Advertisement
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:33 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:51 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues, that commands undue levels of resources in tackling issues specifically affecting women, compared to those impacting men.
The MRM is a movement which argues that pro-women causes do command an undue level of resources and influence, and the balance should be redressed.
Now I ask you two questions.
1) what of the suggestion that this undue level of resources and influence is due to two main factors - one, the historic (up to very recent times, even being charitable to some anti-feminist arguments that we are already in an equal or near-equal society) extent of mistreatment and sidelining of women and this being a direct response to try and counteract this historic imbalance as quickly as possible?
And two, that more women, even now, are harmed more significantly than men in similar but opposite scenarios?
Going off the rape debate from earlier, obviously not covering man-forced-to-penetrate since I don't know of those estimates, rape estimates in the UK are approximately 80,000 rapes of women, versus 12,000 rapes of men. I could be wrong, but I know that these are relatively old estimates, and the rapist in almost all of these cases will have been presumed to be a man penetrating either a man or a woman.
2) that by its very nature of construction, an MRM will be host to and attractive to groups of anti-feminist persons, who may hold views so far as to be literally anti-woman, to oppose what they see as undue attempts by women to leave the box shaped for them by historically male-led society? And of the merely anti-feminist variety, that many of these people will simply believe that women face no particular disadvantage, structural or institutional or otherwise, and that the resources they currently command should not only be distributed differently or resources for men brought up to parity, should actually be rolled back?
Whether this may be because they genuinely believe women suffer no disadvantage and therefore have no need of these resources, or because they may claim this in order to enact an agenda of maliciously removing these resources from them?
....while it is often assumed that inmate-on-inmate sexual assault comprises men victimizing men, the survey found that women state prisoners were more than three times as likely to experience sexual victimization perpetrated by women inmates (13.7 percent) than were men to be victimized by other male inmates (4.2 percent) (Beck et al., 2013).
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:03 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:18 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Basically; feminists tried to portray predatory sexuality as due to masculinity.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:20 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:Basically; feminists tried to portray predatory sexuality as due to masculinity.
While I'm sure some feminist thinkers have (I'm saying "thinkers" because even "activists" let alone sympathisers who are wrong and ill-informed, are still wrong) made such claims - radicals especially - this is never the view I have personally arrived at, nor seen particularly widely put forwards (except as misinterpretation).
Predatory sexuality is not caused by masculinity - in the case of male abusers, their predatory sexuality may be caused by or influenced by masculine expectations and behaviours.
No, it is obviously not the sole cause of predatory sex offending behaviour and anyone who says it is is either dogmatic or dumb.
I feel bad for responding to this one line given the effort you did put into your response, but it is 11pm and I am already in my pyjamas.
I just felt that particular assertion did need challenging.
by Souseiseki » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:49 am
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:56 am
Souseiseki wrote:Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios (express.co.uk)
hmm
that's a weird headline for the express
by Souseiseki » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:07 am
by Souseiseki » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:08 am
by Salandriagado » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:34 am
Vassenor wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
Yes it fucking does. Part 4 lays out the penalty for someone with a penis forcing someone with a vagina into having PIV sex: it is "imprisonment for life". Part 5 lays out the penalty for exactly the same action except with the owners of the penis swapped: it is "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years". Last time I checked, "life" was oftentimes longer than "10 years".(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
So yes, forcing someone else to penetrate you can net you a life sentence.
by Trumptonium » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:24 am
Souseiseki wrote:express
by Nioya » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:26 am
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:27 am
Trumptonium wrote:Souseiseki wrote:
the problem is the SHOCK part, if they already knew it and are willing to accept it as part of their brexit at any costs it doesn't make sense they'd write it like that
SHOCK claim:
People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.
Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Trumptonium » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:28 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Trumptonium wrote:
SHOCK claim:
People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.
Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.
The freedom and sovereignty to be personally exploited by commercial interests with no meaningful avenue for repercussions, that is.
I'm not even talking about "waah, surplus value is stolen wages" here, I'm talking about the basic end-point of a "free market". No choice for the consumers, only the corporations.
by The Huskar Social Union » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:23 am
Nioya wrote:Those DUP guys are really scary, am I right?
by Dumb Ideologies » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:38 am
by HMS Barham » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:53 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues
by HMS Barham » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:55 pm
by HMS Barham » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:57 pm
Nioya wrote:Those DUP guys are really scary, am I right?
by Vassenor » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:26 am
by Crysuko » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:55 am
HMS Barham wrote:Trumptonium wrote:
SHOCK claim:
People do not solely vote on headline GDP figures.
Else there wouldn't be any left-wingers in this country. Like many on the left value human life over aggregate income, many on the right value freedom and sovereignty over aggregate income.
Back in the day, leftism claimed to be the materialist faction, and claimed that their ideas would maximise the size of the economy, and argued that that was the main reason someone should be a leftist. It is not clear to me why anyone is still a leftist.
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:15 am
HMS Barham wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues
Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.
by Tananat » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:29 am
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:46 am
Tananat wrote:Might also qualify as the most inaccurate post in history.
In other news, I'm pleasantly surprised that the tone taken by the Daily Mail is one of a disappointed school teacher rather than the rage and implied calls to violence over the Brexit rebellion one might've expected by that rag.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Adharcaili, Avrelis, Bienenhalde, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Osmauri, The Apollonian Systems, The Black Forrest, The Huskar Social Union, The Jamesian Republic, Tlaceceyaya, Zurkerx
Advertisement