Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are moving the goalposts in an attempt to strengthen your position.""
No, I am pointing out that YOU are making comments a when you haven't read the entire thread.
My response was actually in regards to your previous post below:
Please link posts where anyone here advocated any feminists being beaten,""
You sure throw out the li...er..."errors" in what other posters posted...I NEVER said anyone here advocated beating women
or that feminist views are unnatural or not normal""
Oh, sorry, did I use big words. My example of what happened to women who wanted the right to vote was just that....an example of the same kind of thing going on in this thread which YOU haven't READ or you'd have seen where equal rights advocates were termed unatural(against nature)....
because they wanted to vote. I have yet to see anyone in this thread argue against women's right to vote."""
You are moving the goalposts in an attempt to strengthen your position. I NEVER said anyone here was against women voting.
"""I will happily concede if you are able to do show proof.
Once again you are framing your arguments in a straw man fashion. I DID NOT say all women who want equal rights are man haters. I was actually defending the freedom of speech of any who ARE man haters, and only in response to another poster who brought up the topic of man hating.
I responded to this specific post to share my opinion man hating in general, not to paint all feminists as such.
Show where I called all feminists man haters and I will happily concede. You cannot, because I obviously supported non-radical feminists in the same post.
I am not your enemy, we actually both support equal rights for women. I am a 100% supporter of feminists who want equal rights. For some reason you are only attacking me because I criticize radical feminists who want extra rights. Either I am doing a bad job at explaining my point, or you are a member of the people I am criticizing. If you are not, stop personalizing my criticism because it does not apply to you.
Is your favorite new big word strawman??? Try to get over it and READ some posts besides mine....you're making this so personal.... You seem quite confused...
Frankly, what you a selling here is a bill of goods, or better, re-selling ... and you may believe this, but it is not true. Feminism is not a just a philosophy of unorganized but like minded women of differing views ... it is an ideological, dogmatic cult (created for you ... not by you) ... with the extremists leading the charge. The very moderate, measured and modest members, such as how you present yourself always choose the "that's not my view" escape hatch when confronted, yet never a criticism of the extreme views you choose to separate yourself from. That silence suggests to others unified agreement ... as was stated earlier. But more telling is the bolded portion above ... you see no extremism from the feminists here ... nothing divisive about labeling anyone with a different point of view as a "misogynist".
Let's get something straight ... there is no difference in using such extreme rhetoric, than calling someone a racist or an ant-Semite. It is a vile charge, totally void of legitimacy ... and it's a tactic used to force silence.
Furthermore, there are hundreds of organized feminist groups ... dozens of national groups ... publications ... advertising ... etc., many of which can be found to be sponsored and funded by very questionable sources, contrary to your protestations otherwise.
And the underlying message is that men predominately view women as lessor human beings and consciously strive to repress them. That is an extreme, radical view which forms the foundation of your "Philosophy". And I'm beginning to view you as akin to the "Moderate Muslim" who refuse to repudiate or be critical of the "Extremists", choosing instead to advance the fallacy that those extreme views are fringe elements, and irrelevant.
And there are many "ideologically" consistent groups of special interests who rely on moderates to run cover for the extremists driving the bus .. i.e. La Raza and M.E.Ch.A ... with the latter being so extreme as to call for the extermination of White Males in the US ... while La Raza, closely associated and offers financial support to them, while claiming only to be advancing the interests of Latinos ... very benign and benevolent. When the association and support is highlighted .. they simply deny it.
So speaking purely from the big bad white man perspective here ... I can fairly comfortably say that we are collectively getting sick and tired of the whining and hatred and the vitriolic assault on us from all sides .... oh, but we dare not speak outside the politically correct boundaries for which the repressed masses have defined ... while being expected to remain silent in the face of vile charges of being ... women haters ... racists ... bigots ... etc. And the situation has deteriorated to the point of some of these special interest groups like M.E.Ch.A publicly calling for the LITERAL extermination of white males. We have the Nation of Islam, and the New Black Panthers using similar rhetoric privately (not so much publicly), and trust me when I say ... we are, in reality, your last line of defense against the true oppression you will enjoy at the hands of those you are aligning yourself with, ideologically.
Do you think for a moment that women would have made the strides in our American society that you have without the philosophical support of those you claim to be your oppressors? I mean ... you readily declare that we have been in charge all along! Do you view your successes as being facilitated by wrestling away that power from us against our will and intentions? Or have you had the majority support from the men who love you and value your partnership, only to be spat upon for our our reward?
You are being played by the powers that be .... just as the other misguided groups are ... used as tools of divisiveness, to create social chaos and infighting between the races and genders. Again, we American men, the few of us left who remain un-castrated, are your last line of defense .. as we have always been. And you are being convinced, much to your own detriment and danger, to consider us your primary enemy.
You best wake the frack up.
I'm very much awake. I don't consider you my enemy, but I do think that you've taken a very extremist position just as you accuse many women to have taken. I'm not involved in infighting between the sexes. I'm engaged in a discussion of whether or not women and men are equals. If women and men are equals, then they deserve equal treatment. Equal treatment in the workplace, equal treatment under the law. I haven't been sold a bill of goods at all. I grew up believing that women and men were equals, that girls and boys were equals. I've experienced discrimination first hand, so I know it happens.
You keep trying to draw me into either defending or attacking the rhetoric of others. I speak for myself. They don't speak for me. So I don't have an interest in defending or attacking them. They can defend themselves. You can attack them. It's the steadfastness of my position that you cannot assail. If I start defending radical feminists, or even posters who have been more pointed, then you can then argue that we are indeed a cohesive group, and that feminism is not a philosophy. But as long as I and each of them maintain that feminism is not an organization (or a conspiracy, which I think is the subtle message in your posts), then that puts the burden on you to prove otherwise. I don't think that you can prove it, but you are more than welcome to try.
I stand corrected on it only being i Michigan, but the opposition is the same. They are not fighting against equal custody. They among other groups are opposing legislation that would mandate judges award 50/50 custody across the board (except for special cases where one parent is deemed unfit) in cases where both parents dont agree on custody arrangements this is "when there is a conflict between the parents". Equal custody is already an option as opposed to the generally held mother as custodial parent based on that parent being the primary caretaker.
Opposing legislation that would prevent judges from using their own social biases and penalizing people when there is no abuse or other valid reasons IS fighting against equal custody.
Fact of the matter is, people don't act like adults when they split up. Especially when there are clear benefits to winning, people are going to try and stick it to the other side. Judges should be a referee make it equal to both sides where there is no abuse involved. They have not done this on their own, so equal custody legislation is needed.
If you are against both parents spending equal time with the kids, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter who the primary caretaker was, people shouldn't be penalized because they decided to work hard to support their family instead of having the privilege of enjoying more time with the kids. If both parents worked, there is an even less reason to deny equal custody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I did not say I agreeded with thier view, but they do have some legimate concerns. I dont see how you consider this a violation of the 14th amendment. In divorce one parent asks for custody, it is negotiated and mediated and both parties have opportunity before the court to ask for custody and make their case. They both have equal protection under the law.
No they do not have equal protection if one party is denied custody in situations where there isn't abuse involved or any other valid reason. Mediation and negotiation don't always work with adversarial parties, so the judge should rule down the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Of course NOW advocates for women and women's issues, it is the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN. Do you expect the NAACP to advocate for the advancement of white people?
I have the same opinion of the NAACP and I am an African-American. They call themselves a civil rights organization, so they should speak out against civil rights violations of all people. They are typically silent in situations where civil rights of whites are violated, probably because those incidents are given a pass since we had slavery and segregation in the past. This is wrong, and does not live up to their motto.
Quote:
The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.
Their motto includes everyone, but their name and current practices do not. They were a necessary service in the Civil Rights fight, but they should have updated their name and included all people once the Civil Rights barriers were lifted.
Everything I said about the NAACP applies to NOW and any other gender or race-based organization.
Show where I called all feminists man haters and I will happily concede. You cannot, because I obviously supported non-radical feminists in the same post.
I am not your enemy, we actually both support equal rights for women. I am a 100% supporter of feminists who want equal rights. For some reason you are only attacking me because I criticize radical feminists who want extra rights. Either I am doing a bad job at explaining my point, or you are a member of the people I am criticizing. If you are not, stop personalizing my criticism because it does not apply to you.
I did not say you called all feminists man haters. Sorry if it sounded so. I am referring to some other posters comments.
Quote:
And what worries the fine ladies here? They're worried about their legal right to kill babies Approximately 99.9% of feminists are misandric. Feminism has nothing to do with men, and some men can't handle that. Get over it.
Of course it isn't. It's about destroying men. Men can't deal with misandric tactics. Face the truth.
Originally Posted by le roi yup; feminism is a form of bigotry and supremacy, Feminism is also about destroying masculinity in men and destroying the male gender in general.
I'm very much awake. I don't consider you my enemy, but I do think that you've taken a very extremist position just as you accuse many women to have taken. I'm not involved in infighting between the sexes. I'm engaged in a discussion of whether or not women and men are equals. If women and men are equals, then they deserve equal treatment. Equal treatment in the workplace, equal treatment under the law. I haven't been sold a bill of goods at all. I grew up believing that women and men were equals, that girls and boys were equals. I've experienced discrimination first hand, so I know it happens.
You keep trying to draw me into either defending or attacking the rhetoric of others. I speak for myself. They don't speak for me. So I don't have an interest in defending or attacking them. They can defend themselves. You can attack them. It's the steadfastness of my position that you cannot assail. If I start defending radical feminists, or even posters who have been more pointed, then you can then argue that we are indeed a cohesive group, and that feminism is not a philosophy. But as long as I and each of them maintain that feminism is not an organization (or a conspiracy, which I think is the subtle message in your posts), then that puts the burden on you to prove otherwise. I don't think that you can prove it, but you are more than welcome to try.
But men and women are not equals, DC. And you can say it a million more times and that will not make it so.
Men are clearly better suited for some things and women are clearly better suited for others. Not that there isn't some overlap and common ground, but you are never going to succeed at defining away the effect of innately male and innately female characteristics.
Quick answer, the word was adopted to address an inequality in status, with the feminine side being lower in status. Feminism was an advancement of feminine interests in order to achieve equality, not to achieve superiority. I think that some feminists are more extreme, but in a very human way. Whenever there is an imbalance, there are some that see balance as being achieved by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, while most see balance as a simple redress of the imbalance.
I don't think feminists should be considered human.
Can you please try to respond outside of my quoted posts? It makes your words appear as if they are mine, and makes it more difficult to quote a reply to your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
No, I am pointing out that YOU are making comments a when you haven't read the entire thread.
You have not provided any proof of the accusations you raised. I criticized those accusations and you encouraged me to read the thread. Because I DID read the thread, I was able to ask you for proof, which you still have not provided. Asking me to read the thread (which I already read) is not providing proof of your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
You sure throw out the li...er..."errors" in what other posters posted...I NEVER said anyone here advocated beating women
Sure, but did certainly did imply this, by attempting to tie posters who you accuse of not wanting women to vote with men in the past who beat feminists for wanting the right to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Oh, sorry, did I use big words. My example of what happened to women who wanted the right to vote was just that....an example of the same kind of thing going on in this thread which YOU haven't READ or you'd have seen where equal rights advocates were termed unatural(against nature)....
No problem, I'll accept your argument that it was only an example. But keep in mind you are once again tying beaters from the past with critics in this thread by saying "an example of the same kind of thing going on in this thread". What is the "same kind of thing" if you're not talking about beatings, aka your reference to "what happened to women"? I am aware of GuyNTexas using similar language to the unnatural thing, but he DID NOT say he wanted to beat anyone or take their vote away.
You're once again trying to move the goalposts to support your arguments by using something that IS in the thread, (the unnatural thing), when I clearly criticized you for the statements about trying to beat and take away their vote. I applaud your tactics in your constant goal to "win" but once again, I'm not your enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Is your favorite new big word strawman??? Try to get over it and READ some posts besides mine....you're making this so personal.... You seem quite confused...
Criticizing my word choices and asking me to read the thread doesn't allow you to escape the fact that I successfully countered all of your points.
I'm sure the readers will agree that you are personalizing this debate, not me. I've said multiple times I'm not your enemy and I 100% support equal rights for women, yet you continue to make snarky comments.
I did not say you called all feminists man haters. Sorry if it sounded so. I am referring to some other posters comments.
Hi 2mares,
I'm sorry, i was not trying to indicate that you accused me of this. I was only responding to your post about "feminists not passing out man hating literature on street corners".
All I said was that I support the right of these specific feminists to hate, and the poster accused me of calling all feminists man haters (which I did not do).
Hopefully this clears up the confusion, thanks for caring!
Opposing legislation that would prevent judges from using their own social biases and penalizing people when there is no abuse or other valid reasons IS fighting against equal custody.
That’s what judges do, they make judgments based on individual situations presented. What they are opposing again is mandating across the board 50/50 custody anytime there is a dispute in custody regardless of the circumstances. They are NOT fighting against equal custody. Equal custody already exists they are opposing legislation that would remove taking into consideration factors that would be against the Childs best interest in this type situation.
Quote:
Fact of the matter is, people don't act like adults when they split up. Especially when there are clear benefits to winning, people are going to try and stick it to the other side. Judges should be a referee make it equal to both sides where there is no abuse involved. They have not done this on their own, so equal custody legislation is needed.
Equal custody options are already in place and have been for awhile. You will never achieve total fairness where courts are concerned. Custody arrangements are not about making it equal between both sides. It is suppose to be about the welfare of the children first without denying either parent parenting rights and responsibilities.
Quote:
If you are against both parents spending equal time with the kids, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter who the primary caretaker was, people shouldn't be penalized because they decided to work hard to support their family instead of having the privilege of enjoying more time with the kids. If both parents worked, there is an even less reason to deny equal custody.
Where did I say anything remotely akin to being against equal parenting. I said after reading, I believe the opposition has some valid points.
Quote:
No they do not have equal protection if one party is denied custody in situations where there isn't abuse involved or any other valid reason. Mediation and negotiation don't always work with adversarial parties, so the judge should rule down the middle.
I never said things are always fair. The 14th amendment is about equal protection under the law and both parents are free to petition the court. If one were denied the benefit of an attorney or petitioning the court for custody then there would be a violation.
Quote:
I have the same opinion of the NAACP and I am an African-American. They call themselves a civil rights organization, so they should speak out against civil rights violations of all people. They are typically silent in situations where civil rights of whites are violated, probably because those incidents are given a pass since we had slavery and segregation in the past. This is wrong, and does not live up to their motto.
The NAACP advocates civil rights for minorities, specifically, ”colored people”. That is what the organization is about weather or not they throw in a politically correct “all persons”
Im not sure you get the idea of advocacy groups. There concerns are limited to groups they represent. NOW makes no claim to support anything other than women’s issues. I guess we just disagree on the responsibilities of special interest groups.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem quite confused...
