Feminists are ruining men.

[dasein]

We were surviving perfectly well for millions of years before a patriarchal system was devised to subjugate female sexual choice against the natural order of our species.

 

It's interesting that you describe the state of humankind historically as surviving "perfectly well." First of all we weren't surviving, or at least many of us didn't, and those who did led a totally insecure, unstable, nasty, brutish and short existence. If arguendo, there were a dominant "patriarchy" that emerged at some point, the social, economic and political institutions associated with such are solely responsible for the happier, less nasty, brutish and short state of our existence today. If OTOH, there was no patriarchy, but rather human progress due to many factors shared in by both genders, we can all share in the glory of and responsibility for today's happier, more secure, longer lived human condition. Which?

 

And, besides, mere survival isn't enough, we need personal agency which women by and large didn't have, least of all in the sexual domain.

 

Only elites of both genders had such agency, commoners of both genders did not. That average men had it any better than average women is a total historical nonstarter.

 

Patriarchy, despite the undoubtedly massive burdens it placed upon men, was configured to give them the most important thing of all.

 

...the most important thing being -survival-, right? a more stable existence, and calling that a product of mere "patriarchy" is both typical and astoundingly myopic.

[InJest]

"Other than being absolutely fabulous as a person, i'm very sexual, great in bed, give good blowies, I cook and well, I know how to sew and fix up things (not a pro but the basics) and on top of that I'm a trophy girl.

 

Oh! And i'm not jealous, clingy, needy or naggy. BLEH! I've actually had men like this. No thanks!"

 

I asked you what your outstanding qualities are on your own, not within a relationship. But your response is just as revealing as I expected it to be. Very sexual, great in bed, and good blowies are not standalone qualities, they require another person. The fact that you chose to mention them as your outstanding qualities is just pathetic and really funny to me. You've proven you don't know how to listen. You're very full of yourself, with nothing to back it up except some cooking and the moderate ability to sew. You think being a trophy girl is an outstanding quality. Come on, is it really that hard to see why no one wants you? You bring nothing to the table that a man can't get somewhere else. A guy is only going to want you to **** you. That's all you're worth, and you've confirmed that yourself with the above statement. How did you become so delusional.

 

You're not a trophy girl until your on someone's arm...

[dasein]

Haha! Feminists are often people who actually have knowledge about feminism. Probably more likely that they do than frightened ignorance mongers, at any rate.

 

Ah, "frightened ignorance monger," the insult du jour? Not a very good one.

 

My grandmother also had a college degree and considered herself a feminist. BEFORE the 1960's by a few decades.

 

She could certainly consider herself a leprechaun if she liked, feminism didn't exist until the 1960s.

 

Maybe you should break your onus against learning about something from sources that actually have the knowledge to impart. Or, at least quit your preaching of misinformation. It's kind of unacceptable, given that you are on a computer right this moment with access to all kinds of facts and information at your very fingertips.

 

I read 150 or so books a year on all topics, and have for decades. I've actually recommended specific titles written by feminists to posters here and that they should make up their own minds, but facts don't often get in the way of potshots with you, do they? Thanks for the computer tip though, I had no idea, and will go and check out all the "facts and information" the next chance I get.

 

One really has to search to find your sources that claim that "feminism is a socialist doctrine that was invented in the 60's."

 

I posted a link right here in this thread, of an article written by the woman who founded the first battered women's shelter in England, and who also wrote one of the first books, if not -the- first book on domestic abuse. The article describes exactly how feminism started, what its motivations were, and why she abandoned feminism due to its anti-male doctrines. I encourage readers to read that article twice and then decide for themselves whether its accurate or not. Here it is again. "Really has to search" indeed.

 

THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY by ERIN PIZZEY

 

amazing Internet

 

Thank goodness for it and its role in bringing the poisonous insanity of feminism to a swifter demise than would be possible otherwise.

[dasein]

Feminism has become the big, bad boogey-'woman' for so many insecure men (and women too, looks like).

 

Every time they feel a teeny-weeny bit worthless, or insecure, or wishing for this or that, or angry at their lot in life... it is the feminist 'boogey-woman' to blame for aaaaalllll of their troubles.

 

I have a great life, thanks, and in the near future, when feminism has been swept off into the historical dustbin of bad, short-lived ideas, it'll just get better and better.

[zengirl]

But like RedRobin said earlier--every job is a volunteer job. Both men and women opt in to those kind of dating expenses (being the high maintenance woman, paying for the high maintenance woman's idea of a good date). They each have their reasons to do so, but then why complain about it? Talk about First World problems, lol!

 

If a woman needs to spend time and money dealing with problem areas to be cute, that is understandable. I still wonder how much is the men's perception of cute, and how much is the women's.

 

I think it depends a lot on the type of man, as I said, but yes, these are certainly ALL first world problems. You'll rarely find any other kind on LS.

 

Which is another excellent reason why women, weakened by childbirth, were unfit for combat or many types of labor historically, and were relegated to the relative safety of home and hearth. Thank goodness the inventions of men have changed all that for us alive today though, right?

 

While I imagine a woman who'd newly birthed a child probably got some time to recover, women did very laboriously intense work for centuries before most had political or social freedoms. Before the more modern eras, there was tons of back-breaking work to go around. Many women also DID fight in combat, though they were outlawed in most military forces -- not because of extinction or any such reasons but because (documents state these opinions clear as day if you actually read historical correspondence) men at the time feared they would cause chaos and upset military discipline, as it would be outside societal norms. You just make a lot of stuff up.

 

Women invented things too, though far less than men because they had less access to education and tools or colleagues with which they could invent things. This is also backed by primary source documents. Your assertions are not.

[dasein]

While I imagine a woman who'd newly birthed a child probably got some time to recover, women did very laboriously intense work for centuries before most had political or social freedoms.

 

Childbirth was often permanently disabling, if not deadly. Child mortality was high. Populations were constrained by this voluntarily or they simply died out. Yes women did hard work, no one said they didn't. They weren't physically capable, though, of doing the type of "ranging far from the village" dangerous work that men did due to many reasons. Villages who sent their women out to do such became -extinct-.

 

Nice trying to slide in the "before most had political and social freedoms," few other than elites had meaningful political or social freedoms further back than ~160 years ago, and men going to die in battle far from the village or exposing themselves to the elements or dangerous beasts counts as "freedom" only in bizarro LS land.

 

Many women also DID fight in combat,

 

No, -many- women did no such thing historically, unless by "many" you mean a "handful of historical anomalies," capitalize all you want or back it up. Didn't happen.

 

You just make a lot of stuff up.

 

Readers can certainly decide who is making things up when you post some examples of -many- women participating in direct armed combat through the ages (not supporting the troops or caring for wounded) in any historically significant, material way.

 

I want you to remember here that it is you and your feminist sisterhood who are so hellbent on separating out all the ways women have suffered as a gender through the ages, not me. You simply don't like being reminded of the fact that men suffered equally because it turns your little "oppression" wagon right over. We all suffered, and all but a tiny few of us of both genders were oppressed, regardless, none of us are suffering today, so relying on a stale, imaginary patriarchy to justify discriminatory politics today is beyond dishonest enough as to be pure evil.

 

Women invented things too, though far less than men because they had less access to education and tools or colleagues with which they could invent things. This is also backed by primary source documents. Your assertions are not.

 

"This is also backed by primary source documents. Your assertions are not."

 

Well that's certainly a compelling argument , but will have to disagree. Women have had complete access to education and tools for over a century now, what exactly are they inventing?

 

And the purpose of bringing up the inventions of men was not to suggest that men are better than women (we are indeed worlds better than feminists generally though), but rather to counter some of the "patriarchy" hogwash coming into the thread among other things.

[Woggle]

Feminism has become the big, bad boogey-'woman' for so many insecure men (and women too, looks like).

 

Every time they feel a teeny-weeny bit worthless, or insecure, or wishing for this or that, or angry at their lot in life... it is the feminist 'boogey-woman' to blame for aaaaalllll of their troubles.

 

I have seen first hand what certain segments of feminism are actually about so it is not just something I blame for my lot in my life. Feminists would do their cause a world of good if they actually acknowledged the misandrists and did more to distance themselves. It would get the many legitimate issues much more support if people didn't think they were all a bunch of a man haters.

[HeavyHitter]

I think it depends a lot on the type of man, as I said, but yes, these are certainly ALL first world problems. You'll rarely find any other kind on LS.

 

 

 

While I imagine a woman who'd newly birthed a child probably got some time to recover, women did very laboriously intense work for centuries before most had political or social freedoms. Before the more modern eras, there was tons of back-breaking work to go around. Many women also DID fight in combat, though they were outlawed in most military forces -- not because of extinction or any such reasons but because (documents state these opinions clear as day if you actually read historical correspondence) men at the time feared they would cause chaos and upset military discipline, as it would be outside societal norms. You just make a lot of stuff up.

 

Women invented things too, though far less than men because they had less access to education and tools or colleagues with which they could invent things. This is also backed by primary source documents. Your assertions are not.

 

Women historically fought in combat? And you're a teacher? Good lord your agenda is shining bright.

[TheBigQuestion]

One thing that has continuously bugged me about this thread is that dasein, from many many pages back, has given reading recommendations that cannot in any way, shape or form be considered MRA materials or anti-feminist work. He recommended the works of two feminist authors with differing ideologies, the link to the Erin Pizzey article, and several other books that focus on world history that are neither feminist or anti-feminist. So why are people insisting that all he's doing is jocking highly biased sources or refusing to encourage people to read feminist authors? Neither is true. You can take issue with some of the charges he makes about feminism and its effects on society, but trying to make it seem like he's encouraging others to only check out biased sources is downright false. Posters who are doing that are merely doing so to deflect the possibility that someone COULD find the conclusions that he's found by reading a combination of resources by parties both interested and disinterested in feminism.

[ThaWholigan]

I actually agree with this. Dasein has infused his posts with his own remarks about feminism that could quite easily be construed as inflammatory, but I've checked all the links, and none of them are particularly biased.

 

For the record, I'm not against feminism, in fact I'm not bothered about it if I'm honest.

[RedRobin]

I have seen first hand what certain segments of feminism are actually about so it is not just something I blame for my lot in my life. Feminists would do their cause a world of good if they actually acknowledged the misandrists and did more to distance themselves. It would get the many legitimate issues much more support if people didn't think they were all a bunch of a man haters.

 

People who blame 'feminism' for their hurts in life would do better to acknowledge their part in the choices they make for partners and getting over it.

Edited April 5, 2012 by RedRobin

[serial muse]

I actually agree with this. Dasein has infused his posts with his own remarks about feminism that could quite easily be construed as inflammatory, but I've checked all the links, and none of them are particularly biased.

 

For the record, I'm not against feminism, in fact I'm not bothered about it if I'm honest.

 

Was going to stay out of it, but for you, ThaWholigan, I'll respond.

 

I know all about Erin Pizzey, and I will venture to say that she is not at all what any of the women here who call themselves feminists would also consider a feminist. Erin Pizzey has made MANY comments to the effect that she thinks women working is a bad idea and responsible for assorted family evils.

 

Obviously, there are men (and women) who will agree with this idea, because they really do think working women are part of the problem.

 

I don't. I don't think Woggle does. I don't think you do. And I don't think that anybody who follows up on that link and learns who this woman is is really going to agree with her either. She's a darling of the MRA movement because she's a woman who is avowedly anti-feminist, and has stories to tell of ways in which women involved in feminist movements treated her badly.

 

I don't doubt that she encountered some fringe types during the 1970s, and it's absolutely awful that, as a result of her making some (perhaps overstated but hardly worthy of death threats) claims that a majority of abused women are prone to seek out domestic violence that she was in turn threatened with violence herself. That really is awful, and nobody deserves that.

 

But let's get real. I also don't think that in ANY WAY means that feminists IN GENERAL are terrorists, or that feminism itself is a marxist, terrorist, one-step-removed-from-Pol-Pot-for-lack-of-opportunity (yep, dasein said this in another post...for realz???), undermining of the very fabric of human civilization movement.

 

That's just ...dare I say it?

 

Hysteria.

 

Any rational person is going to see right through the conspiracy theory stuff. Please, people, do read up on Erin Pizzey, and tell me if she helps convince you that feminism is all that dasein says it is. I personally can't imagine that anyone rational is going to take that tripe seriously. But hey, that's what the Internet is for...to give people on the fringes a sense of community.

 

hahahahaha. Whatever.

[Kamille]

I have a great life, thanks, and in the near future, when feminism has been swept off into the historical dustbin of bad, short-lived ideas, it'll just get better and better.

 

Are you holding your breath? Please don't. I may be a feminist, but I still care for your well-being.

 

Hate to see men fighting losing battles. Just join the force of people who have each other's best interests at heart D. Stop being so divisive.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Kamille

[TheBigQuestion]

Was going to stay out of it, but for you, ThaWholigan, I'll respond.

 

I know all about Erin Pizzey, and I will venture to say that she is not at all what any of the women here who call themselves feminists would also consider a feminist. Erin Pizzey has made MANY comments to the effect that she thinks women working is a bad idea and responsible for assorted family evils.

 

Obviously, there are men (and women) who will agree with this idea, because they really do think working women are part of the problem.

 

I don't. I don't think Woggle does. I don't think you do. And I don't think that anybody who follows up on that link and learns who this woman is is really going to agree with her either. She's a darling of the MRA movement because she's a woman who is avowedly anti-feminist, and has stories to tell of ways in which women involved in feminist movements treated her badly.

 

I don't doubt that she encountered some fringe types during the 1970s, and it's absolutely awful that, as a result of her making some (perhaps overstated but hardly worthy of death threats) claims that a majority of abused women are prone to seek out domestic violence that she was in turn threatened with violence herself. That really is awful, and nobody deserves that.

 

But let's get real. I also don't think that in ANY WAY means that feminists IN GENERAL are terrorists, or that feminism itself is a marxist, terrorist, one-step-removed-from-Pol-Pot-for-lack-of-opportunity (yep, dasein said this in another post...for realz???), undermining of the very fabric of human civilization movement.

 

That's just ...dare I say it?

 

Hysteria.

 

Any rational person is going to see right through the conspiracy theory stuff. Please, people, do read up on Erin Pizzey, and tell me if she helps convince you that feminism is all that dasein says it is. I personally can't imagine that anyone rational is going to take that tripe seriously. But hey, that's what the Internet is for...to give people on the fringes a sense of community.

 

hahahahaha. Whatever.

 

Most feminist theory IS derived from Marxism in one way or another. I don't consider that to necessarily be a good or bad thing, but it's a fact that Marxism is one of feminism's crucial philosophical antecedents.

 

And still, that's not the only source dasein mentioned. He mentioned at least two other self-identifying, "canon" feminists, as well as two or three fairly well known and well respected historical sources (from writers with diverging ideological backgrounds) that do not concern themselves with feminism directly.

[Kamille]

Most feminist theory IS derived from Marxism in one way or another. I don't consider that to necessarily be a good or bad thing, but it's a fact that Marxism is one of feminism's crucial philosophical antecedents.

 

 

If you actually read recent gender theory, you'd find out that current feminist theory is predominantly post-structuralist. (Think Derrida).

 

 

If anything, it is the current masculinist theory touted here ad nauseum that's marxist, what with over-abundant use of the notion of "false consciousness". How dialectical.

[mesmerized]

Are you holding your breath? Please don't. I may be a feminist, but I still care for your well-being.

 

Hate to see men fighting losing battles. Just join the force of people who have each other's best interests at heart D. Stop being so divisive.

 

I'm more curious to know what kind of change he is exactly expecting.

[serial muse]

Most feminist theory IS derived from Marxism in one way or another. I don't consider that to necessarily be a good or bad thing, but it's a fact that Marxism is one of feminism's crucial philosophical antecedents.

 

And still, that's not the only source dasein mentioned. He mentioned at least two other self-identifying, "canon" feminists, as well as two or three fairly well known and well respected historical sources (from writers with diverging ideological backgrounds) that do not concern themselves with feminism directly.

 

Yes, I haven't time at the moment to delve into the others - Erin Pizzey was mentioned multiple times, in multiple threads, so I assumed that was the one he thought most illuminating, somehow.

 

If I have time tonight I'll address the others.

 

Or perhaps I won't, what's the difference?

 

I really agree with what zengirl wrote earlier - most people have already made up their minds about whether feminism is at its heart (meaning, not including any fringe members who have their own extremist agendas) a terrorist movement bent on undermining the fabric of society or a benign movement bent on fostering social equality. If that's (social equality) too Marxist-sounding, I guess it is for some.

[Woggle]

That is the reason why I can never get behind the MRA movement. They want women to be 2nd class citizens which I can never get behind. I believe women should full rights and have full rights over their bodies but at the same time I do not want to be treated like the enemy because I have a penis. I want family and divorce court bias to be taken seriously and I want young boys who are struggling in education to be taken seriously. None of this means I am anti-woman.

[dasein]

Just join the force of people who have each other's best interests at heart D.

 

Those would be proponents of "human rights," not feminists. Any political doctrine that separates the interests of the genders one from the other politically is divisive by definition. Feminism "divides" people into political factions for the purpose of political gain, so keep trying to claim that I'm the divisive one. I'm the one suggesting a common shared gender vision of the human experience, past, present and future, as pertains to freedom and rights, a historically accurate unified vision as opposed to a distorted and divisive vision of gender politics and gender history.

[Kamille]

Those would be proponents of "human rights," not feminists. Any political doctrine that separates the interests of the genders one from the other politically is divisive by definition. Feminism "divides" people into political factions for the purpose of political gain, so keep trying to claim that I'm the divisive one. I'm the one suggesting a common shared gender vision of the human experience, past, present and future, as pertains to freedom and rights, a historically accurate unified vision as opposed to a distorted and divisive vision of gender politics and gender history.

 

Wonderful, my darling Dasein, I just agreed with you on the other thread. Where I disagree with you is that feminist divide people into political faction for political gain. If that were so, I'm convinced we would have a political system where women are the majority of representatives.

 

If you really want to talk equality, start with a fair assessment of reality.

 

So since you care about equal human rights, I imagine you'll want to make sure two humans doing the same job get paid the same salary. I imagine you would want humans assaulting other humans to be prosecuted. You would want all humans to be equally respected in speech. You want want all humans to have equal access to job opportunities. You would want all humans to do their fair share of caring and housework, so that they all have equal access to career opportunities.

 

Glad we agree D. Now, let's get going and let's make the world a better place.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Kamille

[dasein]

If you actually read recent gender theory, you'd find out that current feminist theory is predominantly post-structuralist. (Think Derrida).

 

Just the new clothes when the old clothes are seen for what they are, the next wave of socialist window dressing, this one cram full of obfuscatory hyperjargon gobbledygook for academics to use in their infinitely frivolous and neverending glass bead games. Somehow "deconstructing the gender social construct" will have the exact same noxious discriminatory politics at its core, obtaining discriminatory political results by solidifying one class of faux victims and another class of villains. That's all it ever has been and all it ever will be regardless of whether it seeks to legitimize itself in German or French schools.

 

If anything, it is the current masculinist theory touted here ad nauseum that's marxist, what with over-abundant use of the notion of "false consciousness". How dialectical.

 

"Masculinist," no dear, we didn't drink the same koolaid, we recognize the poisonous nature of that well. Destructing feminism is not the same as erecting some phallic alternative in its stead. The negation of feminism is just that, the negation of feminism. The rule of law works just fine for all of us in the coming post-feminist world.

[Kamille]

Just the new clothes when the old clothes are seen for what they are, the next wave of socialist window dressing, this one cram full of obfuscatory hyperjargon gobbledygook for academics to use in their infinitely frivolous and neverending glass bead games. Somehow "deconstructing the gender social construct" will have the exact same noxious discriminatory politics at its core, obtaining discriminatory political results by solidifying one class of faux victims and another class of villains. That's all it ever has been and all it ever will be regardless of whether it seeks to legitimize itself in German or French schools.

 

Never said I was one myself. My leanings are post-marxists. What can I say, I like empirical evidence. Which is why I can see right through your rhetorical bs.

 

 

 

"Masculinist," no dear, we didn't drink the same koolaid, we recognize the poisonous nature of that well. Destructing feminism is not the same as erecting some phallic alternative in its stead. The negation of feminism is just that, the negation of feminism. The rule of law works just fine for all of us in the coming post-feminist world.

 

Are you still holding your breath, waiting for the revolution to happen? Have you identified a common enemy, the oppressor of the entire human race? Guess what that makes you my dear... A level 101 Marxist.

[dasein]

Wonderful, my darling Dasein, I just agreed with you on the other thread. Where I disagree with you is that feminist divide people into political faction for political gain. If that were so, I'm convinced we would have a political system where women are the majority of representatives.

 

Fortunately for all of us, "feminism" ~= "women," and lots if not most women -aren't- feminists, vote their conscience as opposed to their victim card, torpedoing your theory handily. If all women were feminists, we would be far gone into the abyss you describe above even moreso than we are now.

 

So since you care about equal human rights, I imagine you'll want to make sure two humans doing the same job get paid the same salary.

 

Won't have to "make sure" it already -is-. Women already are paid equal amounts for equal experience and volume of work. If such were not the case, "enlightened" companies could hire cheaper female labor and drive their less "enlightened" competition right out of business overnight.

 

I imagine you would want humans assaulting other humans to be prosecuted.

 

Yes, and due to the U.S. having the highest incarceration rate in the world, that's being done, and has been. The nasty part of feminism where criminal law is concerned is in using bogus statistics to justify altering burdens of proof and hinge definitions such as "consent" in ways discriminatory to men. In femworld, crimes against women would be adjudicated on separate evidentiary burdens than crimes against everyone else, de jure discriminatory and abhorrent to the rule of law.

 

You would want all humans to be equally respected in speech.

 

That kind of equality is not a product of equal protection, but as anathema to feminists as the truth is, must be -earned-, and to date, feminist discourse and academic integrity have done a supremely shoddy job of earning respect. There's only so many made up, bogus victim mongering statistics reasonable people will tolerate before they start questioning, and upon finding the underlying falsehood, stop listening. Can't help you with that one.

 

You want want all humans to have equal access to job opportunities.

 

Yep, and this entails the end of discriminatory policies of all types favoring women in education, hiring and advancement.

 

You would want all humans to do their fair share of caring and housework, so that they all have equal access to career opportunities.

 

That's a matter of individual agreement among relationship partners, not for a centralized bureaucracy to ajudicate.

 

A world without feminism is a better place.

[dasein]

I like empirical evidence.

 

That's interesting, because I'm the only one here who ever offers any. Readers can certainly decide for themselves.

 

Are you still holding your breath, waiting for the revolution to happen? Have you identified a common enemy, the oppressor of the entire human race? Guess what that makes you my dear... A level 101 Marxist.

 

Oh, I see, marxists have a monopoly somehow on social change, of removing bad policy? Messrs. Jefferson, Paine, Madison, et al, might have something to say about that, were they all marxists? Not even a good try.

 

Once more, the negation of bad ideas is simply that, a negation, not an alternatively erected convenient strawman.

[Kamille]

Fortunately for all of us, "feminism" ~= "women," and lots if not most women -aren't- feminists, vote their conscience as opposed to their victim card, torpedoing your theory handily. If all women were feminists, we would be far gone into the abyss you describe above even moreso than we are now.

 

Yawn. So tell us Dase, what does a post-feminist society look like?

 

 

Won't have to "make sure" it already -is-. Women already are paid equal amounts for equal experience and volume of work.

Delusional much? Ever consulted a census?

 

 

If such were not the case, "enlightened" companies could hire cheaper female labor and drive their less "enlightened" competition right out of business overnight.

 

Why do you think more men and women are, for the first time in US-Canada history, equally employed? Yes, because companies are non-unionized and mostly focused on the service industries. That means more insecure, low-paying jobs.

 

 

 

Yes, and due to the U.S. having the highest incarceration rate in the world, that's being done, and has been. The nasty part of feminism where criminal law is concerned is in using bogus statistics to justify altering burdens of proof and hinge definitions such as "consent" in ways discriminatory to men. In femworld, crimes against women would be adjudicated on separate evidentiary burdens than crimes against everyone else, de jure discriminatory and abhorrent to the rule of law.

 

Right. So you're not divisive eh? You care as much about women as men. You're incoherent Dasein. One minute you spout off about inequalities and then you argue that the 14% conviction rate on rape cases is too high. That the burden of proof lies on the part of the prosecuted and not the victim. That consent, ie, agreeing to have sex, is ill-defined. Spend your time better dear. Go tell men consent is sexy.

 

 

That kind of equality is not a product of equal protection, but as anathema to feminists as the truth is, must be -earned-, and to date, feminist discourse and academic integrity have done a supremely shoddy job of earning respect. There's only so many made up, bogus victim mongering statistics reasonable people will tolerate before they start questioning, and upon finding the underlying falsehood, stop listening. Can't help you with that one.

 

So why would you want to position yourself as a victim then, and literally counter-argue using the type of discursive tactics you say you despise.

 

 

Yep, and this entails the end of discriminatory policies of all types favoring women in education, hiring and advancement.

 

I thought you wanted to make equal for all humans. What measured do you propose? Oh, the kind where you get to keep all the cake. Right.

 

That's a matter of individual agreement among relationship partners, not for a centralized bureaucracy to ajudicate.

 

Agreed. Don't become bitter at the world and an entire gender if your own marriage doesn't work out because you could never agree on the basics.

 

A world without misguided propaganda, be that one that advocates less rights for men or women, is a better place.

 

Helped you out with that one, my fellow human rights' activist!

 

Do you want me to help you down the soapbox?