Muslim sues for "discrimination" for not accommodating her.

[Liriena]

Being raped isn't strictly necessary if we're going to entertain the core of his argument, which i'm prepared to.
In the event of environmental catastrophe and extinction and so on, conscripting women for the survival of the nation seems as permissible as conscripting men, it is merely that the form of conscription differs in that it is forced pregnancy under artificial insemination.

This view is also important to casting many of the examples for claims women were historically oppressed into their proper light. Women were conscripted and not in control over their bodies for national and tribal interest, same as men were at the time. It's just that their bodies were more useful to the collective in a different way than mens were.

The manner this was implemented was through arranged familial bonds and so on, but it's important to note that they did not have technological alternatives. A modern incarnation of the practice would probably be state run, far more clinical and detached, not involve sex, and not seeking to create families, but to maximize reproduction rates.

This view of the situation reveals that modern US men actually experience to struggles of the handsmaids tale, but US women don't, especially when you consider that some men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it by our system, which forms a more direct comparison.

So I take it you can provide examples of that "men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it" then.

It's Ostro, and if I know one thing about Ostro, is that he probably didn't entirely make that up. It's likely that he can cite at least one real case of that happening.

It's still a rather... umm... repulsive-looking thing he's doing, piggybacking off an incel apologists' shitty ideas to make an MRA argument.

[Ostroeuropa]

Being raped isn't strictly necessary if we're going to entertain the core of his argument, which i'm prepared to.
In the event of environmental catastrophe and extinction and so on, conscripting women for the survival of the nation seems as permissible as conscripting men, it is merely that the form of conscription differs in that it is forced pregnancy under artificial insemination.

This view is also important to casting many of the examples for claims women were historically oppressed into their proper light. Women were conscripted and not in control over their bodies for national and tribal interest, same as men were at the time. It's just that their bodies were more useful to the collective in a different way than mens were.

The manner this was implemented was through arranged familial bonds and so on, but it's important to note that they did not have technological alternatives. A modern incarnation of the practice would probably be state run, far more clinical and detached, not involve sex, and not seeking to create families, but to maximize reproduction rates.

This view of the situation reveals that modern US men actually experience to struggles of the handsmaids tale, but US women don't, especially when you consider that some men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it by our system, which forms a more direct comparison.

So I take it you can provide examples of that "men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it" then.

Yes, there's plenty of examples.

Here is the precedent for the case;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

This has since been expanded to straight up non-statutory rape, as well as fraud (fraudulently forging someones signature to gain access to their frozen sperm) and so on.

a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.

Notice the wording of this ruling by the way which is incredibly revealing and demonstrates the rationalizations and excuses people give for why child support exists are untrue.

Not, a child is entitled to-
But, the WOMAN is entitled to sue the father. This aligns with the reality of the situation, as i've gone over previously, and how child support is primarily a female privilege and not actually about childrens rights to income.

Being raped isn't strictly necessary if we're going to entertain the core of his argument, which i'm prepared to.
In the event of environmental catastrophe and extinction and so on, conscripting women for the survival of the nation seems as permissible as conscripting men, it is merely that the form of conscription differs in that it is forced pregnancy under artificial insemination.

This view is also important to casting many of the examples for claims women were historically oppressed into their proper light. Women were conscripted and not in control over their bodies for national and tribal interest, same as men were at the time. It's just that their bodies were more useful to the collective in a different way than mens were.

The manner this was implemented was through arranged familial bonds and so on, but it's important to note that they did not have technological alternatives. A modern incarnation of the practice would probably be state run, far more clinical and detached, not involve sex, and not seeking to create families, but to maximize reproduction rates.

This view of the situation reveals that modern US men actually experience to struggles of the handsmaids tale, but US women don't, especially when you consider that some men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it by our system, which forms a more direct comparison.

Bro you had to edit this 7 times in an attempt to make it look palatable to a bunch of redditors.
Let me rephrase this whole line of thought in one sentence:

"the needs of the group and the survival of the group come before the wants and desires of the individual"

simple, you can agree with it or disagree with it, you are however descended from groups of people that agreed with it and thus managed to pass on their genes and make you.

I disagree with you that traditionalism is the approach to take to reach equality, even if I agree women are privileged and men are getting a raw deal.

What's your impression of the OP issue? Presumably, you would side with Islamic traditionalism?

[Ostroeuropa]

So I take it you can provide examples of that "men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it" then.

It's Ostro, and if I know one thing about Ostro, is that he probably didn't entirely make that up. It's likely that he can cite at least one real case of that happening.

It's still a rather... umm... repulsive-looking thing he's doing, piggybacking off an incel apologists' shitty ideas to make an MRA argument.

We're discussing the handmaids tale and people are framing that discussion around misogyny despite it being inappropriate when men actually live through that situation in a multitude of ways and women don't. The handmaids tale is just another in a long line of examples of feminists lacking any sense of self-awareness or consideration for reality and the dynamics between men and women when they try to portray what sexism is or write allegories about it. You say it's repulsive looking, and i'm saying the people i've just criticized are engaged in repulsive behavior.

[Crockerland]

My religion, zapatopism, requires I be payed 30 dollars an hour. Give me the fucking job bigot or I'll sue you.

[Liriena]

We're discussing the handmaids tale and people are framing that discussion around misogyny despite it being inappropriate when men actually live through that situation in a multitude of ways and women don't.

[awkward cough]

[Vassenor]

When men are being imprisoned and harvested for their sperm, then maybe you might have a point about them being put through the same sort of ordeals as in the book.

[Ostroeuropa]

We're discussing the handmaids tale and people are framing that discussion around misogyny despite it being inappropriate when men actually live through that situation in a multitude of ways and women don't.

[awkward cough]

Full custody, while not being explicitly outlined in law as mandatory, is available as a possibility to these women for them to argue should be given to them. For men there is no argument, no defense. Additionally, if they do not name the father (which they are not required to do, and in fact, are not even required to do to charge them with rape), then the rapist will not be able to have custody rights, compared to men where the rapist names them and they have no option. Beyond that, for men, the rapist is likely to be awarded primary custody rather than visitation, and they are likely to have to hand their rapist a cheque once a month rather than receive one.

It's also noteworthy that this bill is being introduced before fixing the child support issue for men, despite women already having more options than men here, and despite this issue being possible to frame in neutral manner.

How many women are actually effected by this, given the options already available to them?

19 states already explicitly ban this from happening to women. 0 do for men. Notably, the feminists who pushed these bills went further than you are trying to pretend, and in many of the states, demanded a preponderance of evidence standard for severing a fathers rights to the children, rather than the criminal standard. In many cases they were obliged.

It's also noteworthy that this, once again, reveals the rationalizations and excuses people give for child support (children being entitled to it) are merely excuses and rationalizations for a system of female privilege. At every step of the process we empower women to decide everything about this subject and give them the authority to subjugate men to their choices and decisions on penalty of imprisonment.


It's also worth noting there is no positive law or positive affirmation by judges that rapists specifically are entitled to custody, the situation is the result of oversight, not an expression of our societies anti-woman values, whereas for men, it is the law of the land that even if they are rape victims, they have no choice in the matter, we actively decided that was the case.

Once of the definitions of patriarchy is male control over family, wasn't it?

Every stage of the process here no matter how you look at it, women are given power and agency, and men are not at all given any and are subjected to the womans demands. Your complaint is that womens agency is not as total as you would like it to be and doesn't acknowledge a technicality. Instead of giving them the option to sue for full custody and make their argument, give them the option to sue specifically to terminate the custody on the basis of rape, despite "He's an abuser" and "He's a rapist" being precisely the kind of things relevant to a custody hearing already. I'll credit you with not also using that as a trojan horse to assault the rights of fathers to have access to their children and empower abusive women to lie about them and only need to prove preponderance, though you should be aware of the kinds of allies you have on these issues.

This is off topic though, we can take it to the feminist thread.


How did this even get on to the handmaids tale from a handshake?

When men are being imprisoned and harvested for their sperm, then maybe you might have a point about them being put through the same sort of ordeals as in the book.

Men are being imprisoned if they refuse to act as fathers to children all the time. They are harvested for their income on penalty of imprisonment.

[Ifreann]

Being raped isn't strictly necessary if we're going to entertain the core of his argument, which i'm prepared to.

Edgy.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

We're discussing the handmaids tale and people are framing that discussion around misogyny despite it being inappropriate when men actually live through that situation in a multitude of ways and women don't.

[awkward cough]

Extremely high-level argumentation.

Ostroeuropa honestly bro why are you even fucking posting here at this point, the valid points you make could get in a blog with a far larger audience. NSG is legit just a ballpit for speds who came to answer NS issues but got lured away by the promise of being a mega pseud on a 2000s-style forum.

When men are being imprisoned and harvested for their sperm, then maybe you might have a point about them being put through the same sort of ordeals as in the book.

When women are imprisoned and harvested it's for them as objects; their bodies and their role as incubators.
When it happens to men it's to make them do stuff, like military service and manual labour. Whereas women are objectified, men are reduced to human doings.

So I take it you can provide examples of that "men are literally raped and forced to parent the children resulting from it" then.

Yes, there's plenty of examples.

Here is the precedent for the case;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

This has since been expanded to straight up non-statutory rape, as well as fraud (fraudulently forging someones signature to gain access to their frozen sperm) and so on.

a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.

Notice the wording of this ruling by the way which is incredibly revealing and demonstrates the rationalizations and excuses people give for why child support exists are untrue.

Not, a child is entitled to-
But, the WOMAN is entitled to sue the father. This aligns with the reality of the situation, as i've gone over previously, and how child support is primarily a female privilege and not actually about childrens rights to income.

I disagree with you that traditionalism is the approach to take to reach equality, even if I agree women are privileged and men are getting a raw deal.

What's your impression of the OP issue? Presumably, you would side with Islamic traditionalism?

We're actually too far gone for old-school traditionalism because of technology, although I do fantasise about it at times. Contraceptives, the internet, mass media, you name it. The best way of measuring a society's health is its TFR, its ability to reproduce itself as life has done for billions of years. The Islamic world's TFR has taken a dip far below replacement recently. Here's a good article on how fucked the Islamic world is, and it's from April 2012. Japan is suffering economically because of a demographic winter, and this is just the beginning - imagine what's going to happen when the entire world except for Sub-Saharan Africa has below-replacement TFR by the end of this century. Governments have not been and are not able to stop this - the problem is societal, technological, socioeconomic and beyond the realm of what we conventionally call politics' ability to fix things. Human beings DO NOT function properly in a highly complex technological environment which they did not evolve to function in, it's basically that mouse utopia experiment all over again.

It's not purely a matter of technology giving people "more freedom" or some gay platitude; it's a matter of technology changing the playing field of society so much all traditional social norms and structures start to fly apart. A lot of retards will applaud this because they conveniently ignore the long-term effects of this while thinking it's "progress". People look at stuff like that "humans need not apply" video and talk about how we're getting replaced by technology in terms of work and economics, but far fewer people are talking about the social disintegration that results from technology (especially digital technology).

I see two solutions: establishing a society which is about as authoritarian as Orwell's Oceania and rightly responding to a more complex, dynamic technological society with a more rigid and regimented form of social organisation (just like gun control wasn't implemented on a large modern scale until you had advanced bolt-action rifles, control of human behaviour could be implemented on a large scale in response to technological change and advancement), or accelerating the development of liberal-democratic capitalism so we hit the singularity ASAP and what occurs is either the end of the world as we know it or the replacement of the world as we know it. I'm not a LARPer, I understand the former is unrealistic and has been ever since Fukuyama was able to sound the victory trumpets of liberalism, so I believe we must do the latter.

[Liriena]

[awkward cough]

Extremely high-level argumentation.

I aim to please. :^)

[Ostroeuropa]

[awkward cough]

Extremely high-level argumentation.

Ostroeuropa honestly bro why are you even fucking posting here at this point, the valid points you make could get in a blog with a far larger audience. NSG is legit just a ballpit for speds who came to answer NS issues but got lured away by the promise of being a mega pseud on a 2000s-style forum.

When men are being imprisoned and harvested for their sperm, then maybe you might have a point about them being put through the same sort of ordeals as in the book.

When women are imprisoned and harvested it's for them as objects; their bodies and their role as incubators.
When it happens to men it's to make them do stuff, like military service and manual labour. Whereas women are objectified, men are reduced to human doings.

Yes, there's plenty of examples.

Here is the precedent for the case;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

This has since been expanded to straight up non-statutory rape, as well as fraud (fraudulently forging someones signature to gain access to their frozen sperm) and so on.



Notice the wording of this ruling by the way which is incredibly revealing and demonstrates the rationalizations and excuses people give for why child support exists are untrue.

Not, a child is entitled to-
But, the WOMAN is entitled to sue the father. This aligns with the reality of the situation, as i've gone over previously, and how child support is primarily a female privilege and not actually about childrens rights to income.

We're actually too far gone for old-school traditionalism because of technology, although I do fantasise about it at times. Contraceptives, the internet, mass media, you name it. The best way of measuring a society's health is its TFR, its ability to reproduce itself as life has done for billions of years. The Islamic world's TFR has taken a dip far below replacement recently. Here's a good article on how fucked the Islamic world is, and it's from April 2012.

It's not purely a matter of technology giving people "more freedom" or some gay platitude; it's a matter of technology changing the playing field of society so much all traditional social norms and structures start to fly apart. A lot of retards will applaud this because they conveniently ignore the long-term effects on this. People look at stuff like that "humans need not apply" video and talk about how we're getting replaced by technology in terms of work and economics, but far fewer people are talking about the social disintegration that results from technology (especially digital technology).

I see two solutions: establishing a society which is about as authoritarian as Orwell's Oceania and rightly responding to a more complex, dynamic technological society with a more rigid and regimented form of social organisation (just like gun control wasn't implemented on a large modern scale until you had advanced bolt-action rifles, control of human behaviour could be implemented on a large scale in response to technological change and advancement), or accelerating the development of liberal-democratic capitalism so we hit the singularity ASAP and what occurs is either the end of the world as we know it or the replacement of the world as we know it. I'm not a LARPer, I understand the former is unrealistic and has been ever since Fukuyama was able to sound the victory trumpets of liberalism, so I believe we must do the latter.

Who says I don't post elsewhere too?
NSG is the only place people have sometimes stumped me and forced me to reconsider my views.

Your point on technology is a pretty good one, and one you'd find many people here agree with.

But what's your view on the OP event?

[Great Minarchistan]

The best way of measuring a society's health is its TFR, its ability to reproduce itself as life has done for billions of years.

Did you control that for factors such as income levels? Gallup polls show that despite a falling fertility rate in the US, the desire of couples for children has been stable-ish ever since 1975.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

But what's your view on the OP event?

I honestly don't care about "discrimination" or whatever, this seems like some really trivial shit to get mad at regardless of which side you're on in my opinion. Probably not worth legal action, but hey, the Muslim woman got damages so she must be happy with herself.

I know a lot of Somalis and the women are like this as well, they don't shake peoples' hands at job interviews because they don't touch men they're not married to or whatever. I don't have an issue with Islamic social norms, nor do I have an issue with them eking out a little spot for those norms in the decaying carcass of a culture that is the formerly-Christian, formerly-European Western World. This thread should be a place to funpost about off-topic stuff, the actual issue at hand is so trivial that anyone unironically debating on it deserves to be called a fucking nerd. This case does not affect anything at all.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

The best way of measuring a society's health is its TFR, its ability to reproduce itself as life has done for billions of years.

Did you control that for factors such as income levels? Gallup polls show that despite a falling fertility rate in the US, the desire of couples for children has been stable-ish ever since 1975.

What people have to say and what they actually end up doing are two different things, you'll find this out once Americans get a Singapore-tier TFR (most of Europe is already on the way there).

Controlling for income factors only points out that the problem is worse. The more prosperous a people becomes, the less it reproduces.

[Ifreann]

This thread should be a place to funpost about off-topic stuff

You want Forum 7.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

This thread should be a place to funpost about off-topic stuff

You want Forum 7.

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.
How about you head to Forum 7 buddy?

[Liriena]

You want Forum 7.

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.
How about you head to Forum 7 buddy?

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

[Ifreann]

You want Forum 7.

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.

What's gay about my quips?

How about you head to Forum 7 buddy?

Nah, I'm good.

[Liriena]

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.

What's gay about my quips?

I don't know, man. Nobody on Grindr has ever told me "You want Forum 7".

[Proctopeo]

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.
How about you head to Forum 7 buddy?

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

Oh boy, casually using a slur.
Classy.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

All you post is gay little quips that nobody cares about in between failed attempts at debate which are more about huffing your own hot air than actually being right.
How about you head to Forum 7 buddy?

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

Down the road, not across the street.
Keep that in mind next time you get the razor out fairy.

[Liriena]

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

Oh boy, casually using a slur.
Classy.

Eh, I know there's not a consensus on it, but when I use the word "queer", I use it (as many LGBT+ people do today) as an umbrella term for LGBT+ people, not as a slur against gay people in particular.

[Liriena]

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

Down the road, not across the street.
Keep that in mind next time you get the razor out fairy.

Someone's knowledge of LGBT+ people is stuck in the early 2000s, methinks. Do you still use MySpace?

[Proctopeo]

Oh boy, casually using a slur.
Classy.

Eh, I know there's not a consensus on it, but when I use the word "queer", I use it (as many LGBT+ people do today) as an umbrella term for LGBT+ people, not as a slur against gay people in particular.

Large amounts of people don't see it that way still.
I personally don't mind, but I don't like it as an umbrella (I prefer GLBT+ for that). Use it for self-identification all you like, but I'll look at you funny for it.

[Ifreann]

What's gay about my quips?

I don't know, man. Nobody on Grindr has ever told me "You want Forum 7".

Maybe it's too gay for even Grindr.

---

Someone's being salty

Also, I don't get why you keep using gay as an insult. NSG is like 90% queer, so you're not telling us anything we didn't already know. :3

Down the road, not across the street.
Keep that in mind next time you get the razor out fairy.

Hey look, a joke from fifteen years ago. Clearly we are dealing with a veteran user of the internets.