Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Herador]

No. What you wrote made so little sense that I found it hilarious.

So...you don't understand English? Do you need some help? Because I don't understand how you can't get it unless your native language is not English.

No, they're right, that made very little sense.

[Frenline Delpha]

No. What you wrote made so little sense that I found it hilarious.

So...you don't understand English? Do you need some help? Because I don't understand how you can't get it unless your native language is not English.

I feel like your throwing glass stone at stone houses. Your rocks aren't even breaking anything but themselves.

[Greater Pareidolia]

So...you don't understand English? Do you need some help? Because I don't understand how you can't get it unless your native language is not English.

No, they're right, that made very little sense.

What's not to get? It's rather straightforward.

[Settrah]

No I actually get what Greater Pareidolia said. It makes sense if you pay attention.

Yay Patriarchy!

The patriarchy hurts everybody. Not just women.
Patriarchy isn't rule by men, it's rule by fathers.
Most men will never be fathers. They're just sons, and sons get sacrificed to keep the old man in port and cigars.

He's spot on.

Patriarchy is a society run by a father figure. In a family's set up, how many actual patriaches are there? One, the father. Are all the sons, no matter how senior, fathers of that family just on the basis that they are men? No, one father, and just his sons. And often, if a father views his children all as just children, it doesn't actually matter if they're boys or girls.

Point is, just because people talk about a patriarchy, doesn't mean that all men in that society are living in privileged luxury simply on the basis that they are men, and the patriarchy prefers them. Which a lot of people don't get.

The father will be hard on the son, and hurt the son, as he would the daughter.

I don't see why this is confusing.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's almost as though the use of the term "patriarchy" is not the literal use of the layman definition.

[Lady Scylla]

It's almost as though the use of the term "patriarchy" is not the literal use of the layman definition.

Yeah, a more accurate term would be andriarchy.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's almost as though the use of the term "patriarchy" is not the literal use of the layman definition.

Yeah, a more accurate term would be andriarchy.

Well searching for Andriarchy doesn't bring up an actual definition on google, only blogs which variously define it as simply "rule of men", which runs into the same problem as anti-fems do about what they think "patriarchy" means, or some people have used it to mean "rule of masculinity" which one could argue to be valid.

Patriarchy as in a rule of father """figures""" would seem to fit better, as society is fairly overwhelmingly ruled by old men - quote-unquote "father figures".

[Settrah]

It's almost as though the use of the term "patriarchy" is not the literal use of the layman definition.

Yeah, a more accurate term would be andriarchy.

That would clear things up, and make it less erroneous. But to say you want to oppose the patriarchy implies wanting to end men in a seat of complete cultural and economic power, rather than fighting andriarchy which boils down to just 'all men like to be dicks to women so let's hate men'. Which of those versions of feminism do feminists claim to follow, and which one do they actually practice?

[Lady Scylla]

Yeah, a more accurate term would be andriarchy.

Well searching for Andriarchy doesn't bring up an actual definition on google, only blogs which variously define it as simply "rule of men", which runs into the same problem as anti-fems do about what they think "patriarchy" means, or some people have used it to mean "rule of masculinity" which one could argue to be valid.

Patriarchy as in a rule of father """figures""" would seem to fit better, as society is fairly overwhelmingly ruled by old men - quote-unquote "father figures".

I know that - Patriarchy conveys a feeling of a family being ruled by a Patriarch, which I don't view society as a family. I made andriarchy up. Andros (Greek for man) + archy (to rule(by)) so "rule by men" which would be more accurate for what the RadFems are looking for. Optionally, we could steal the Spanish word machismo.

[Lady Scylla]

Yeah, a more accurate term would be andriarchy.

That would clear things up, and make it less erroneous. But to say you want to oppose the patriarchy implies wanting to end men in a seat of complete cultural and economic power, rather than fighting andriarchy which boils down to just 'all men like to be dicks to women so let's hate men'. Which of those versions of feminism do feminists claim to follow, and which one do they actually practice?

Depends on the feminist. I don't believe in Patriachy and think it's scapegoating rubbish perpetuated by RadFem and Third Wavers to justify their misandric worldviews.

[Herador]

Well searching for Andriarchy doesn't bring up an actual definition on google, only blogs which variously define it as simply "rule of men", which runs into the same problem as anti-fems do about what they think "patriarchy" means, or some people have used it to mean "rule of masculinity" which one could argue to be valid.

Patriarchy as in a rule of father """figures""" would seem to fit better, as society is fairly overwhelmingly ruled by old men - quote-unquote "father figures".

I know that - Patriarchy conveys a feeling of a family being ruled by a Patriarch, which I don't view society as a family. I made andriarchy up. Andros (Greek for man) + archy (to rule(by)) so "rule by men" which would be more accurate for what the RadFems are looking for. Optionally, we could steal the Spanish word machismo.

Machismocracy? I like it.

[Gauthier]

That would clear things up, and make it less erroneous. But to say you want to oppose the patriarchy implies wanting to end men in a seat of complete cultural and economic power, rather than fighting andriarchy which boils down to just 'all men like to be dicks to women so let's hate men'. Which of those versions of feminism do feminists claim to follow, and which one do they actually practice?

Depends on the feminist. I don't believe in Patriachy and think it's scapegoating rubbish perpetuated by RadFem and Third Wavers to justify their misandric worldviews.

Blaming men because they want to be men?

[Imperializt Russia]

That would clear things up, and make it less erroneous. But to say you want to oppose the patriarchy implies wanting to end men in a seat of complete cultural and economic power, rather than fighting andriarchy which boils down to just 'all men like to be dicks to women so let's hate men'. Which of those versions of feminism do feminists claim to follow, and which one do they actually practice?

Depends on the feminist. I don't believe in Patriachy and think it's scapegoating rubbish perpetuated by RadFem and Third Wavers to justify their misandric worldviews.

I fail to see how patriarchy is scapegoating anything, unless "radfems" have co-opted it to mean "all men".

It's literally saying that a small number of men tend to sit at the top of most elements of society and both dominate and define the hierarchies therein, and that men are often privileged over women in those hierarchies.

[Lady Scylla]

Depends on the feminist. I don't believe in Patriachy and think it's scapegoating rubbish perpetuated by RadFem and Third Wavers to justify their misandric worldviews.

I fail to see how patriarchy is scapegoating anything, unless "radfems" have co-opted it to mean "all men".

It's literally saying that a small number of men tend to sit at the top of most elements of society and both dominate and define the hierarchies therein, and that men are often privileged over women in those hierarchies.

Except this isn't what RadFems typically argue. There's a problem where a man on the tube with his legs apart is "manspreading" and oppressing women because of Patriarchy. That's just idiocy. The term is being used in a way that it wasn't intended.

[Settrah]

It's literally saying that a small number of men tend to sit at the top of most elements of society and both dominate and define the hierarchies therein, and that men are often privileged over women in those hierarchies.

But the assumption is that because you happen to be a man, you never have to worry about any societal issues because life is just one huge boys club.

So the world apparently prefers the drunk smelly hobo homeless man, to the black lesbian high corporate executive.

It's absurd in this day and age, but people still believe it.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's literally saying that a small number of men tend to sit at the top of most elements of society and both dominate and define the hierarchies therein, and that men are often privileged over women in those hierarchies.

But the assumption is that because you happen to be a man, you never have to worry about any societal issues because life is just one huge boys club.

So the world apparently prefers the drunk smelly hobo homeless man, to the black lesbian high corporate executive.

It's absurd in this day and age, but people still believe it.

Only if you believe the generalisation is absolute.

Believing generalisations are absolute is generally unwise.

[Herador]

But the assumption is that because you happen to be a man, you never have to worry about any societal issues because life is just one huge boys club.

So the world apparently prefers the drunk smelly hobo homeless man, to the black lesbian high corporate executive.

It's absurd in this day and age, but people still believe it.

Only if you believe the generalisation is absolute.

Believing generalisations are absolute is generally unwise.

Says the man generalizing about generalizations.

...

Wait, this is making my head hurt, fuck.

[Hirota]

I'm not sure if they're more worried about their arguments standing up to scrutiny or their nations standing up to the Wrath of Mod. I suspect they would have trouble with both.

Not sure, but I suspect it's mainly, if not just only, the latter.
You're newly modded, so you cannot be aware how many times, especially during the first times, I sent telegrams urging someone to contain herself...Jadny's style is very watered down in comparison to her...I feel the need of a facepalm smilie, right now, why there isn't?

All you are proving is that angry irrational third rate feminists are angry and irrational.

Moreover, if they are employing arguments similar to your own, it is not only the latter, but most definitely beyond any reasonable doubt the former as well. Want an example? Look at the batshit title everyone has identified is completely fabricated insanity.

[USS Monitor]

Not sure, but I suspect it's mainly, if not just only, the latter.
You're newly modded, so you cannot be aware how many times, especially during the first times, I sent telegrams urging someone to contain herself...Jadny's style is very watered down in comparison to her...I feel the need of a facepalm smilie, right now, why there isn't?

All you are proving is that angry irrational third rate feminists are angry and irrational.

Moreover, if they are employing arguments similar to your own, it is not only the latter, but most definitely beyond any reasonable doubt the former as well. Want an example? Look at the batshit title everyone has identified is completely fabricated insanity.

Chess doesn't stop posting when her arguments go over like a lead balloon, so why would that stop her friends from posting?

[Lady Scylla]

All you are proving is that angry irrational third rate feminists are angry and irrational.

Moreover, if they are employing arguments similar to your own, it is not only the latter, but most definitely beyond any reasonable doubt the former as well. Want an example? Look at the batshit title everyone has identified is completely fabricated insanity.

Chess doesn't stop posting when her arguments go over like a lead balloon, so why would that stop her friends from posting?

Well, a cursory glance over regional activity makes me assume they're either puppets, or afraid of Chess.

[Sareva]

Chess doesn't stop posting when her arguments go over like a lead balloon, so why would that stop her friends from posting?

Well, a cursory glance over regional activity makes me assume they're either puppets, or afraid of Chess.

They're both.

[Settrah]

Chess doesn't stop posting when her arguments go over like a lead balloon, so why would that stop her friends from posting?

Well, a cursory glance over regional activity makes me assume they're either puppets, or afraid of Chess.

I love how radical feminists think for themselves..

[Lady Scylla]

Well, a cursory glance over regional activity makes me assume they're either puppets, or afraid of Chess.

I love how radical feminists think for themselves..

Cult of Personality is what it looks like.

[Gauthier]

I love how radical feminists think for themselves..

Cult of Personality is what it looks like.

So Mad Max.

[Arkinesia]

I don't see how this has anything to do with exploiting one's body? No-one forces anyone to carry a child for someone else.

transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

How is this relevant to the debate in any way? Her name is Petra De Sutter, not "Transsexual MP De Sutter".

It's because she's not a real feeeeeeeeeeeemale, just a man in women's clothing. And with women parts. And with women hormones. But she's just a trojan horse here to steal women's rights by pretending to be a woman!!11!1!!1!!!onetyone