The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

Incidentally, no one saw this but I thought I'd bring it back because it's worthy of discussion.

Feminist lawyer defends doctors accused of circumcising girls.

“I can appreciate that some people would still be against the nick to the foreskin,” said Smith, a self-described feminist, in an email to WND. “I do want to point out, however, that the nick only amounts to Type 4 under the World Health Organization and is not prohibited by law.”

She said this “nick” was deemed OK by a hospital in Seattle that attempted to do it for Somali Muslim immigrants – the so-called Seattle Compromise put out by a group of multiculturalist medical professionals – and the American Academy of Pediatrics at one time released a paper supporting doing the nick in a safe way.

“Because of the pushback from the advocacy groups (and people quite frankly who over-sensationalize the topic like Ms. Yore), the hospital that was going to do the procedure chose not to and the AAP retracted their position paper,” Smith told WND.

“There is such a range when it comes to genital cutting that it is very unfair to classify all of it under the term ‘mutilation,'” she continued. “Everyone involved in this case, including my client, is against ‘mutilation.’

“Further, the nick to the foreskin removes far less than what is removed during a male circumcision which has been an accepted religious tradition for centuries. Although we tend to be egocentric and many people in the U.S. are not familiar with the thought of female circumcision or nicking the foreskin … that does not make it wrong.

“The bottom line is that female genital mutilation is not accepted (nor should it be), it’s not religious, it causes injury, it’s harmful and there are many bad side effects. The nick of the foreskin, on the other hand, is based on religious beliefs, more symbolic than anything else, causes no injury, no harm and there are zero side effects.”

This is an issue that relates to women and feminism, since female circumcision is a feminist issue and the one defending the practice is a feminist. What say ye, NSG? Is it ok to cut the genitals of girls in this manner?

Basically, they've been doing a form of female circumcision which the defense claims is less invasive than male circumcision, initially approved by a Seattle hospital (but withdrawn due to backlash). The feminist lawyer in question is defending them as it only involves a nick of the female foreskin (in male circumcision, the foreskin is removed).

I don't think this is acceptable, but I also don't think male circumcision is acceptable anymore (I've come around on that). What say ye, NSG?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.

Why do you even bother with this thread, then?

It's a quote edit, further context is provided in the original. Sen is merely being intellectually dishonest. Notably they didn't bother to engage with the argument.

Mere words from individuals within an organization will not convince me that their organizations gives a shit about men. Actions will, especially actions from the organization, and there feminists sorely lacking, and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
I note you haven't actually addressed any of the points there, just acting like you usually do in a hateful and hostile manner to anyone who criticizes your beliefs, without actual content.

Do you actually have any argument about why a single lone police officer saying "I believe in racial equality" is any different to what I offered?
What is it about that that makes you unwilling to apply the logic that minorities just think all cops are evil and nothing they say will convince them otherwise?

Why the inconsistent way of dealing with a situation?

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

Follows on from it.
I ignored the "All feminists are evil" part because it's hyperbolic hysteria sourced in being really angry that someone disagrees with their religion. I addressed the "Nothing they say" part. From the text following the Yes, this is obvious.

In fact Sen is so unwilling to engage with the argument, they deleted it and jumped right to here;

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

And acted like i'd randomly insulted them, rather than drawn a conclusion from the above argument, and then acted like them just throwing out another "NO U!" is debating, rather than merely revealing something about the way they think.

[Sernarbia]

Ah look at that, an Ad Hominim.

Look, it's the truth.

As noted in the public opinion survey, the vast majority of those who are for the social, legal, and economic equality of the sexes are NOT feminist.

Then they aren't for equality of the sexes then.

Nah, I'm getting under your skin.

You trying to get under my skin? You're failing pretty hard, but I just wonder if you're trying.

No, but it's pretty clear that I am.

That isn't a no..

That is a no - and more specifically a pointing out of you trying to strawman me.

I'm not allowed to disagree with you?

Sargon is more of a bully that Anita is. Might be why he was kicked off Twitter.

Sargon IS a bully, but so is Anita - and in that moment she proved it.

Standing up for yourself makes you a bully?

And then the event apologized to the person who was acting like a bully at the event. Why do you think that is?

Because she was in the right?

[Ostroeuropa]

Then they aren't for equality of the sexes then

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... impossible

See, this is why i'm comparing you to a religious fundamentalist.
You're engaging in the same behavior.
I even outlined exactly what they behavior was and why it's similar.
But apparently that went right over your head and you think i'm just insulting you, and insulting me back is an equally valid argument. "No, YOU'RE a fundamentalist" as you said.

Here's the thing.
I'm not insulting you.
I'm describing you.

You don't even have an argument why i'm like a fundamentalist, you haven't drawn comparisons to similar mental processes or behaviors, whereas I have.
So it's not even that you don't engage with arguments, you don't even make your own.

[Galloism]

Look, it's the truth.

As noted in the public opinion survey, the vast majority of those who are for the social, legal, and economic equality of the sexes are NOT feminist.

Then they aren't for equality of the sexes then.

No, just Feminism isn't the One True Way of Righteousness and Truth.

No, but it's pretty clear that I am.

You overestimate yourself.

I'm not allowed to disagree with you?

Of course you are - but you're not allowed to strawman my position without being called out on it.

Standing up for yourself makes you a bully?

She didn't stand up for herself. She tried to use a pulpit to bully someone she hates.

And then the event apologized to the person who was acting like a bully at the event. Why do you think that is?

Because she was in the right?

Try again.

[Sernarbia]

Why do you even bother with this thread, then?

It's a quote edit, further context is provided in the original. Sen is merely being intellectually dishonest. Notably they didn't bother to engage with the argument.

Mere words from individuals within an organization will not convince me that their organizations gives a shit about men. Actions will, especially actions from the organization, and there feminists sorely lacking, and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
I note you haven't actually addressed any of the points there, just acting like you usually do in a hateful and hostile manner to anyone who criticizes your beliefs, without actual content.

Do you actually have any argument about why a single lone police officer saying "I believe in racial equality" is any different to what I offered?
What is it about that that makes you unwilling to apply the logic that minorities just think all cops are evil and nothing they say will convince them otherwise?

Why the inconsistent way of dealing with a situation?

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

Follows on from it.

Not really. It was esecially a more verbose way of saying 'all feminists are evil and nothing you say will convince me otherwise'[/quote]


I ignored the "All feminists are evil" part because it's hyperbolic hysteria sourced in being really angry that someone disagrees with their religion.[/quote]

This meme again. You cant argue with ideas so you attack an entire group as an evil religion to cover for your shitty arguing skills.

I addressed the "Nothing they say" part. From the text following the Yes, this is obvious.

Again, just another verbose way of saying 'feminists are evil'

In fact Sen is so unwilling to engage with the argument, they deleted it and jumped right to here;

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

What argument? That feminists are evil? OK...no they aren't. There, I addressed it. Happy?

And acted like i'd randomly insulted them, rather than drawn a conclusion from the above argument, and then acted like them just throwing out another "NO U!" is debating, rather than merely revealing something about the way they think.

What ever you say, Pot.

[Galloism]

Then they aren't for equality of the sexes then

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... impossible

See, this is why i'm comparing you to a religious fundamentalist.
You're engaging in the same behavior.
I even outlined exactly what they behavior was and why it's similar.
But apparently that went right over your head and you think i'm just insulting you, and insulting me back is an equally valid argument. "No, YOU'RE a fundamentalist" as you said.

Here's the thing.
I'm not insulting you.
I'm describing you.

You don't even have an argument why i'm like a fundamentalist, you haven't drawn comparisons to similar mental processes or behaviors, whereas I have.
So it's not even that you don't engage with arguments, you don't even make your own.

Oh wow. You know I hadn't even considered that - it's exactly like the morality without God is impossible mindset.

[Ostroeuropa]

What ever you say, Pot.

I'll try once more to see if you can actually understand an argument.

Can you actually address the point made here;

Mere words from individuals within an organization will not convince me that their organizations gives a shit about men. Actions will, especially actions from the organization, and there feminists sorely lacking, and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
I note you haven't actually addressed any of the points there, just acting like you usually do in a hateful and hostile manner to anyone who criticizes your beliefs, without actual content.

Do you actually have any argument about why a single lone police officer saying "I believe in racial equality" is any different to what I offered?
What is it about that that makes you unwilling to apply the logic that minorities just think all cops are evil and nothing they say will convince them otherwise?

Why the inconsistent way of dealing with a situation?

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

Or is it honestly beyond your abilities to recognize what the point is?
If it is, I am willing to try and walk you through it, if you're willing to follow along.

[Sernarbia]

Then they aren't for equality of the sexes then.

No, just Feminism isn't the One True Way of Righteousness and Truth.

Do you even know what feminism is? Hint: it aint the strawman version you and your dudebro cohorts have concocted.

No, but it's pretty clear that I am.

You overestimate yourself.

Says the guy attacking me for multiple pages for not agreeing with you.

I'm not allowed to disagree with you?

Of course you are - but you're not allowed to strawman my position without being called out on it.

Where did I do that?

Standing up for yourself makes you a bully?

She didn't stand up for herself. She tried to use a pulpit to bully someone she hates.

Someone who harasses people on twitter and sends rape threats to rape victims.

Because she was in the right?

Try again.

Because they allowed a known harasser to be in the same room as one of his victims?

[Sernarbia]

What ever you say, Pot.

I'll try once more to see if you can actually understand an argument.

Can you actually address the point made here;

Mere words from individuals within an organization will not convince me that their organizations gives a shit about men. Actions will, especially actions from the organization, and there feminists sorely lacking, and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
I note you haven't actually addressed any of the points there, just acting like you usually do in a hateful and hostile manner to anyone who criticizes your beliefs, without actual content.

Do you actually have any argument about why a single lone police officer saying "I believe in racial equality" is any different to what I offered?
What is it about that that makes you unwilling to apply the logic that minorities just think all cops are evil and nothing they say will convince them otherwise?

Why the inconsistent way of dealing with a situation?

Because you don't have principles you stick to, you have enemies, that's why.

Or is it honestly beyond your abilities to recognize what the point is?

I get it. You hate feminists. Lets move on.

[Sernarbia]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... impossible

See, this is why i'm comparing you to a religious fundamentalist.
You're engaging in the same behavior.
I even outlined exactly what they behavior was and why it's similar.
But apparently that went right over your head and you think i'm just insulting you, and insulting me back is an equally valid argument. "No, YOU'RE a fundamentalist" as you said.

Here's the thing.
I'm not insulting you.
I'm describing you.

You don't even have an argument why i'm like a fundamentalist, you haven't drawn comparisons to similar mental processes or behaviors, whereas I have.
So it's not even that you don't engage with arguments, you don't even make your own.

Oh wow. You know I hadn't even considered that - it's exactly like the morality without God is impossible mindset.

Except, you know not. But if you want to just start calling me names that's fine. I'll just take it as a concession.

[Ostroeuropa]

I get it. You hate feminists. Lets move on.

No, see, you don't get it.
Let's try and walk you through it.

A vice president of a feminist organization said she was against the draft.
But the organization itself didn't campaign against it.
I said this is insufficient.

Member of Organization Opposes Discrimination, Organization does not.

You then said "So nothing they say will convince you." and acted like it was unreasonable for me to find this insufficient.

Member of Organization Opposes Discrimination, Organization does not.

A deputy police chief says they are against racial inequality in the justice system.
The organization itself doesn't do anything about it.
I say this is insufficient.

Member of Organization Opposes Discrimination, Organization does not.
Do... do I need to be more specific? Or do you get it.

See, like, do you deny the justice system has racism?
Cos, I can find a cop who says they oppose racism.

And what would it say about cops, if they then declared "Because some police oppose racism, it's not a problem and doesn't exist, and anyone who says otherwise just hates all cops."

Because that's what you're doing here.
You wouldn't do that when it comes to the justice system and minorities, but you do when it comes to feminist organizations and men.

Why is that?

I don't see the point in "Moving on", it's a very basic point i'm getting across here, and if you can't understand it and think i'm just saying I hate feminists, then you probably wouldn't get what we moved on to either. Best to stick with this until it clicks in.

[Galloism]

No, just Feminism isn't the One True Way of Righteousness and Truth.

Do you even know what feminism is? Hint: it aint the strawman version you and your dudebro cohorts have concocted.

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Says the guy attacking me for multiple pages for not agreeing with you.

That's not why I'm attacking you. I'm attacking you because you're posting counterfactual bullshit.

I attack that. It's in my blood.

Where did I do that?

He said he wouldn't rape her. That's literally the opposite of a rape threat.

So you condone harassing rape victims on twitter? Lovely.

What he said was terrible,

Someone who harasses people on twitter and sends rape threats to rape victims.

That wasn't a rape threat. It was certainly harassment. And he certainly deserved to be banned from twitter over it.

However, by that same token, you've given me license to bully hundreds of feminists literally at any place at any time because of the shit they've said to me as a rape victim.

Because they allowed a known harasser to be in the same room as one of his victims?

Try again.

[Galloism]

Except, you know not. But if you want to just start calling me names that's fine. I'll just take it as a concession.

Not a namecalling - it's a mindset observation. And a very interesting one at that. I wasn't even talking about you per se - just the mindset (and not one I haven't seen before, mind you).

"Being for equal rights is impossible without feminism" is exactly like "Being for morality is impossible without God", and it reeks in much the same way. It argues that anyone who doesn't join your "in group" is deficient. If you fail to join the in group, then you are wrong. Therefore, only in group opinions can be right.

It's a way to dismiss any and all arguments that don't originate in the echo chamber.

[Sernarbia]

Do you even know what feminism is? Hint: it aint the strawman version you and your dudebro cohorts have concocted.

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Can you prove that without linking to clearly biased sources?

Says the guy attacking me for multiple pages for not agreeing with you.

That's not why I'm attacking you. I'm attacking you because you're posting counterfactual bullshit.

So you admit that you're attacking me?




Then why are you defending him from one of his victims?



It wan't like Anita went to whereever Carl worked to call him a garbage human. He chose to be there to try and intimidate her into silence. It didn't work, he got called out for it and then he and his buddies all pissed and moaned about it like the manbabies that they are.

Ok fine I'll play, 'CUS DERE EVUL FEMINAZIS IN LEAGUE WITH GEORGE SOROS AND THE ILLUMINATTI TO #KILLALLMEN!!!'

[Sernarbia]

Do you even know what feminism is? Hint: it aint the strawman version you and your dudebro cohorts have concocted.

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Can you prove that without linking to clearly biased sources?

Says the guy attacking me for multiple pages for not agreeing with you.

That's not why I'm attacking you. I'm attacking you because you're posting counterfactual bullshit.

So you admit that you're attacking me?

Where did I do that?

So you condone harassing rape victims on twitter? Lovely.

Someone who harasses people on twitter and sends rape threats to rape victims.

That wasn't a rape threat. It was certainly harassment. And he certainly deserved to be banned from twitter over it.

Then why are you defending him from one of his victims?

However, by that same token, you've given me license to bully hundreds of feminists literally at any place at any time because of the shit they've said to me as a rape victim.

It wan't like Anita went to whereever Carl worked to call him a garbage human. He chose to be there to try and intimidate her into silence. It didn't work, he got called out for it and then he and his buddies all pissed and moaned about it like the manbabies that they are.

Because they allowed a known harasser to be in the same room as one of his victims?

Try again.

Ok fine I'll play, 'CUS DERE EVUL FEMINAZIS IN LEAGUE WITH GEORGE SOROS AND THE ILLUMINATTI TO #KILLALLMEN!!!'

[The Grene Knyght]

Do you even know what feminism is? Hint: it aint the strawman version you and your dudebro cohorts have concocted.

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Advocates of virtually any ideology generally identify more with the ideas rather than the actions of past adherents. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like liberalism, christianity, and a whole slew of other things.

[Galloism]

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Can you prove that without linking to clearly biased sources?

Absolutely.

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

In addition, for the women are unable to process consent when money is involved - and even if they consent that consent isn't valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine ... ornography

So you admit that you're attacking me?

I'm attacking your counterfactual bullshit.

Then why are you defending him from one of his victims?

There's that strawman again.

It wan't like Anita went to whereever Carl worked to call him a garbage human. He chose to be there to try and intimidate her into silence. It didn't work, he got called out for it and then he and his buddies all pissed and moaned about it like the manbabies that they are.

He was in a public event listening quietly. Are you arguing that I can shout down Mary Koss from wherever I happen to be in public at any time, even if she's sitting quietly?

Ok fine I'll play, 'CUS DERE EVUL FEMINAZIS IN LEAGUE WITH GEORGE SOROS AND THE ILLUMINATTI TO #KILLALLMEN!!!'

Not quite that blatant. Just trying to protect female privilege. That's all. That doesn't require anything special.

[Galloism]

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Advocates of virtually any ideology generally identify more with the ideas rather than the actions of past adherents. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like liberalism, christianity, and a whole slew of other things.

Here's the thing. In the United States, I would be offended to be associated with conservatism.

This is true even though the first relevant definition of conservatism is defined thusly:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

Why? Because conservatism has become reactionism in my country, but it's still called conservatism. I will not be in the same camp as people with those kind of actions, even though I do have a general disposition to preserve what is established from a governmental perspective (Obamacare needs to stay, for instance). You WILL be judged by those you keep company with, and, knowingly or unknowingly, feminists are keeping company with some pretty shady as fuck characters.

Now, because of the knowingly or unknowingly bit, I don't necessarily feel like they're all bad people. I'm not Ostro. I sort of wish Feminism would reform and become about equal rights again - the institutional power feminism has should not be squandered. However, I am of little hope for this - particularly given the increasing trend towards enforcing the echo chamber.

[Sernarbia]

Can you prove that without linking to clearly biased sources?

Absolutely.

[snip]

The case in Israel was womens groups warning that the purposed bill could make it easier for men accused of rape to counter claim against their victims. The concerns are that the law will be misused, not that it it was purposed at ball. So your argument that feminists are pro rape falls flat on it's ass. Similar for India.

In addition, for the women are unable to process consent when money is involved - and even if they consent that consent isn't valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine ... ornography[/quote]

Some women have stupid views, therefore all feminists are evil and support rape.

So you admit that you're attacking me?

I'm attacking your counterfactual bullshit.

Is that your new phrase to describe 'any argument I disagree with'?

Then why are you defending him from one of his victims?

There's that strawman again.

I aked you why you're going to bad for Sargon. A man you don't care for. Is it to spite me?

It wasn't like Anita went to whereever Carl worked to call him a garbage human. He chose to be there to try and intimidate her into silence. It didn't work, he got called out for it and then he and his buddies all pissed and moaned about it like the manbabies that they are.

He was in a public event listening quietly.

No, he went there to intimidate her and it backfired.

Are you arguing that I can shout down Mary Koss from wherever I happen to be in public at any time, even if she's sitting quietly?

Did she harass you on twitter or have her friends threaten to rape you?

Ok fine I'll play, 'CUS DERE EVUL FEMINAZIS IN LEAGUE WITH GEORGE SOROS AND THE ILLUMINATTI TO #KILLALLMEN!!!'

Not quite that blatant. Just trying to protect female privilege. That's all. That doesn't require anything special.

The 'privilege' to not be intimidated by serial harassers?

[Ors Might]

Then why are you defending him from one of his victims?

There's that strawman again.

I aked you why you're going to bad for Sargon. A man you don't care for. Is it to spite me?[/quote]

It wasn't like Anita went to whereever Carl worked to call him a garbage human. He chose to be there to try and intimidate her into silence. It didn't work, he got called out for it and then he and his buddies all pissed and moaned about it like the manbabies that they are.

He was in a public event listening quietly.

No, he went there to intimidate her and it backfired.

Are you arguing that I can shout down Mary Koss from wherever I happen to be in public at any time, even if she's sitting quietly?

Did she harass you on twitter or have her friends threaten to rape you?

Ok fine I'll play, 'CUS DERE EVUL FEMINAZIS IN LEAGUE WITH GEORGE SOROS AND THE ILLUMINATTI TO #KILLALLMEN!!!'

Not quite that blatant. Just trying to protect female privilege. That's all. That doesn't require anything special.

The 'privilege' to not be intimidated by serial harassers?[/quote]
Sargon is a cunt. I say this as someone who enjoys his channel, albeit in the vein of a guilty pleasure. As much as I dislike it, Twitter was justified in banning him for the tweet he sent to the MP. That being said, in regards to the Anita thing, Sargon was quietly sitting in the front row. He might’ve been doing it as a form of trolling or whatever but that doesn’t excuse her acting completely unprofessionally. He was not the subject of the talk and had just as much right as anyone else in the audience to be there.

[Galloism]

Absolutely.

[snip]

The case in Israel was womens groups warning that the purposed bill could make it easier for men accused of rape to counter claim against their victims. The concerns are that the law will be misused, not that it it was purposed at ball. So your argument that feminists are pro rape falls flat on it's ass. Similar for India.

No, it's pro-rape. They deliberately tried to prevent it actually being rape to rape men, just as radical feminists tried to do here in the states. Unlike here, however, in Israel and India they succeeded.

Their concerns are bullshit justifications.

(By the way, I notice you had no comment about the burying of domestic violence facts, the domestic violence hotlines mocking male victims, and Mary Koss deliberately classifying rape of men as "unwanted contact" - you know, like being bumped on a train. I will assume you just accepted those and now realize why people who seek equality may be deserting the movement.)

In addition, for the women are unable to process consent when money is involved - and even if they consent that consent isn't valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine ... ornography

Some women have stupid views, therefore all feminists are evil and support rape.

Catharine MacKinnon is a pretty famous feminist, and feminist views on pornography that are infantilizing of women are not uncommon. Heck, they still organize protests.

I'm attacking your counterfactual bullshit.

Is that your new phrase to describe 'any argument I disagree with'?

Nope.

There's that strawman again.

I aked you why you're going to bad for Sargon. A man you don't care for. Is it to spite me?

No, I just don't like bullying. Of anyone.

He was in a public event listening quietly.

No, he went there to intimidate her and it backfired.

That assumes certain intent that doesn't meet the circumstances.

Are you arguing that I can shout down Mary Koss from wherever I happen to be in public at any time, even if she's sitting quietly?

Did she harass you on twitter or have her friends threaten to rape you?

Worse - she made sure that my rapist will never be prosecuted, no one will ever care about me as a rape victim or believe it even happened, and I will be mocked for my entire life for bringing it up.

Her actions are about 500,000% worse than Sargon's. Sargon's a piece of shit. Koss is a piece of shit who has infected academia with her shit and infected the government with her shit.

Not quite that blatant. Just trying to protect female privilege. That's all. That doesn't require anything special.

The 'privilege' to not be intimidated by serial harassers?

No, the privilege to rape, grope, and violently assault men with impunity. Like now.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a movement advocating for women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Back in reality, it's also a movement that has been taking significant steps to protect female rapists and domestic abusers for nearly half a century now, and to try to keep female privilege enshrined into law. Parts of it also hurt women, by arguing that women are moral children and unable to make choices about their work (by arguing that the presence money makes women incapable of processing consent).

Advocates of virtually any ideology generally identify more with the ideas rather than the actions of past adherents. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like liberalism, christianity, and a whole slew of other things.

The ideas are the problem. Things like the duluth model are advanced because the core of feminism is an ideological assertion rather than something based in an analysis of reality, the notion that sexism exists due to how women are perceived and treated.

[Galloism]

Advocates of virtually any ideology generally identify more with the ideas rather than the actions of past adherents. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like liberalism, christianity, and a whole slew of other things.

The ideas are the problem. Things like the duluth model are advanced because the core of feminism is an ideological assertion rather than something based in an analysis of reality, the notion that sexism exists due to how women are perceived and treated.

Or rather, it's only part of the story.

Sort of like if you lived on an island and determined the world is a small piece of land surrounded by water. From your perspective you're not wrong, and that certainly is part of the world, but there's so much more to the world than that.

[Ostroeuropa]

The ideas are the problem. Things like the duluth model are advanced because the core of feminism is an ideological assertion rather than something based in an analysis of reality, the notion that sexism exists due to how women are perceived and treated.

Or rather, it's only part of the story.

Sort of like if you lived on an island and determined the world is a small piece of land surrounded by water. From your perspective you're not wrong, and that certainly is part of the world, but there's so much more to the world than that.

For that to be accurate you'd have to have another island clearly visible, off in the distance, and for them to routinely assert that's merely this island from behind, while also going apeshit and destroying any boat that attempts to sail to it.

Your analogy is too charitable.