:Chessmistress wrote:Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".
I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.
I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.
by Settrah » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:36 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Settrah wrote:
I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.
I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.
AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.
by Ebliania » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:36 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Settrah wrote:
I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.
I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.
AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.
by Galloism » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:49 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Settrah wrote:
I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.
I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.
AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.
Galloism wrote:Bloody Xmas wrote:
You know it's not about 5 yo boys.
Show me a single case of a woman raping a 5 yo boy.
A single case, in USA, even from years ago.
Would be hard to find one from before the statutory rape law was changed - as a woman raping a five year old boy was not illegal.
However, here's one from a couple weeks ago, with a four year old:
http://fox17online.com/2016/08/26/michi ... r-old-son/
If radical feminists had their way, that wouldn't be illegal.
by Chessmistress » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:53 pm
Ebliania wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.
What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:54 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Galloism » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Ebliania wrote:What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?
*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux
Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.
You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful
by Galloism » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:57 pm
by FelrikTheDeleted » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:00 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Ebliania wrote:What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?
*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux
Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.
You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful
by Costa Fierro » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:03 pm
Chessmistress wrote:That's due women empowerment
and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs
while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs:
an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).
No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment".
They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.
by Chessmistress » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:04 pm
Galloism wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux
Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.
You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful
Yay!
More sexism and how men are worthless because of their gender.
Can you call for extermination next? Please? Please? This will complete my 'sexism in feminism' bingo card.
by Galloism » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:05 pm
Chessmistress wrote:What's so difficult to understand?
by Settrah » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:06 pm
Chessmistress wrote:women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree
by Galloism » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:09 pm
Ebliania wrote:Galloism wrote:How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.
I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.
When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:10 pm
Chessmistress wrote:We just wish to being treated as human beings.
by Settrah » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:12 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Galloism wrote:Yay!
More sexism and how men are worthless because of their gender.
Can you call for extermination next? Please? Please? This will complete my 'sexism in feminism' bingo card.
No. No. No.
There's no such thing as "extermination".
There never will be.
I would even oppose it.
You still don't understand.
We just wish to being treated as human beings.
What's so difficult to understand?
by Chessmistress » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:13 pm
Ebliania wrote:Galloism wrote:How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.
I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.
When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.
Ericsson, now 74, laughed when I read him these quotes from his old antagonist. Seldom has it been so easy to prove a dire prediction wrong. In the ’90s, when Ericsson looked into the numbers for the two dozen or so clinics that use his process, he discovered, to his surprise, that couples were requesting more girls than boys, a gap that has persisted, even though Ericsson advertises the method as more effective for producing boys. In some clinics, Ericsson has said, the ratio is now as high as 2 to 1. Polling data on American sex preference is sparse, and does not show a clear preference for girls. But the picture from the doctor’s office unambiguously does. A newer method for sperm selection, called MicroSort, is currently completing Food and Drug Administration clinical trials. The girl requests for that method run at about 75 percent.
Even more unsettling for Ericsson, it has become clear that in choosing the sex of the next generation, he is no longer the boss. “It’s the women who are driving all the decisions,” he says—a change the MicroSort spokespeople I met with also mentioned. At first, Ericsson says, women who called his clinics would apologize and shyly explain that they already had two boys. “Now they just call and [say] outright, ‘I want a girl.’ These mothers look at their lives and think their daughters will have a bright future their mother and grandmother didn’t have, brighter than their sons, even, so why wouldn’t you choose a girl?”
by Luminesa » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:13 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Ebliania wrote:What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?
*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux
Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.
You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Himmelland, Kostane, M-x B-rry, Maximum Imperium Rex, New Temecula, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union, Verkhoyanska, Xind
Advertisement