# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  I'm not ashamed to admit I hate feminists.

## Good as Gold

I hate feminists.

And not the awesome ones back in the twenties who honestly were doing the right thing- those flapper chicks were hot! Nowadays I don't hate the regular feminists who think they deserve equal opportunity. That's completely fair and anybody who says otherwise is just stupid as hell.

No, no no. I hate radical feminists.

The ones who march day and night. The ones who hate me just because I happen to have balls and not ovaries. Y'see, it's one thing to be equal. I think we're there right now, as a matter of fact. But it's as if they're trying to actually     consciously trying to show how much better they are then me. They aren't. And I'm not better then them accept for the cold, hard, fact that they're fucking stupid and I'm not.

I may be a lot of things, like a jackass, an asshole, and a jerk, but I am not a chauvinist. I hate them too. If they want to get anywhere in the world they should stop dividing. Dividing people into black and white started the American Civil War. Dividing people into 'Jews' and the rest of the world started WWII. And now, dividing people into women and men could start another.

Abortion is a touchy issue. Personally I'm against it, but not for religious reasons. I'm not the least bit religious, (even though these particular views would fit snuggly on an Alabama fundamentalist.) but it's stupid. Once you have a child growing inside of you it isn't about your body anymore. It's the baby's body, - and don't bullshit me with, it isn't human yet! No, it's not. But it will be so quit being stupid.-  the fathers, and yes, yours too. Live up to your own stupidity. Getting an abortion is just turning your back on responsibilities. The only time an abortion is right is when you're raped or if you can't support the baby to the point that it will die.

There's other stuff I could go into, like how women aren't in the draft even though it's been proven that they can do great. I don't see any protests about that, mein friends.

In the long run we need to look past things like race, religion, and gender and unite under one banner: Human.

----------


## Serkat

> stop dividing. Dividing people into black and white started the American Civil War. Dividing people into 'Jews' and the rest of the world started WWII. And now, dividing people into women and men could start another.



This is wrong. The Civil War was started due to discrimination, prejudice and unequal rights, not due to recognizing the fact that people have different racial traits based on their genealogical history. World War II was started due to similar reasons and on top of that eugenics, collectivism and fascism and not due to recognizing the fact that some people self-identify as Jews. Dividing people into groups is a minor factor and not in any way supportive of these issues. Anytime you classify someone as "black" or "Hispanic" or "stupid" or "Christian" you have effectively put that person into a group with all the other persons that you would apply that label to.

What you said didn't make any sense. If we didn't divide people into women and men, I'd kill myself because I'm straight. Any label that applies to more than one persons puts all labeled persons into a separate group under that label.






> No, it's not. But it will be so quit being stupid





(that's soap)






> In the long run we need to look past things like race, religion, and gender and unite under one banner: Human.



Wrong. I won't unite with crazy fascists, terrorists, Islamists, evangelicals and other nutjobs. If you wanna do that, go ahead, but don't complain to me if you end up upside down with a fork up your ass. The very last thing I'll do is unite with religion. Religion is a choice, gender and race you are born with. The three shouldn't ever be listed as if they're the same.

Why unite, what's the point? We're different. Talk about it, don't ignore it and pretend we're all the same when we're obviously not.

----------


## wendylove

Firstly, feminism is a good movement. Getting women equal to men is a good thing, unless you think women are inferior to men, which I don't.

Anyway, you analysis of the America Civil war is weak, firstly getting rid off slavery started it. See blacks being slaves is not ethically right, so a war to destroy slavery is ethically good. Hitler was a crazy racist, and no it was not the imaginary divide between Jews and others that caused it, it was Hitler and the bunch of thugs called neo nazis. Lastly, feminist do not want to divide us up, instead they want to make us equal.

Abortion is supported by most doctors, and scientifically their is no evidence that a feutus is alive or even feels pain or thinks. The issue of responcibillity aside, the world population is too big and having more unwanted children will not help. 

Women are paid less than men for the same work. They have their rights to control their own body taken away like abortion issue. Lastly, they have to live in a male dominated world with idiots like you who mouth of against progress. If it wasen't for feminism, women would be unable to vote or even work in a male dominated area.

----------


## Good as Gold

> Firstly, feminism is a good movement. Getting women equal to men is a good thing, unless you think women are inferior to men, which I don't.
> 
> Anyway, you analysis of the America Civil war is weak, firstly getting rid off slavery started it. See blacks being slaves is not ethically right, so a war to destroy slavery is ethically good. Hitler was a crazy racist, and no it was not the imaginary divide between Jews and others that caused it, it was Hitler and the bunch of thugs called neo nazis. Lastly, feminist do not want to divide us up, instead they want to make us equal.
> 
> Abortion is supported by most doctors, and scientifically their is no evidence that a feutus is alive or even feels pain or thinks. The issue of responcibillity aside, the world population is too big and having more unwanted children will not help. 
> 
> Women are paid less than men for the same work. They have their rights to control their own body taken away like abortion issue. Lastly, they have to live in a male dominated world with idiots like you who mouth of against progress. If it wasen't for feminism, women would be unable to vote or even work in a male dominated area.



Please read what I said, first, dumbass. I said I wasn't against equality. I think that's fair! Alot of them, however, are trying to become even better well off- eg., radical feminists.

As far as the Civil War thing, I was simply generalizing what the conflict about. I couldn't possibly list all the reasons, but one of the big ones was slavery- black only, if I recall correctly. They were thought of as unhuman and not worthy of life. 

Also, neo-nazis? Err, no, that was after the real nazis- Hence NEO (new) NAZIS.

----------


## Serkat

> As far as the Civil War thing, I was simply generalizing what the conflict about. I couldn't possibly list all the reasons, but one of the big ones was slavery- black only, if I recall correctly. They were thought of as unhuman and not worthy of life.



So? The reason they were enslaved was not because they were black but because people  thought that different races had any relevance apart from being of a different race. Blacks are still blacks today, just not enslaved. You said that dividing people into groups caused wars, and that's flat out false.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Meh, I disagree with the OP, I do however believe some take it TOO far, if your going to cause public disturbances and stuff, its kind of going against your cause ya know?

but on your abortion stance, I have no comment because im for it, but i respect your views, also you stated that men and women are equal right now, i beg to differ, I totally disagree with that statement, things are not equal.

Women are still literally laughed at when they need to get a car serviced, men assume women know nothing of cars or mechanics, and men always tend to treat women like second class citizens. Not only that but men get paid more, sadly still.

I think its very sexist to say we are equal, dress as a woman one day and live ONE day as a woman, and come back to me and tell me if were equal.


I also agree with wendy, the feminist movement is a great thing, it should of started alot earlier in my opinion but whats done is done, the movement seems to have slowed down over the past decade or so or its just my perception of that, but they need to step things up and ensure women get EQUAL PAY!!!!

Society as a whole needs to grow the hell up and learn to treat all women with respect and dignity and stop staring at their damn chest when speaking to them, they have feelings and they aren't just eye-candy guys!

lately i've just had it with men, i might be a male, but i sure as hell don't feel or act or think like one, it seems to me most men just want to dominate and own the female sex, like they are the gate keepers or some crap, well I say NO, to that masculinity crap.

Femininity should dominate the world, not masculinity, masculinity has brought nothing but conflict and war and greed and power, why not give us feminine's a chance to rule with femininity?


All men have created is weapons and wars and money, which in turn bring death and greed and corruption, yay masculinity  ::roll::

----------


## Serkat

> Femininity should dominate the world, not masculinity, masculinity has brought nothing but conflict and war and greed and power, why not give us feminine's a chance to rule with femininity?
> 
> All men have created is weapons and wars and money, which in turn bring death and greed and corruption, yay masculinity



Men evolved as the dominant sex. There's no discussion here. It's just a fact of life. And even though a shallow form of female pseudo-dominance can be made out today, there's no contest - think science, think philosophy, think information management, think media, think internet, think the richest people in the world are 80-85&#37; male. Men have a natural instinct to dominate society, partly in ways that aren't naked to the eye. It's not that women don't get opportunity to compete in relevant sectors - they just don't. Because they're not dominant and they never will be.

Compare:

Oprah - Letterman
Beyonce - Bono
Rice - Bush

In other news, men have created the greatest inventions, made the greatest discoveries, spearheaded the greatest movements, fought the most important wars and produced the greatest works of art. Your view is biased. Meanwhile, women have mostly been involved in feminism. Wars and progress stem from the same root - the dominant male desire to lead and influence society and fight for a goal with relentless determination. If all politicians were female, the earth would literally stop turning. Like literally come to halt and just not turn anymore.

----------


## Xei

I'm all for equality and women are probably equal in their mental faculties etcetera. I just don't like it when it's taken too far, and in areas where there isn't really sexism any more, to the point of persecuting people for noticing that somebody is a woman. Radical feminists have to face up to the fact that there are differences. For example, men cannot give birth wheras women can... so there will always be social differences.

It's quite similar to my dislike of the overuse of the term 'racist'... it's become so overused it's now a clich&#233; and definitely begins to trample on freedoms (freedom of speech largely) in some situations. Racism is largely a thing of the past in the UK at least, and to call half of the things that happen nowadays 'racist' is an insult to the serious offenses of the past.

I also disapprove of the term 'feminist'. To me that in no way is provocative of equality; it suggests female superiority. The term 'equalist' would be much more apt.

----------


## Alric

I think everyone hates the extreme feminist, and if you don't its probably because you are one yourself. They are just flat out sexist. There is no reason to mix all feminist together however. Most are not that extreme. Infact even in general feminist disagree with each other on a lot of things.

The biggest thing that annoys people however, is when they claim they want to be equal in all things, then expect to be treated differently because they are woman. You can't have both at once. The classic example is when a woman says she wants to be equal to a man in a relationship, but then expects the man to pay for everything when they go on a date, which by default means they are no longer equal.

Its not about being equal or identical. Its about being fair and respectful. Another thing that is often pointed out is when people say woman on average make less than men doing the same job. But then you look at it up and normally the average man works longer hours than a woman doing the same job. So is it fair that a man makes more? If he is working longer hours, then yes it is. Its totally fair. Same thing goes for if you take a year off your job to have a baby. If a man works that entire year and gets promoted for doing a good job. Is that fair that the man is making more money and is in a higher position than the woman? Yes it is.

----------


## Serkat

> It's quite similar to my dislike of the overuse of the term 'racist'... it's become so overused it's now a clich&#233; and definitely begins to trample on freedoms (freedom of speech largely) in some situations. Racism is largely a thing of the past in the UK at least, and to call half of the things that happen nowadays 'racist' is an insult to the serious offenses of the past.



Yeah, I agree with that. The English Wikipedia entry for human race is actually pretty balanced and gives a good neutral overview about how to tackle the issue of obvious phenotypic differences among populations in certain regions. By contrast, the German Wikipedia article is completely overrun by people who wouldn't dare use the words race or racial in ANY context. It actually says in the first sentence that all concepts of race have been abandoned by basically everyone except racists and that race concepts are inherently racist. This is exactly what you find in Germany.

Seriously, that word 'race' is so overloaded in German... wow. It's like you say "racial characteristics" and that exact second you are accused of considering the other person sub-human. It's not even funny. I can't acknowledge the fact that specific genealogical populations have specific typical phenotypic traits and that it's useful to refer to this as RACE without being called a racist. I hate that. What's the big deal? I don't get it. It's only natural that humans would evolve slightly different based on their environment. You couldn't release a porn movie here and put the word interracial on it because interracial includes race and that means that you're a racist. People are completely nuts over PC. You can say that someone looks "Black" or "African" or "Chinese" but don't you dare invoke the term race.

You can use the term ethnicity as a substitute... but ethnicity actually means something different from race. So basically, we're fucked. You can sound smart and say 'cline' too... but whatever.

Also, in English seminars in university, it's no problem to use the word race, even among Germans. It's only problematic if you say RASSE. It's just... crazy.

----------


## Sylph

> In other news, men have created the greatest inventions, made the greatest discoveries, spearheaded the greatest movements, fought the most important wars and produced the greatest works of art. Your view is biased. Meanwhile, women have mostly been involved in feminism. Wars and progress stem from the same root - the dominant male desire to lead and influence society and fight for a goal with relentless determination. If all politicians were female, the earth would literally stop turning. Like literally come to halt and just not turn anymore.




That's easy to say when women weren't allowed to do shit throughout history (often beginning with basic things such as reading) and the fact that history has been written by men, so, of course what women did or did not do never really mattered. Anyway, the few women that made it into history books are in no way inferior to men in their deeds. You have able rulers, generals, scientists and poets.
Women have "mostly been involved in feminism" because without getting through that first they would never get anywhere else.
As for what would happen to the world - yeah, I might concede things would move at a different rate but moving at a different rate isn't the same as stopping. I once read about a study that said the only reason Africa didn't just totally colapse decades ago was because women's work was supporting the economy (while men were busy being "dominant"). A fat lot of good "being dominat" would have done for them if no food came out of the fields and all their kids starved to death - wonderful way to run a land if you ask me... Meanwhile, the women (who keep the Earth from moving) started small businesses, sold the stuff they made at the markets, used the money to get phones, electricity, schools and medical care in their villages.

----------


## Sylph

> Another thing that is often pointed out is when people say woman on average make less than men doing the same job. But then you look at it up and normally the average man works longer hours than a woman doing the same job. So is it fair that a man makes more? If he is working longer hours, then yes it is. Its totally fair. Same thing goes for if you take a year off your job to have a baby. If a man works that entire year and gets promoted for doing a good job. Is that fair that the man is making more money and is in a higher position than the woman? Yes it is.



Really? I never realized companies had different time tables depending on gender.

Just last month I heard about this woman who learned her husband's craft and started fixing shoes for people of the neighbouring villages. And she worked a stretch of land for some guy, same time, work, tools, everything than guys who had worked there before. But, of course, she got payed less - she was a woman, that's "how things are". On top of it, she went home and did all the "woman's stuff" around the house (I have to wonder just what the hell did her husband do in the middle of all this...)
A few days later, this big company, greatest exporter in the country, was going to start paying the same to their female workers that they did to the male (all doing the same job) - all through a phase of 4 years... And they said this as if it was a gesture of greatness or something - according to our law, the company should have been taken to court ages ago!
Believe it or not, this happened (happens) in western Europe!

The point is why isn't it fair when it's a woman working her but off the whole year and doing a good job. Oh, of course - you can't promote women, they get pregnant!



Yeah, radical feminist are just a bunch of sexists, I won't argue with that, but really guys... On the rare ocasions I hang out with people, I hang out with men, 'cause I have more in common with them than I have with women my own age - and, trust me, most guys don't have a clue of the kind of crap women put up with from men.
Like guerilla said, if you can pass yourself off as a convincing woman, try doing it some time - you're bound to notice the difference.

----------


## Sornaensis

If masculinity was removed from the world this is what would happen:

Now:
<World>  --->

Then:
<World>

And a little while later:

----------


## Alric

Its just an example. If men at a given company tend to work longer hours than the woman, then the men are going to tend to make more money than the woman doing the same job. That doesn't matter at all for individuals however. In cases when they do exactly the same thing, for the same amount of time, it should be the same.

Of course its not perfect. There are companies that do all form of illegal things. Though that isn't the majority of them.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Good as gold, god of wine. It is more complex than stupidity. Things are causing things you hate. It's your responsibility to deal with that not their problem to get smarter but your hate is your own problem to deal with.

Also you can't distinguish between the point where something is alive and not alive. According to your idea of abortion the point where you said don't abort could go back as far as meeting the person who you have sex with and all the events leading up to it. How do you decide which point it becomes life and is then inappropriate to abort anything? Is it alive at the point where you meet the person, the point where you get into bed with them. Is the sperm a baby before ejaculation, or does it become a baby life after the ejaculation. Or only when it enters the vagina. Or when it goes into the egg. Or when it is 9 months old. Or when it comes out. You can't define a finite point where something is suddenly alive it's ridiculous. The only thing you can do is understand that before the baby comes out it isn't in a state of being that we are in. Everything that is in a different state is treated different as is appropriate. There are times when it may be appropriate to abort something significant in your belly before it grows into 20 year old. Destroying or nurturing is not even an issue it's about what the appropriate thing to do is and that requires proper understanding of why you have certain morals and how effective they are when you put them into practice.

For or against abortion is way too simplistic of a decision and not an effective way to think about or deal with something complex and intense like that. One has to be more capable of discerning and understanding what is appropriate according to different situations. It may be easy to say always do this or that however it will become foolish when you don't fully consider why you are doing such things and how they are operating in relation to your decisions.

----------


## Xei



----------


## Universal Mind

> and don't bullshit me with, it isn't human yet! No, it's not. But it will be so quit being stupid.



It will not be if it is aborted.  My baby with Britney Spears will be human too, but not if she keeps ignoring me.  





> The only time an abortion is right is when you're raped or if you can't support the baby to the point that it will die.



Those fetuses wouldn't become human if not aborted?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Why are people ashamed to recognize that THERE ARE differences between women, therefore we are not equal?

I don't mean unequal in human rights, but we are not equal beings.

----------


## tkdyo

lets see, I am pretty much against abortion, there is one part that is really rediculous to me.  "its my body"  right, it is, but guess what?  the body inside yours isnt your body, it is the child's body.  And, the man should get a say too, after all he might really love that baby and want it, yet the woman is free to just say kill it?  Those two things culminated seem pretty selfish to me.

----------


## Serkat

> lets see, I am pretty much against abortion, there is one part that is really rediculous to me.  "its my body"  right, it is, but guess what?  the body inside yours isnt your body, it is the child's body.  And, the man should get a say too, after all he might really love that baby and want it, yet the woman is free to just say kill it?  Those two things culminated seem pretty selfish to me.



There's neither a body nor a child so none of that has any relevance.

----------


## Halocuber

Feminists annoy the shit of me,

----------


## dweezil

good as gold...feminism, having started in the 18th century, has changed so much over the years. feminism has so many umbrella groups, that saying that you hate "feminists" or "radical feminists", is just really silly. the bill of rights for women that was brought about by the national organisation of women in the US, in the 1960's granted all of the "equality" you're rambling about...before that we had the suffragettes...lets see, decided to campiagn for women's sufferage because african american men over 21 were going to be given the vote, and of course white women were superior to black men...thus white women should be given sufrage (fucked up!!). feminists of the 1920's...lets see...two of the most famous, emma goldman and voltairian de clayre...both anarchist, feminist and radicals! these were the good ones!

and if you're talking about equality, then men need to realise that they can be feminist too, it's not exclusive. 

the problem with 1960's feminism is that it was led by privileged, middle class, educated, (predominantly) white women. from the start it only gave an illusion of being "equal". women of colour (not just as some of you have said "black") and women in poverty were not represented by this branch of feminism. 

myself and my housemates recently hosted a radical feminist gathering at our house over 3 days. there was a marquee, a film screening room, a kids play area and a quiet place to hang out. there were workshops on islamic feminism, book binding, how to knit, how to organise our activist groups better, how women can work to avoid competition with one another, how to belly dance, how to be a better parent and loads more, including workshops given by men. an anti-authoritarian parenting group formed out of one of the workshops.

men, women and children were welcome. there were 140 people from all over the world, here at my house.  this is not exclusive or divisive.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> we are not equal beings.



So in your opinion is it women who are the inferior ones or men?

----------


## Xei

Inferior in ability to create babies? Men.

Inferior in physical agility? Women.

Inferior as a whole? Neither, both sexes are equal. But different. Clearly. Or there wouldn't be a word for 'man' or 'woman', would there?

He already made it very clear what he's talking about, don't take things out of context.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Xei that's a bit uptight when people say not equal I'm assuming they refer to inferiority because obviously everything isn't identical as it goes without saying things are different.

----------


## Alric

It should go without saying but it doesn't. There are people who try to act like men and woman are identical, which is silly. In my opinion the abortion problem would be a lot easier if people weren't so stupid. 

People need realize what they are doing. If you abort a baby, yes you are killing it. In my opinion I think if you are stupid enough to get pregnant then you should live with your mistake. You have no one to blame but yourself, and you as an adult you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. That said I do believe some times it may be ok. For example, if you got raped and got pregnant and it would make your life horrible, then maybe its acceptable. Its not really my place to judge that.

As for when a baby is a live, techincally at the point it can react to outside stimulus or becomes aware of its surroundings then its alive.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> If you abort a baby, yes you are killing it



You can't abort a baby. A baby just got born.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Ahh not with this abortion stuff again...

Why do most men seem to think THEY can choose what a woman can do with her own fucking body? It's her body, her womb and her decision, neither you 'pro-lifers' or government have any right to say otherwise.

Speaking of pro-lifers, how can they be considered pro-life when they're the same people who love wars which hardly bring any life.

I'm just so sick and tired of everyone thinking they have a say in what a woman should do with her body, its wrong and its gotta STOP!

Equal rights is what we need, not this male dominant crap society.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Pretty well said. Male dominant society has become unbalanced retarded society. Time for football on the front page news tomorrow again. With ball in hand one leg in the air and a surprised face like that I can't think of any else worth reporting for front page.

----------


## Halocuber

> Pretty well said. Male dominant society has become unbalanced retarded society. Time for football on the front page news tomorrow again. With ball in hand one leg in the air and a surprised face like that I can't think of any else worth reporting for front page.




Football is the most popular sport and subject in the U.S. , so of course its going to be in the front page.  I seems more like a hatred toward football.

Also , I would like to see the response of a anti-abourtion if their only option was stem-cell research for their  terminal disease.

----------


## Serkat

> Pretty well said. Male dominant society has become unbalanced retarded society. Time for football on the front page news tomorrow again. With ball in hand one leg in the air and a surprised face like that I can't think of any else worth reporting for front page.



Because it's not like you don't have the choice to listen to other news and buy other magazines.
Hypocrite.

----------


## Sornaensis

Male Dominante society won't ever change because humans are Patriacal(sp?).

Dumb shits.

That's like Elephants suddenly being lead only by a male.

Fat chance.

----------


## Alric

Theres just as many woman who are anti abortion as their are men. Why do most woman think they can choose what a woman can do with her own body? Its normally not just a womans right issue but a religion issue.

----------


## Taosaur

A lot of people, including some who call themselves feminists, confuse humanism and feminism--I know I did when I was younger, and referred to myself as a feminist (as opposed to a chauvinist), when in fact my view was that men and women should interact as equals, not that women and their supporters should band together to overthrow patriarchy and install matriarchy (though I bet they'd be about equally effective/retarded).

There are differences between men and women, but we have a lot more in common, both physically and in terms of our perspective. The more we divide the sexes and examine our differences, the more those differences will stand out and multiply.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

> Male Dominante society won't ever change because humans are Patriacal(sp?).
> 
> Dumb shits.
> 
> That's like Elephants suddenly being lead only by a male.
> 
> Fat chance.





Oh god. Oh god oh god.

----------


## Sornaensis

> Oh god. Oh god oh god.



What?

----------


## Abra

I'm anti abortion, except in special cases (rape, and drug abuse). Sex is designed to make babies. The procreation process can circumvent protection in a Jurassic Park-like manner, and whoever screws around should be prepared for it.

I don't like the woman stereotype. Really, I want to see more action-adventure heroines in the movies, and less chick flick and romantic comedy bullcrap.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> Hypocrite.



Be careful how you throw that word around. How sad there is a lot of negative serious hate from the immature people here than there is righteous lighthearted humor and intellectual reasoning.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> So in your opinion is it women who are the inferior ones or men?



In terms of strength and phycical ablility, yes, men are superior. And thats not an opinion. 

Does that anger you? Because it shouldn't.

----------


## Taosaur

> In terms of strength and phycical ablility, yes, men are superior. And thats not an opinion.



And has physical strength become more or less relevant as civilization has grown? By your reasoning oxen are superior to human beings.

----------


## Sornaensis

...strength wise.

Just like Bees are more superior at building Beehives and dungbeetles are more superior at rolling shit into tiny balls to lay eggs in.

But that's just insane to point out each little thing like that.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> And has physical strength become more or less relevant as civilization has grown? By your reasoning oxen are superior to human beings.



The fact that you feel like I was trying to say that men are better than women gives you no right to have an opinion. I don't give a fuck if physical ability matters in today's society. And it doesn't matter. 

HONESTLY, I just said that to see if anybody would make an assumption if I was sexist.

Men are stronger than women. Can you agree with me without calling me a sexist? Because what I'm saying isnt sexist.

----------


## Taosaur

> The fact that you feel like I was trying to say that men are better than women gives you no right to have an opinion. I don't give a fuck if physical ability matters in today's society. And it doesn't matter. 
> 
> HONESTLY, I just said that to see if anybody would make an assumption if I was sexist.
> 
> Men are stronger than women. Can you agree with me without calling me a sexist? Because what I'm saying isnt sexist.



Well, no, it's not sexist to point it out, just irrelevant. You made the claim that because we are different, men and women "are not equal beings." When asked to clarify, you pulled out that men have superior strength. Now you say you were being purposely vague and inflammatory--i.e. trolling.

Congratulations, you win one (1) troll-hole and your 'contributions' will be discounted for the rest of the thread.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> I don't give a fuck



WHOA calm down you have some sexist issue for sure.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> What?



Your insane that's what. How can a male dominant society rule forever, just look at our barbaric and male dominant society, what has it achived?

lets see:


War
War inventions
Bombs
Guns

I can go on forever, and YES I do acknoledge that men have created GOOD inventions, I am in NO way dissing all men, I think most men are childish dominant monkeys to be honest, but alot of men are good people, they have compassion and love too.


My point is, this male dominant society won't last forever, because its main flaw is dominance, and dominance is the problem. Men who are dominant seek more and more power and control in government, this is like a plague.

It's time we have a feminine driven society, and soon hopefully...but I have my doubts, men aren't just going to keel over and submit their masculinity, they are too fond and protective over their manliness to ever give it up.

Sad isn't it?  If only more men broke the gender mold like me and broke away from masculinity

----------


## Serkat

> Sad isn't it?  If only more men broke the gender mold like me and broke away from masculinity



It would be an even quicker way to exterminate humankind.

And dominance is not a flaw. If it was a flaw it wouldn't be the consistent result of evolution among the majority of vaguely intelligent species. Dominance is what keeps society going, THE END.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

being feminine doesn't mean you can't reproduce.

And, humankind is on the path to extermination because of our male society, war will end us.

Would you rather go up in a nuclear extinction, or in a peaceful feminine world?

I'd rather choose the 2nd.

----------


## Serkat

> being feminine doesn't mean you can't reproduce.



Yes, it does. Heterosexual women aren't attracted to non-dominant males. Feminine men aren't dominant, hence they can't reproduce and/or they get exploited by females.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

If you think thats universally true, you need to do something called see the world, there are PLENTY of women who find feminine men hot, plenty of men who find dominant women hot, and contrary to your thick headed beliefs, feminine men have the capacity to reproduce and have offspring.

You don't have to be a big burly manly idiot to have kids.

----------


## Serkat

> If you think thats universally true, you need to do something called see the world, there are PLENTY of women who find feminine men hot, plenty of men who find dominant women hot, and contrary to your thick headed beliefs, feminine men have the capacity to reproduce and have offspring.
> 
> You don't have to be a big burly manly idiot to have kids.



I was talking gender-wise, in general. This includes individual variation. It is implied that the reader understands this concept.

I.e. Women aren't as funny as men and never will be. This is because funniness is a central sign of attractiveness in men whereas women only need to _understand_ humor and look good. (Evolution etc.)

Yet, there are some decent female comedians (half of which are funny by imitating male humor) and some unfunny men.

And if you think that there are "plenty" of heterosexual women who find feminine men attractive then I can only assume that this ginormous misjudgment is due to lack of straightness on your part.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> I was talking gender-wise, in general. This includes individual variation. It is implied that the reader understands this concept.
> 
> I.e. Women aren't as funny as men and never will be. This is because funniness is a central sign of attractiveness in men whereas women only need to _understand_ humor and look good. (Evolution etc.)
> 
> Yet, there are some decent female comedians (half of which are funny by imitating male humor) and some unfunny men.
> 
> And if you think that there are "plenty" of heterosexual women who find feminine men attractive then I can only assume that this ginormous misjudgment is due to lack of straightness on your part.




I just disagree, I think most of guy's arguments on this topic are driven by their own self-preservation of masculinity.

I totally don't think your right when it comes to being funny, women aren't funny? Maybe you are too busy criticizing them to meet a funny girl. 

I do admit that on TV you generally see more male comedians then women, I do however think it has NOTHING to do with who is funnier. I think the reason you see more male comedians on tv is because, who runs the media?

Men run the media, in turn that's why you see ONE womans channel: Lifetime

and about 1,000 guy channels, you flip through the channels and the majority of the 'entertainment' is male driven.


Also, why do you assume there are nearly no hetero women who like feminine men? Also, hetero women aren't all women, there are many bi-women and gay women, of couse the gay women don't find any men attractive, BUT there are a SLEW of bi women who just adore guys just like me, shy quiet, compassionate and sorta feminine.

----------


## Serkat

> I totally don't think your right when it comes to being funny, women aren't funny? Maybe you are too busy criticizing them to meet a funny girl.



I didn't say women weren't funny.





> I do admit that on TV you generally see more male comedians then women, I do however think it has NOTHING to do with who is funnier. I think the reason you see more male comedians on tv is because, who runs the media?



Doesn't make any sense. According to that logic we'd only have gay porn since men run the porn business, hence they only want men on the screen.

Demands and ratings determine whether something is on TV, not gender.





> Men run the media, in turn that's why you see ONE womans channel: Lifetime
> 
> and about 1,000 guy channels, you flip through the channels and the majority of the 'entertainment' is male driven.



See above. Doesn't make any sense. If there's more demand for male entertainment then that's what's going to happen.

On the other side, there are more bullshit useless fashion, celeb, gossip, pop-psych, diet, dating, anti-depressive makeup magazines that are almost exclusively aimed at women. What's your point?





> Also, why do you assume there are nearly no hetero women who like feminine men?



I don't assume this, I know so for a fact.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> I didn't say women weren't funny.
> 
> Doesn't make any sense. According to that logic we'd only have gay porn since men run the porn business, hence they only want men on the screen.
> 
> Demands and ratings determine whether something is on TV, not gender.
> 
> See above. Doesn't make any sense. If there's more demand for male entertainment then that's what's going to happen.
> 
> On the other side, there are more bullshit useless fashion, celeb, gossip, pop-psych, diet, dating, anti-depressive makeup magazines that are almost exclusively aimed at women. What's your point?
> ...



I don't even know how to reply to this.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> Dominance is what keeps society going



Football is not what keeps society going. It's what keeps society from going anywhere. Dominance is pointless when your mind is in a box. May as well run around naked having an orgy. The trophy would go good on top of the television. Cause you were tough. Carried a dead animal skin over the line without getting raped by the other players trying to pull your pants down.

----------


## Serkat

> Football is not what keeps society going. It's what keeps society from going anywhere. Dominance is pointless when your mind is in a box. May as well run around naked having an orgy. The trophy would go good on top of the television. Cause you were tough. Carried a dead animal skin over the line without getting raped by the other players trying to pull your pants down.



Would you kindly shut your piehole.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Would you kindly shut your piehole.



Would you kindly get a conscience.

----------


## Serkat

> Would you kindly get a conscience.



Thanks, mine is pretty good. Excellent, even.

----------


## dweezil

korittke, i really can not believe how ignorant you are. you are sexist, bigoted, aggressive, homophobic and rude. i'm really glad i have only encountered you online, if we met in real life i think i would vomit with repulsion. you should really think about how you put yourself across. you may find it brings you more friends.

----------


## Sornaensis

> Your insane that's what. How can a male dominant society rule forever, just look at our barbaric and male dominant society, what has it achived?
> 
> lets see:
> 
> 
> War
> War inventions
> Bombs
> Guns
> ...



You're an idiot.

Male-Dominant society is the way it it because that's how we are structured as Patriarchal.

And let's see... H. Sapiens has been around for what? 16,000 years?

Something like that. We've been Patriarchal since.

Again; it's like elephants becoming Patriarchal rather than Matriarchal.

Men and Masculinity is what keeps society going, feminism and women is what ensures we are still around to have society.

----------


## Serkat

> korittke, i really can not believe how ignorant you are. you are sexist, bigoted, aggressive, homophobic and rude. i'm really glad i have only encountered you online, if we met in real life i think i would vomit with repulsion. you should really think about how you put yourself across. you may find it brings you more friends.



lol

P.S. In case you didn't notice, you are wearing a Batman-mask and there is a chocolate sundae in your hand.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Thanks, mine is pretty good. Excellent, even.



Yea, keep telling yourself that. 

This is the main reason I don't enjoy arguements like this, because the men never can lose, they always have to win no matter what the issue is. I'm shocked at remembering in a thread somewhere you posted that you are a feminist, If I remember correctly that is. You are the far opposite of feminism, all you seem to do is objectify women and anyone who supports them.

----------


## Sornaensis

Guerilla yur argument is much akin to saying: "Capitalism will fail soon because it is all about power and money and communism will replace it"

Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

----------


## snoop

> Also, why do you assume there are nearly no hetero women who like feminine men.



Because it's the truth.  I know plenty of people who know girls that they like who are going out with assholes.  They always end up being the nice guy you described, being nice, considerate, and understanding.  They help the girl through her problems with the guy she's going out with, and then returns to her boyfriend she is too stupid to leave.  She never once sees the nice guy who is helping her out and listening to her problems as someone she'd be going out with, because they are just "friends."  

This has happened too much for it to be a mere coincidence between all the friends I know that this has happened too.  This is how it is.

And Minervas, what is your problem with football?  Men see plenty of things women enjoy watching on TV or in real life just as pointless, so you may as well drop the issue.

Also, this may just be my masculinity talking, but I'd definitely rather go up in nuclear extinction than have women turn all men into effeminate males and make this world go down "peacefully."  I'm alright with effeminate males, don't get me wrong.  It's just that forcing that kind of stuff down someone's throat isn't really the right thing to do.  Besides, "breaking up the gender mold" and giving up masculinity would basically result in our early extinction.  It isn't only a man's instinct to dominate, but protect his land.  Women are just as able to protect their land, but this "feminine" world you speak of... it's main goal is to wipe out that thought process.  We'd be left defenseless against nature.  

I mean, all men do are create guns and war right?  Guns can't possibly protect us from wild animals too, right?  They can only be used to kill people! 

Believe it or not, weapons can be used to defend us, too.  If your feminine dominated world ever happened, I assume we'd stop making guns and ammunition, or any weapons, because then it wouldn't be such a perfect, peaceful place.  All of the other species in the world would rip us apart. You notice how a pack of wolves is operated?  Oh right, either a male or female _dominates_ the pack.  The same can be said for many animals.  Animals that try to get rid of that which protects them usually get wiped clean off the face of the earth.

Don't even try and tell me that that isn't what you had in mind when you were thinking of this feminine _dominated_ (funny how that word can be used to describe what you want to happen, yet you are against domination) world, because if you didn't change any of that stuff about the guns or other weapons, then how would the world have changed?  It wouldn't have, and men would be right back in power.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Guerilla yur argument is much akin to saying: "Capitalism will fail soon because it is all about power and money and communism will replace it"
> 
> Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.



Your arguements consist of:  lets change the topic to something totally unrelated and compare it so you forget the original arguement

Nice try.

What in gods name does feminism have to do with capitalism? 

Stay on topic, or grow up. Just face it, Feminism is here to stay, and it will only get stronger, thankfully.


And Snoop, I just disagree, to read that you would rather go out in a nuclear holocaust, rather then a peaceful feminine bliss, your INSANE lol..seriously

I also never said I wanted a female 'dominated' society, it would be a hypocritical alternative.

The only proper society is a society where women are the world leaders and governors, women have a clearer conscience in most cases, women have compassion, which most men lack, most men just willingly take bribes while governing and don't care.

I will admit, there are corrupt women officials, but im sure they were corrupted by men.

----------


## Serkat

> Yea, keep telling yourself that. 
> 
> This is the main reason I don't enjoy arguements like this, because the men never can lose, they always have to win no matter what the issue is. I'm shocked at remembering in a thread somewhere you posted that you are a feminist, If I remember correctly that is. You are the far opposite of feminism, all you seem to do is objectify women and anyone who supports them.



I'm a feminist as in: A woman should get equal pay for equal work. A woman shouldn't be judged differently from men with regards to how much sex she has with how many partners.

I'm more of an individualist but would consider that including feminism anyway.

P.S. I've lost a lot of arguments.

----------


## Halocuber

Lol , this thread is going to be more hostile , than the vegan thread!


 :Hiding:   ::sniper::

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> I'm a feminist as in: A woman should get equal pay for equal work. A woman shouldn't be judged differently from men with regards to how much sex she has with how many partners.
> 
> I'm more of an individualist but would consider that including feminism anyway.
> 
> P.S. I've lost a lot of arguments.



Sorry but, your not a feminist, your sort of like an equalist in fact, that's not a bad thing, its much better then the opposite of feminism (chovianism?)

However its spelled.

Gosh, this arguement would sure feel alot more personal if I actually was a woman, i'm already taking it personal lol I would prob be such a bitch right now if I was infact a woman reading this thread.

If you think im a bitch now haha, you'll be glad I wasn't born a woman  :smiley:

----------


## Sornaensis

> Your arguements consist of:  lets change the topic to something totally unrelated and compare it so you forget the original arguement
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> What in gods name does feminism have to do with capitalism? 
> 
> Stay on topic, or grow up. Just face it, Feminism is here to stay, and it will only get stronger, thankfully.
> 
> 
> ...



Wtf are you talking about?

It's called an analogy (Hence, "This is like xyz...")

If you can't wrap your head around that then get the fuck out.

And Feminism and Chauvinism has fuck all to do with what I was talking about.

If everyone was effeminate then society wouldn't work.

But as I said, that's never going to happen.

You might as well be waiting for Antarctica to spontaneously explode, destroying the planet.

And if Feminism is "only going to grow stronger" then doesn't that a) defeat its purpose and mean that b) masculine women will take over?

But yeah, still not gonna happen.

----------


## snoop

> sure feel alot more personal if I actually was a woman, i'm already taking it personal lol I would prob be such a bitch right now if I was infact a woman reading this thread.



And you see, that's why a lot of (ignorant) men don't take women seriously.  Women get so personal with this issue, even though they never lived back in the days when women _didn't_ have rights.  Most of the feminists you see now-a-days haven't had to deal with that, yet they act like it's still happening today. 

I too believe women should have equal rights an opportunities, but I'm not down with this radical view of all men being dominant pigs.  Why don't I just call women a bunch of nagging whores?  Because it isn't accurate, and it isn't right.  Calling men names and despising them isn't the way to get equal rights and opportunities.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Well you have a point, but I never said men were all pigs, I said many men are, and I guess women and people like me who are quite effeminate take it personal, put yourself in a woman's shoes and read this thread and tell me you won't take it personal, thats impossible to me.  Most of this thread ive seen some jabs taken at women, which are really shallow and immature, of course we're gonna take it serious.

If I go out in public and state all straight men should be castrated, would you take it personal? damn right you would. You see, men have a tough time empathizing with women, and that's your problem, you guys lack empathy.

Put yourselves in a woman's position for 1 week, and your perspective on feminism or chovanism will drastically change.


I guess the reason I take this so personal, is cause im trying my best to be a woman myself lol....


But honestly, if you want to maturely participate in this arguement, dress as a woman (if you can pass as one) for ONE DAY, and report to us how you are treated by various men.

----------


## snoop

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure there have been some jabs at men too, and they have been just as immature and shallow.  And saying that all straight men should be castrated is completely different to what has been said in this topic.  Everyone so far has said women should have equal rights, but your "feminine dominated world" is just a bad idea.  Your comparison is not a fair one.  You and all the females in the topic taking it personal is what is causing everyone to take it personal.

Which brings me to another point.  Because this thread is about hating radical feminists that take things too far and call all men dominant pigs, and demonize men, only women get to feel offended personally?  Even if they take unfair jabs at men?  This was the OP's point.  You feel you are entitled to be offended personally but men are not.  This is why this argument continues.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure there have been some jabs at men too. And they have been just as immature and shallow.  And saying that all straight men should be castrated is completely different to what has been said in this topic.  Everyone so far has said women should have equal rights, but your "feminine dominated world" is just a bad idea.  You and all the females in the topic taking it personal is what is causing everyone to take it personal.
> 
> Which brings me to another point.  Because this thread is about hating radical feminists that take things too far and call all men dominant pigs, and demonize men, only women get to feel offended personally?  Even if they take unfair jabs at men?  This was the OP's point.  You feel you are entitled to be offended personally but men are not.  This is why this argument continues.





You totally misunderstood me, that castration comment was an example to see if you take it personally, which you did im glad.

And I'm against a feminine 'dominated' world, its a hypocritical thing, men dominate, women don't, women dominating the world is what women are trying to get away from, they are trying to get away from dominance altogether

----------


## snoop

I edited my post, take a look at it.  I took it personally because you made an unfair comparison.  We didn't say women should have their fertility taken away and their breasts hacked off.  

That and equal rights are completely unrelated.

----------


## Sornaensis

> Well you have a point, but I never said men were all pigs, I said many men are, and I guess women and people like me who are quite effeminate take it personal, put yourself in a woman's shoes and read this thread and tell me you won't take it personal, thats impossible to me.  Most of this thread ive seen some jabs taken at women, which are really shallow and immature, of course we're gonna take it serious.
> 
> If I go out in public and state all straight men should be castrated, would you take it personal? damn right you would. You see, men have a tough time empathizing with women, and that's your problem, you guys lack empathy.
> 
> Put yourselves in a woman's position for 1 week, and your perspective on feminism or chovanism will drastically change.
> 
> 
> I guess the reason I take this so personal, is cause im trying my best to be a woman myself lol....
> 
> ...



_Lack empathy_?

You're generalizing, and being immature about a simple fact.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Right, whatever you say bub, I'm done with this arguing for now because it obviously is going nowhere fast, and there's no use getting reason through some of you guys.

----------


## snoop

> Right, whatever you say bub, I'm done with this arguing for now because it obviously is going nowhere fast, and there's no use getting reason through some of you guys.



You could have just said that you can no longer back your opinion up because it turns out we were right, you know.  ::rolleyes::

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Actually, no, far from it...I gave up arguing because you guys can't understand quite a few things and never will, your not right, you're all just annoying, and I can't be bothered to explain things to such immature boys. I still stand behind my position and opinion to the day I die.

----------


## snoop

> Actually, no, far from it...I gave up arguing because you guys can't understand quite a few things and never will, your not right, you're all just annoying, and I can't be bothered to explain things to such immature boys.



Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about you and all those other radical feminists.  What happened to leaving the thread?

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about you and all those other radical feminists.  What happened to leaving the thread?



I had to respond to your 

"just accept our opinion and back away from yours" comment or w/e you typed.

----------


## Sornaensis

"Rawr I'm not gonna back myself up, because I am right and you're thick!"

Whatever.

Get out.

----------


## snoop

> I had to respond to your 
> 
> "just accept our opinion and back away from yours" comment or w/e you typed.



But I thought leaving was the mature thing to do, and you obviously didn't do it, so therefore, you are immature.

Besides, I thought I was a thick-headed, immature little boy, that wouldn't accept defeat anyway.  So what was the point in responding?

----------


## dweezil

korittke, you have bad eyesight too! that is not a sundae. it's a brain. the avatar is a picture of me at a festival that my friend photo shoped to make me into a batman zombie. it's fucking amazing!

also, there is a reason you lose a lot of arguements.  you have no business arguing about things you don't understand. read up on feminist theory and then get back to me. 

as for patriarchy, that's not what we live in. patriarchy implies that men are actually men and not boys in mature bodies. we live in a peuriarchial society 
(mr. k, look it up).

king-warrior-magician-lover-rediscovering-the-archetypes-of-the-mature-masculine.htm).

matriarchy is not the answer either.  women need to learn not to compete first. so much conditioning to be suspicious of each other will not disappear overnight. some women only groups i have worked with have been a fucking nightmare of bitching and meanness. people need to learn to work for the empowerment of everybody, and not just to improve their lot.

----------


## Sornaensis

"Feminist theory"?

Someone throw these people a bone.

And humans are Patriarchal. Renaming that is like renaming capitalism "weak socialistic state" to make yourself feel better about the economy.

----------


## Serkat

> korittke, you have bad eyesight too! that is not a sundae. it's a brain. the avatar is a picture of me at a festival that my friend photo shoped to make me into a batman zombie. it's fucking amazing!



Yes. Yes, it is.





> also, there is a reason you lose a lot of arguements.  you have no business arguing about things you don't understand. read up on feminist theory and then get back to me.



I would have to disagree. The reason I lose a lot of arguments is that I accept good arguments. There are areas in which I have not been defeated, such as religion and the stupid shit this thread is about.





> as for patriarchy, that's not what we live in. patriarchy implies that men are actually men and not boys in mature bodies. we live in a peuriarchial society 
> (mr. k, look it up).





Oh...

Also, the reason we live in a "peuriarchial" society is that parts of masculinity have been taken over by feminist brainwashing.

----------


## dweezil

pueriarchy....read the book i referenced.

----------


## Sornaensis

> And humans are Patriarchal. Renaming that is like renaming capitalism "weak socialistic state" to make yourself feel better about the economy.



.

BTW: Made-up words based on horribly inaccurate representations of groups of people hardly counts.

It's called fascism.

----------


## Serkat

> pueriarchy....read the book i referenced.



No fucking results. What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?

P.S. That book is pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. There are no "archetypes" and Jung was a dick. There are enough books on evolutionary psychology and evolutionary gender psychology that give a good overview and have _some_ facts to back stuff up.

----------


## dweezil

so you've read it already. that was quick. you sure are smart.

----------


## Grod

> And has physical strength become more or less relevant as civilization has grown? By your reasoning oxen are superior to 
> human beings.



No, that's wrong. I don't know where you're coming up with barnyard animals, but Half said men are stronger than women. This is true, sorry.

----------


## Taosaur

I declare victory in this thread because I have the most genitals.

----------


## Halocuber

Men              Feminist 
 :Hiding:     ::sniper:: 


Sorry , but most Feminist are power hungry! I understand if they just wanted equal rights , but  most of them act superior towards men.

----------


## i make it rain

> Men              Feminist    
> 
> 
> Sorry , but most Feminist are power hungry! I understand if they just wanted equal rights , but  most of them act superior towards men.



This thread even proves this. All of the feminists here are being just as ruthless as the men. Isn't the whole point of a female run world that they aren't as cut throat? I am not sure how the world would be different if women ran it. My guess would be pretty much the same. It is hard to translate general compassion to ruling countries. A lot of the time you have to do stuff you don't want to do. 

But in the end it doesn't matter because Taosaur has the biggest balls.

----------


## dweezil

my posts have been balanced in disdain for the bullshit both sexes are responsible for, and in crediting awesomeness in both men and women.

----------


## i make it rain

> my posts have been balanced in disdain for the bullshit both sexes are responsible for, and in crediting awesomeness in both men and women.



You know what, I looked back and you were pretty fair. There was one hate ridden stab and Korittke and then another sarcastic jab at him. But in terms of the arguement, you have been even.

----------


## Kushna Mufeed

I don't have much problems with feminists.

What I do have a problem with is when they try to control the way I speak!

"It's not Mankind! It's Humankind! Don't use 'he' is general statements, use 'one'! Bitchbitchbitch!"

How about this? Let's define Feminism as a dialect of English. Whoever wants to speak it, be my guest. Who ever doesn't, STFU and leave them alone!

----------


## snoop

> He is a man.



I thought it went without saying that I meant _manly, dominant, heterosexual_ men. 

Seriously, do you just choose to act like you have no sense of what anyone is saying, or are you that unintelligent?

*edit:* Also, I think you missed the point in why I mentioned that.  I said that because guerilla made a completely unrelated statement, and I was pointing it out.

*second edit:*  K what?  Why did you delete your post?

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Seismosaur why randomly mention the word capitalism in a feminist thread. 





> I declare victory in this thread because I have the most genitals.



But the least brains.





> in the end it doesn't matter because Taosaur has the biggest balls.



I would send you to rehab but you need educationhab.






> Half said men are stronger than women. This is true,



Grass is green and this is true yet it's not the topic we are discussing so you don't need to mention it unless you have a grass fetish or in this case strong men fetish.





> No fucking results. What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about? P.S. That book is pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. There are no "archetypes" and Jung was a dick.



Your foul language sucks.






> We didn't say women should have their fertility taken away and their breasts hacked off.



And we didn't say that you need your balls cut off and your tongue ripped out. So no use talking about us being extreme when you brought it up. Some of these statements that I quoted here are bordering on the ridiculious.

----------


## snoop

> And we didn't say that you need your balls cut off and your tongue ripped out. So no use talking about us being extreme when you brought it up. Some of these statements that I quoted here are bordering on the ridiculious.



How did I bring it up?  As I recall, guerilla is the one who posted that heterosexual men would take it personal if he said all straight men should be castrated.  It was a completely unrelated statement and I called him out on it.

*edit:*





> If I go out in public and state all straight men should be castrated, would you take it personal? damn right you would. You see, men have a tough time empathizing with women, and that's your problem, you guys lack empathy.



He made that post before the post of mine that you quoted.  Looks to me like you guys brought it up to me.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

And I snoopy snooped you out on your completely unrelated statement too.

----------


## snoop

> And I snoopy snooped you out on your completely unrelated statement too.



It was no longer unrelated since guerilla brought it up.  Either acknowledge that guerilla's statement was unrelated and that both of ours were (even though mine still wasn't) or quit bringing it up.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> How did I bring it up?  As I recall, guerilla is the one who posted that heterosexual men would take it personal if he said all straight men should be castrated.  It was a completely unrelated statement and I called him out on it.
> 
> *edit:*
> 
> 
> He made that post before the post of mine that you quoted.  Looks to me like you guys brought it up to me.




I don't know if you understood my post but it was an example, something to make  you take it personal which you did, so now you know how women feel when they are objectified...

I never actually MEANT that statement if you didn't realise it, I don't think all straights should be castrated,  because the human race would cease to exist, and because its cruel and inhumane.

So before you jump to conclusions, take time to READ things through, when your not busy putting women down.

----------


## snoop

> I don't know if you understood my post but it was an example, something to make  you take it personal which you did, so now you know how women feel when they are objectified...
> 
> I never actually MEANT that statement if you didn't realise it, I don't think all straights should be castrated,  because the human race would cease to exist, and because its cruel and inhumane.
> 
> So before you jump to conclusions, take time to READ things through.



If that's what you said, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.  The problem was you compared it to what was happening to feminists in this thread, and that just isn't the truth.  Besides, I already know what it feels like to feel personal about something.  But usually when it isn't meant to be personal, I step back and use logic to run the situation, not my emotions.  Right now though, I'll admit I've made this personal.  Seeing as how logic will not be taken into consideration by Minervas, it's obvious that I can't use it to my advantage.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

The only thing you can use to your advantage here snoops is that others more silly than you agree you are not being petty. Me and guerilla are just tired of nonsense and you want to keep going on about stuff that doesn't matter. Neither men or women are inferior and that is what it boils down to. I am not the one without the logic as I understand this and can move on.

----------


## snoop

Why didn't you say that in the first place so the conflict could have been avoided then? Seems simple enough to me.  :Confused:

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Ok good. I thought it went without saying it was so simple.

----------


## Sornaensis

> Seismosaur why randomly mention the word capitalism in a feminist thread.



It called an _analogy_. You use similar circumstances, etc. to better get a point across.

Government/Economic paradigms worked rather well here, so I used them.

And as I said: Women will never "run the world[Society]" because humans are _patriarchal_.

Men will always be "in charge" because male is the dominant sex.

Periodendofstorysorrytryagainthisthreadisclosenow.

----------


## Grod

> Grass is green and this is true yet it's not the topic we are discussing so you don't need to mention it unless you have a grass fetish or in this case strong men fetish.



I was responding to something Half/Dreaming and Taosaur were discussing. Learn to read.

----------


## tkdyo

> There's neither a body nor a child so none of that has any relevance.



lol, umm, lets see, then what is inside it?  And the second point has relevance weather the baby is fully developed or not, way to tip toe around it.

----------


## Sornaensis

No Korittke's right.

There is no body. Just a glob of cells that MIGHT form a functioning human being.

----------


## tkdyo

so, when its a fetus its still not a body?  and that still doesnt address the second point

----------


## Sornaensis

It isn't a fetus.

----------


## tkdyo

at what point is it officially a fetus and no longer a developing set of cells?

----------


## Sornaensis

When it has a form. Usually takes months.

Abortions occur within the first month.

----------


## tkdyo

well, I can see where some people would still think that ok, but I cant.  as soon as the egg and sperm join the process has begun, we would probably run around that all day so Im gonna leave it at that.  However, what about the second point, as long as the father isnt a dead beat runaway that is.

----------


## AnDUHrew

it's interesting, that it's really obvious which respondants are male and female.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> it's interesting, that it's really obvious which respondants are male and female.



Well take a guess at what I am then  ::D:

----------


## bluefinger

> well, I can see where some people would still think that ok, but I cant.  as soon as the egg and sperm join the process has begun, we would probably run around that all day so Im gonna leave it at that.  However, what about the second point, as long as the father isnt a dead beat runaway that is.



At that point it is a clump of cells... it is not even conscious. The reason why abortions are legal to around 20 weeks is because it is around that time that the developing brain begins to become _active_, and thus is _likely_ to be conscious.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> Men will always be "in charge" because male is the dominant sex.



You are confusing the male tendency to take control of things and be dominant with the actual ability to have power and the ability to be in charge and dominant. Also that is not necessarily an advantage to be in that position. In charge can have burdens and lead to restrictions and it all comes from knowledge not from the gender of being a male. Knowledge enables you to get into any position and it would be absurd to suggest males are more knowledgeable than the female gender and basically is saying females are inferior/less capable. Physical strength does not equal dominance it is an aspect of man. Like the female aspects ability to have babies. If you ever tried marshal arts you already understand why strength doesn't always help. In some cultures it was the men considered useless because they couldn't have babies so they were not 'dominant and in charge'. I'm not saying men are useless just pointing out your unbalanced thinking and how it would look from the other side. The truth is each gender needs the other and are equally Dependant. Your use of the word 'dominant' suggest there is some advantage in being male but this is not true each gender while different has equal advantages.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Well said Phoenix, very well said...


I do admit I may cross the line from time to time in these kind of arguements but, I can't seem to control my emotions if you haven't noticed  ::D:  

But like MP said above, we both need each other, men and women, without one there cannot be the other, but stating that men will 'always' be in charge is just wrong. 


I don't think men will 'always' be in charge, you see more and more women taking office around the world, offices of power...the german prime minister is a woman, we had a woman running for president in the us...etc

Eventually one day governments will be somewhat around 50/50 male and female, an equal rule, which would be the ideal world in my opinion. I admit, this is a male dominated society, and our governments and police and military are generally male driven and male run. I think one day most of this will change, you'll see more female roles in society as time goes on.

Speaking of military, Aren't women allowed in combat yet? 
(im not sure of that subject thats why I ask)

It's a slow an gradual shift to an 'equalist' society, but it will get there like it or not guys, the women will start to be more in control, and we will have a little less, balancing things out finally, after 16,000 years of men ruling

----------


## Serkat

> well, I can see where some people would still think that ok, but I cant.  as soon as the egg and sperm join the process has begun, we would probably run around that all day so Im gonna leave it at that.



I assume you have absolutely no justification for that statement, yes? Because I've never actually heard one (a valid one, mind you).

Why is a cell that's made from a sperm cell and an egg cell morally superior to... a skin cell? They're practically identical except the skin cell is specialized whereas the conjoined cell is basically a stem cell.

Also, abortions can happen several months after conception and I don't think that it's a problem, seeing that even then it's still just a larger batch of cells with no specifically human individual characteristics. Like the woman's leg. A woman should be allowed to cut off her leg, hence she should be allowed to cut off other parts of her body.

----------


## Sornaensis

> Well take a guess at what I am then



You are a woman.





> You are confusing the male tendency to take control of things and be dominant with the actual ability to have power and the ability to be in charge and dominant. Also that is not necessarily an advantage to be in that position. In charge can have burdens and lead to restrictions and it all comes from knowledge not from the gender of being a male. Knowledge enables you to get into any position and it would be absurd to suggest males are more knowledgeable than the female gender and basically is saying females are inferior/less capable. Physical strength does not equal dominance it is an aspect of man. Like the female aspects ability to have babies. If you ever tried marshal arts you already understand why strength doesn't always help. In some cultures it was the men considered useless because they couldn't have babies so they were not 'dominant and in charge'. I'm not saying men are useless just pointing out your unbalanced thinking and how it would look from the other side. The truth is each gender needs the other and are equally Dependant. Your use of the word 'dominant' suggest there is some advantage in being male but this is not true each gender while different has equal advantages.



Stupid post is stupid.

Your confusing "in charge" with being the president.

Also, "dominant" means you, well, dominate. I never said there was "an advantage" you're putting words in my mouth. What I speak is simple fact. Saying this is somehow unfair is moronic because you make it out to be somehow advantageous. There is no conspiracy, humans are simply patriarchal. This is why men are head of their home, and not the woman (Though there are cases, but I'm talking in general. Feminists don't really count because most are lumberdykes and might as well be reverse-chauvinists); you don't necessarily need to be smart nor knowladgeable to be male or dominate, you silly girl.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> There is no conspiracy



Where did that come from lol. Conspiracy, that is worse than your random use of the word capitalism. This is to do with knowing that neither gender is inferior.

Guerilla is not a women just because he agrees doesn't mean he has to be female.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

It's okay Phoenix, you can call me a woman all you want, to me its a compliment  :smiley:

----------


## Sornaensis

Are you really that ignorant?

You're treating human society like a huge conspiracy to short change women.

Grow up.

----------


## dweezil

i make it rain; as far as korittike (or whatever his name is) goes, i told it like it is. if he wanted people to post nice things about him, he would have to try to be a lot nicer and not post all of the negative and disrespectful stuff he spouts. and in terms of sarcasm on my part directed at him, what goes around comes around.

----------


## Serkat

> i make it rain; as far as korittike (or whatever his name is) goes, i told it like it is. if he wanted people to post nice things about him, he would have to try to be a lot nicer and not post all of the negative and disrespectful stuff he spouts. and in terms of sarcasm on my part directed at him, what goes around comes around.



I don't want people to post nice things about me. That's not the point of a discussion.

----------


## juroara

the feminism I hate is the feminism that thinks by transforming women into men you make women equal. when all it does in reality is disgrace everything it means to be female, a woman in general

its gotten to the point where many girls out there would be ashamed to be pregnant, would be ashamed to be a mom

feminism should have done the opposite, by raising the feminine up. until a young mother can go to high school proud, being congratulated by peers and classmates - the feminine will never equal. the shame of being a female, is the result of modern feminism, telling us we should be ashamed of these things.

once upon a times things were different. a pregnant teen would have been treated like a goddess!!  ::shock::

----------


## Grod

> once upon a times things were different. a pregnant teen would have been treated like a goddess!!



A pregnant teen isn't a good thing, you know.

----------


## juroara

> A pregnant teen isn't a good thing, you know.



cultural bias

right now the pregnant teen is a disgusting sight. what this creates is depression, anxiety and fear in a pregnant teen, creating much unnecessary suffering. because the pregnant teen is such a disgusting thing, even her own parents could disown her, as many pregnant teens have been disowned by their parents.

creating more suffering.

she is then further disowned by friends, peers, teachers and so on.

and then left to make a decision whether to have an abortion or not, creating more mental agony if she was originally against abortion.

do you know how many pregnant teens, who go through it all, are actually HAPPY to have a child? do you know how many actually LOVE their children, and don't regret having a child at all? there are many loved children right now that came from pregnant teens. it took my cousin years of suffering to say it, but finally said it. and she believes her daughter was the best thing that ever happened to her. 

she had her child at age 15. she loves her child. her child is smart, and talented, and is not suffering at all from having a young mother. she's social, friendly, gets A's and is good at sports. she is not some loser reject that people imagine a child would be being raised under such conditions.

now. lets go imagine the feminine was raised. 

lets imagine that being pregnant was a beautiful thing. not something to be ashamed of or feared of.

what it does, is not create more teen pregnancies, but actually less teen pregnancies. because if every female out there thought her body was like a goddess, she is less likely to share her body with a stupid boy that isn't worthy to touch  her.

when a female has a respect for her body, respect for the feminine, and all that it means to be female - she is not going to be whoring around the place. problem, solved.

----------


## i make it rain

But you said that a pregnant teen would be seen as a goddess. I assume this would be higher on the diety ladder than just a teen's body because a pregnant woman is more womany than a normal woman. I get all of the goddesses confused. So it WOULD increase teen pregnancies. This would increase preteen pregnancies. This would increase the population jillion fold (I did the math)...just what we need. I bet 99&#37; of all teen pregnancies are regretted. Your example is from (I would assume) a wealthy person with a supporting family. Most teen pregnancies come from broke ass people who can't support the child and the father leaves. The ones who can support a child even after "years of suffering" I bet enjoy having a kid. I bet almost all teen mother love their kid. The child's life and the woman's life still generally suck, though. It is genetic that women want to have children. So after years of suffering, she felt the desire to have a child (probably genetically points to when we are SUPPOSED to have kids) and is happy with it. 

Women should get to feel respect for their bodies. This media stuff sucks for them. If that ever gets solved, hopefully then women will feel better about themselves. 

Here is my solution which will suck for guys. Women need to go on a beauty strike. Every woman in the world and especially in the media needs to stop making themselves look good. With all of this beautifying, you women are competing against eachother. Then men won't be as tempted to abuse because you won't be flaunting all of your hot stuff in our faces. Then after a generation, all women will be viewed as beautiful. Of course because I came up with the idea, women can dress sexy for me.  :tongue2:

----------


## snoop

> cultural bias
> 
> right now the pregnant teen is a disgusting sight. what this creates is depression, anxiety and fear in a pregnant teen, creating much unnecessary suffering. because the pregnant teen is such a disgusting thing, even her own parents could disown her, as many pregnant teens have been disowned by their parents.
> 
> creating more suffering.
> 
> she is then further disowned by friends, peers, teachers and so on.
> 
> and then left to make a decision whether to have an abortion or not, creating more mental agony if she was originally against abortion.
> ...



A lot of that is nonsense, but an equal amount is right.  

Let's start off with the negatives.  What would happen if men went around treating themselves as gods?  You get people like Hitler.  I'm not saying that that'd happen if a woman treated herself as a goddess, but it takes a lot of conceit to treat yourself like that and view yourself that highly above others.  But, the part I do agree with is that women should respect themselves more.  If you don't want men to act like pigs around you, don't where revealing clothes, and go find all the other women in the world who sell their bodies to men in return for money.  If you don't like how many of today's men treat women as objects, then at least respect yourselves first.  

Secondly, people typically don't see pregnancy itself as a disgusting thing, and see it how you said.  As something beautiful.  What happens in teen pregnancies is people see how this girl and whatever boy she was messing around with were being irresponsible.  It is not cultural bias, it really is irresponsible.  At that point in a person's life, they haven't had a full education, and they don't have a good enough job to support a family, let alone themselves.  That's not only unfair to the people around them who have to help them out, but unfair to the baby as well.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> woman in the world and especially in the media needs to stop making themselves look good...Then after a generation, all women will be viewed as beautiful.










Something wrong with this.

lol

----------


## i make it rain

...except Hitler didn't try to help Jews...especially at the expense of his own people...and he didn't really give the Jews joke advice, he just killed them. But yeah, outside of all that, I am Hitler. 

So here are all my options. Oppose what you say because it is mostly nonsense and get yelled at. I can admit there is a problem and add a solution that is 95&#37; joke to make my post sound less mean and be called Hitler. Does anyone else see the problem here? Men can't do anything to help feminism because women don't let them(except Guerilla). This leads us to dislike feminism which only keeps the cycle going and hurts the progression of feminism.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Does anyone here feel like women are fit to assume combat jobs in the armed forces?

----------


## juroara

> A lot of that is nonsense, but an equal amount is right.  
> 
> Let's start off with the negatives.  What would happen if men went around treating themselves as gods?  You get people like Hitler.  I'm not saying that that'd happen if a woman treated herself as a goddess, but it takes a lot of conceit to treat yourself like that and view yourself that highly above others.  But, the part I do agree with is that women should respect themselves more.  If you don't want men to act like pigs around you, don't where revealing clothes, and go find all the other women in the world who sell their bodies to men in return for money.  If you don't like how many of today's men treat women as objects, then at least respect yourselves first.  
> 
> Secondly, people typically don't see pregnancy itself as a disgusting thing, and see it how you said.  As something beautiful.  What happens in teen pregnancies is people see how this girl and whatever boy she was messing around with were being irresponsible.  It is not cultural bias, it really is irresponsible.  At that point in a person's life, they haven't had a full education, and they don't have a good enough job to support a family, let alone themselves.  That's not only unfair to the people around them who have to help them out, but unfair to the baby as well.



if you research the religious views behind the Goddess, and the religious views behind God, you get two very different worlds.

the Goddess is not a figure sitting on a cloud, who thinks she is better than everyone else. The Goddess, traditionally, as been a very earthly being - who is apart of everything, and is not on a pedestal.

The God figure on the other hand, has traditionally seen itself as supreme and better than everyone else, far away up on a cloud. There is no problem if men see themselves as God. Many men today do. But these men are practitioner of the I AM movement, and the I AM movement presents a much more feminine view of God. The God that is in all people, not a God in a pedestal. 

Hitler actually, is a good example, of what happens when the feminine is crushed, trampled and raped. When the male ego runs rampant without the feminine to balance it, it can delude itself into thinking he is better than everyone. 

the female inequality problem is also the problem of the male ego. they are one and the same, really, yin and yang. When one has shoved its head up its arse, so has the other. Which is why the most submissive women end up with the most abusive of husbands.

when you raise up the feminine to its rightful status, you also help out the masculine and help prevent it from falling into its own ego issues.

I understand what you mean, regarding teenage pregnancy. all too well. but I am trying to make a few points, regarding teen pregnancy and raising the feminine:

1. teenagers in general lack respect for their own bodies. female teenagers generally HATE their own bodies and many HATE that they are the ones that get pregnant and suffer and not men. this mentally, helps NO ONE. it creates a poor attitude towards women. it creates a poor attitude towards men. and it creates sexual problems as well. as these teenage girls like to imagine they are the SAME as boys, and they can have all the careless sex in the world and not think about pregnancy. her poor sexual activity, is the self denial of female-hood. 

2. who does it benefit to treat a pregnant teen as something disgraceful, disgusting and shameful? does it benefit the pregnant teen? does it benefit her parents? does it benefit her unborn child? does it benefit anyone at school? It benefits no one other than those who want to feel they are above her. 

3. FEAR TACTICS DO NOT WORK WITH TEENS. they don't. they just don't. you can't tell a teen be afraid of pregnancy to stop it anymore you can tell a teen be afraid of sex to stop it. using a fear tactic such as "BEING PREGNANT WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE" is what will ruin her life more than anything. because if she does get pregnant, then she feels she has ruined her life. And this is where the suicidal attempts can kick in. her life has changed, yes. it doesn't mean its ruined. fear tactics are horrible. education needs to be well rounded, showing both BAD and GOOD.

4. the fear tactics instead creates a culture where the pregnant teen is this disgusting thing. again, this view point benefits no one. it makes young females feel, that being female is a burden. that being female means you suffer, and the guy gets away from it. this fear tactic, creates the scenario in which the female disrespects her body, herself. and is JEALOUS of men. and helps germinate the scenario of ultimate self-denial, where she can have sex carelessly and never worry, a desire to be like a guy.

5. the cultural viewpoint of the pregnant teen that we carry, is circular. it creates MORE PREGNANT TEENS!!!

what happens when you raise the feminine to a godly status??? the whole picture changes!

1. females will not be in denial anymore that they are female. they will be aware, from an early age. I am the one who carries the child for nine months. they will see this as a beautiful thing. not something to dread, or attempt suicide over. or hell, murder. *many teenagers have murdered their newly born child out of absolute FEAR*

2. when the young female views pregnancy as a beautiful thing, she respects her body more. she respects herself more. this odd relationship of jealousy over men, is gone. the desire to have careless sex, gone. 

3. the raising of the feminine to a godly status, changes the relationship children have with sex. giggles and all immaturity aside, they are going to know and about sex at a much earlier age. with the feminine, comes the idea that sex should be beautiful, meaningful, adult.

4. to further explain, when the feminine is not raised to its rightful status, sex is an animalistic drive. meaningless. this thing you can't control. this thing you just do. it is a denial of the feminine, and all that happens to her because of sex. sex forever changes meaning to a teen that gets pregnant. she will finally understand what sex is really all about. and this meaning, is feminine. it is hold up by the feminine. not the masculine. in a masculine world with no respect for the feminine, women are just sex toys. in the feminine world, SEX HAS MEANING.

5. sex becomes special, a right even into woman-hood. can it still happen as it teen? sure. but hopefully this time with someone she feels she loves. Immature...sure! But, because of who she feels about herself, how she feels about her female-hood, she is going to be more mentally ready to be pregnant than even many female adults today. does it mean lifes a piece of cake now? no. but there would be a lot less suffering.

6. and in the female world where sex is special, who has any right to call her a slut. 

last words

the feminine and the masculine exist both, in a single person. I am not saying that sex is meaningful to females. I am saying that in the FEMININE, it holds meaning. men can have this feminine aspect. women can lack it. raising the real feminine, affects both men and women.

and finally, the idea that the child suffers is really based on nothing. by the time the child is even old enough to carry complex concepts like "my mommy is a slut", the childs mother will be an adult. and by that time, she would have no one to blame for not having a job or an education. there are colleges that toss money at young mothers, they can practically go in for free! NO EXCUSE.

okay. so by the time the child is old enough to suffer from teenage pregnancy, THE MOTHER IS NOT A TEEN ANYMORE. she will be a full fledge adult. whether or not she is a loser, has nothing to do with her teenage pregnancy.

----------


## snoop

I honestly can't tell if I agree or disagree with you.   ::huh2:: 

Some of your points seem completely wrong to me, and others right, and some with the right idea but still wrong.  I'll leave it at that.  At least you made a conscious effort to explain the whole thing and be somewhat fair.

----------


## i make it rain

> I honestly can't tell if I agree or disagree with you.  
> 
> Some of your points seem completely wrong to me, and others right, and some with the right idea but still wrong.  I'll leave it at that.  At least you made a conscious effort to explain the whole thing and be somewhat fair.



Agreed.

----------


## Sylph

> And as I said: Women will never "run the world[Society]" because humans are _patriarchal_.



Actually, not _all_ human societies are patriarchal. There have been a few exceptions. And the way things are going we'll probably end up with equalitarian societies.







> Aren't women allowed in combat yet? 
> (im not sure of that subject thats why I ask)



There are women in armies of many countries these days. I assume they have the same task as men. As a curiosity, there were also female fighter pilots during WWII. 





> its gotten to the point where many girls out there would be ashamed to be pregnant, would be ashamed to be a mom
> (...)
> once upon a times things were different. a pregnant teen would have been treated like a goddess!!



Where I live, it's not a matter of shame, it's a matter of sense - teens rarely have the means to support children. Also, depending on the teen's age and physical development, it might not be healthy.
I think those times were really a LONG time ago.  :smiley:  These past 2000 years or more, most pregnant (single) girls have been in serious trouble.







> Then men won't be as tempted to abuse because you won't be flaunting all of your hot stuff in our faces.







> But, the part I do agree with is that women should respect themselves more. If you don't want men to act like pigs around you, don't where revealing clothes, and go find all the other women in the world who sell their bodies to men in return for money.



The next guy posting will be saying it's women's fault they get abused\raped\whatever... Always did love that lame sort of argument.  ::roll:: 
FYI, boys - if a guy behaves like a pig, he behaves like a pig no matter what. You can be the ugliest girl on Earth wearing a bag over your head down to your feet and the bastard will still try to jump you. I'm not just saying so, I _know_ so.
It's real funny that nobody gives a second thought to the fact that thousands of animal species on the planet have limbs to walk, but women get accused of just about everything for having legs (and let us not get into breasts...!). If a guy goes by in shorts it's OK, the weather's hot, so what? If a girl goes by in shorts, she "doesn't respect herself" or "she's a whore". 
And most whores, btw, don't do it for fun - in most cases it's a matter of survival. It's what you do to eat. That applies to males selling their bodies, as well.
What's the excuse of the men paying those women you mention?

----------


## snoop

How exactly _do_ you know that men would be pigs and jump all over ugly women?  Are you one? I don't even jump all over hot ones like that, I give women the respect they deserve.  But had I been one of those pigs, I could guarantee I'd never jump all over an ugly woman.  As I said though, I wouldn't jump all over any woman, they don't need that happening to them.

And excuse me, but there is a pretty big difference between wearing shorts and and wearing revealing shirts.

The men who pay for women to sell themselves have no excuse.  But, if women didn't sell their bodies, there'd be no one to buy, either.  Men have a tough time living and putting food on the table too, you know.  Sometimes it's necessary to get a real job, no matter how demeaning it seems.  If the woman needs money, she should get a job doing something else.  By the way, what's the excuse of those women paying for those men you mentioned?

*edit:*  Also, I want to ask, why did you start attacking men after it had been established, in the thread, that everyone here believes women should have equal rights?  Did you honestly just come in to stir up trouble, to call men pigs?  Doesn't sound like the maturest of things to do.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

I hate radical feminists, too.  :smiley:

----------


## Sylph

> How exactly _do_ you know that men would be pigs and jump all over ugly women?  Are you one? I don't even jump all over hot ones like that, I give women the respect they deserve.  But had I been one of those pigs, I could guarantee I'd never jump all over an ugly woman.  As I said though, I wouldn't jump all over any woman, they don't need that happening to them.



Yes, I am! And I was telling you what pig-men act like, not calling you a pig. I don't know you or what you do. Read more carefully.





> And excuse me, but there is a pretty big difference between wearing shorts and and wearing revealing shirts.



What's the difference between a boob and a leg? Howcome any bit of my anatomy grants anyone the right to disrespect me? 





> The men who pay for women to sell themselves have no excuse.  But, if women didn't sell their bodies, there'd be no one to buy, either.



Some women (and children) get sold (= don't sell themselves) because someone is willing to pay.





> Men have a tough time living and putting food on the table too, you know.  Sometimes it's necessary to get a real job, no matter how demeaning it seems.  If the woman needs money, she should get a job doing something else.



I never said otherwise - even mentioned male prostitutes in a similar situation. Like I said, read carefully. We all know jobs don't fairly pour over everyone's heads, wether they're great or demeaning (and what's more demeaning than selling your body on the streets, btw?). Some people don't have a choice.





> By the way, what's the excuse of those women paying for those men you mentioned?



None, although I was actually thinking of men paying men - which is more common.





> *edit:*  Also, I want to ask, why did you start attacking men after it had been established, in the thread, that everyone here believes women should have equal rights?  Did you honestly just come in to stir up trouble, to call men pigs?  Doesn't sound like the maturest of things to do.



Where in all this forum have you ever seen me attacking men? Or did you confuse standing up for women with that? I am for equal rights and duties. I think of men primarily as people, not a sub-group based on gender, something I find a lot of people have trouble doing when relating to the opposite sex.
I'm not "stiring trouble", I'm telling you what the world looks like when you stand in a woman's shoes. You were the one that used the expression of men acting like pigs - I was merely quoting you.
You should really just pay more attention.

----------


## dweezil

just one comment for the people on here who talk about hating "feminists" (or anything else) and then talk about being in favour of equality. THIS IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. it is impossible to believe in equality when you wish to silence the voices/views of a minority group. i don't always agree with other people, but i don't "hate" them for their beliefs. haters are victims and ultimately feel the need to hate others to validate their own sense of self. if haters felt secure enough in themselves they wouldn't need to hate anyone, as other people wouldn't affect them so strongly.

----------


## Sornaensis

Feminism =/= Equality

----------


## tkdyo

> I assume you have absolutely no justification for that statement, yes? Because I've never actually heard one (a valid one, mind you).
> 
> Why is a cell that's made from a sperm cell and an egg cell morally superior to... a skin cell? They're practically identical except the skin cell is specialized whereas the conjoined cell is basically a stem cell.
> 
> Also, abortions can happen several months after conception and I don't think that it's a problem, seeing that even then it's still just a larger batch of cells with no specifically human individual characteristics. Like the woman's leg. A woman should be allowed to cut off her leg, hence she should be allowed to cut off other parts of her body.



no justification that once the egg and sperm join the process has begun?  What did we learn in health class then?  That after they join they then deliberate if they are going to begin forming a human or just another leg?  

yes but that leg or skin cell will never have its own life.  The batch of cells will.

----------


## bluefinger

> no justification that once the egg and sperm join the process has begun?  What did we learn in health class then?  That after they join they then deliberate if they are going to begin forming a human or just another leg?  
> 
> yes but that leg or skin cell will never have its own life.  The batch of cells will.



Let me ask you this:

Do you have a problem eating apples or any other form of plant matter? Hell, just eating meat is not a problem... right?

----------


## Grod

> Let me ask you this:
> 
> Do you have a problem eating apples or any other form of plant matter? Hell, just eating meat is not a problem... right?



I think you know the difference between plant-life and human-life...

----------


## bluefinger

> I think you know the difference between plant-life and human-life...



Technically, I'm trying to draw the conclusion of what constitutes as being okay to take life, both plant and animal life. The problem of saying that life begins at conception is that if you apply such strict rules on something like a clump of cells, then why shouldn't such rules apply to other life. After all, they are far more developed than a zygote, and some are even conscious to a degree (animal-life). A plant and an animal have a right to life, no?

----------


## Serkat

> no justification that once the egg and sperm join the process has begun?  What did we learn in health class then?  That after they join they then deliberate if they are going to begin forming a human or just another leg?  
> 
> yes but that leg or skin cell will never have its own life.  The batch of cells will.



Now that is bullshit. A skin cell already has its own life. It's a cell for Christ's sake. Cells are alive. So technically, you're worse than Hitler just by scratching your eyebrows. Only because a conjoined cell CAN become a separate human doesn't mean it has any moral relevance. It IS NOT a separate human, so it's IRRELEVANT. My sperm cells CAN become human, when put in the right place at the right time. That doesn't mean it has moral relevance when I flush 'em down the toilet. (ref. my first post)

Face the facts: A sperm cell and an egg cell, each haploid, create a diploid stem cell. THE END. There's no fucking morals involved. It's just a cellular process that creates a cell as any other.
The "process" begins wherever you want it to begin. It's arbitrary. It can begin with the pickup, the dicking, conception, nerve cells or whatever. It's irrelevant. A cell doesn't have moral relevance, THE END.

----------


## tkdyo

you are the one spewing bullshit.  for one, it IS rellevant that the cells will have human life, seeing as they are the only ones that can.  You and I know both know there is a difference between a cell that lives and a cell that becomes MORE.  For another your sperm cannot until it has been joined with an egg.  Im sorry you cant see the difference between the two.

My other point didnt get addresesed still.  Its not only the woman's the man took part too.  It wouldnt be in the woman if not for the man as well.  Its not really HER leg if you want to continue the analogy, it is THEIR leg.  So, it should never be only the woman's final say unless of course the man is some dead beat runaway/rapist.

----------


## bluefinger

> you are the one spewing bullshit.  for one, it IS rellevant that the cells will have human life, seeing as they are the only ones that can.  You and I know both know there is a difference between a cell that lives and a cell that becomes MORE.  For another your sperm cannot until it has been joined with an egg.  Im sorry you cant see the difference between the two.
> 
> My other point didnt get addresesed still.  Its not only the woman's the man took part too.  It wouldnt be in the woman if not for the man as well.  Its not really HER leg if you want to continue the analogy, it is THEIR leg.  So, it should never be only the woman's final say unless of course the man is some dead beat runaway/rapist.



Technically, all cells become 'more' through cell division. So plants, animals, bacteria, all become 'more' through mitosis. Does this mean I have to stop eating plants and meat? Coz you know... gotta protect that 'sanctity' of life of yours.

Also, just an FYI, not every fertilised zygote attaches itself to the womb. It's only a chance if it does. So by your reasoning, a woman is a natural born killer. Also, ectopic pregnancies... where the zygote begins to develop outside of the womb. When such a thing happens, it _will_ kill the mother long before the baby is ready to be born.

Men do not really have much of a say on the issue, again, it is not their body, it is not their burden. I would never impose my opinion on a woman's choice, I would never strip her of her choice because it is not my place to do so. Also, why should it matter with abortion? There's already enough people on the planet, and in a way it would be better to adopt rather than simply push out new ones. It's not like we are endangered species.

My distinction for when abortion shouldn't really be done is when the foetus develops to the point where it starts to show brain activity of some sort, a sign of consciousness. It's not so much _life_ that I value, it is _consciousness_. A clump of cells is not conscious, therefore it is not important.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> I am Hitler.



lol. Make that into a bumper sticker. We'll split the profits.

----------


## tkdyo

> Technically, all cells become 'more' through cell division. So plants, animals, bacteria, all become 'more' through mitosis. Does this mean I have to stop eating plants and meat? Coz you know... gotta protect that 'sanctity' of life of yours.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, not every fertilised zygote attaches itself to the womb. It's only a chance if it does. So by your reasoning, a woman is a natural born killer. Also, ectopic pregnancies... where the zygote begins to develop outside of the womb. When such a thing happens, it _will_ kill the mother long before the baby is ready to be born.
> 
> Men do not really have much of a say on the issue, again, it is not their body, it is not their burden. I would never impose my opinion on a woman's choice, I would never strip her of her choice because it is not my place to do so. Also, why should it matter with abortion? There's already enough people on the planet, and in a way it would be better to adopt rather than simply push out new ones. It's not like we are endangered species.
> 
> My distinction for when abortion shouldn't really be done is when the foetus develops to the point where it starts to show brain activity of some sort, a sign of consciousness. It's not so much _life_ that I value, it is _consciousness_. A clump of cells is not conscious, therefore it is not important.



You do realize when I said "more" I meant a conscious being right?  Cause with that your whole other argument about other life goes out the window.  I believe there is a natural order of things, and that sentient beings are at the top of it, so there is your answer on that.  

Im not talking about "imposing" my opinion.  Im talking from personal experience here.  My brother's first fiancee was pregnant and she had an abortion without even consulting my brother.  Can you imagine how devestating that was to him and my family?  Needless to say she is an ex-fiancee now.  If you think that the man having a say is "imposing" your opinion then we are on two different wave lengths.

----------


## bluefinger

> You do realize when I said "more" I meant a conscious being right?  Cause with that your whole other argument about other life goes out the window.  I believe there is a natural order of things, and that sentient beings are at the top of it, so there is your answer on that.  
> 
> Im not talking about "imposing" my opinion.  Im talking from personal experience here.  My brother's first fiancee was pregnant and she had an abortion without even consulting my brother.  Can you imagine how devestating that was to him and my family?  Needless to say she is an ex-fiancee now.  If you think that the man having a say is "imposing" your opinion then we are on two different wave lengths.



Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white. 

Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.

For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?

----------


## Serkat

> you are the one spewing bullshit.  for one, it IS rellevant that the cells will have human life, seeing as they are the only ones that can.  You and I know both know there is a difference between a cell that lives and a cell that becomes MORE.  For another your sperm cannot until it has been joined with an egg.



So? A conjoined cell can't become a human until it has not been aborted. So technically, when we abort it, it's pretty obvious that it's not "potential" human life. Also, there's no _actual_ difference between the cells. The difference is in the way you look at them, not in the cells themselves. They are no more potential humans than flour is a potential pizza.





> My other point didnt get addresesed still.  Its not only the woman's the man took part too.  It wouldnt be in the woman if not for the man as well.  Its not really HER leg if you want to continue the analogy, it is THEIR leg.  So, it should never be only the woman's final say unless of course the man is some dead beat runaway/rapist.



How is it their leg? That doesn't make any sense.

----------


## dweezil

In Ireland where abortion is illegal, the passage below contains details of what a lot of women have to deal with. This stuff is wrong, and betrays vulnerable women's trust. 
Also herbal abortion is a good alternative to surgical/medical abortion. Any women who want to know more about herbal stuff like this and reclaiming your bodies (pregnancy is not an illness) see the website www.sisterzeus.com 

Written by Choice Ireland a political lobby group in favour of legalisation of abortion:

A rogue agency is a fraudulent pregnancy counselling service set up
with the sole aim of taking advantage of the vulnerability of women
experiencing a crisis pregnancy in order to bully them out of
considering the possibility of abortion.

The WRC is located at number 50 on Upper Dorset Street. The sign above
the door reads "WRC" but this rogue agency has many aliases. It was
known as "Aadams" from 1995 until 1999 when that incarnation was shut
down in the midst of an illegal adoption scandal. It reopened as the
"Women's Counselling Network" and was more recently calling itself
"Alpha" until a Newstalk exposé led it to change its name once more to
the "WRC". This agency is also known to misleadingly advertise in the
yellow pages as "British Alternative Pregnancy Services" and "Choice
for Women" in order to give the false impression that they will
discuss all the options available to women in crisis pregnancy when
they have no intention of doing so.

The agency uses many names because it has a lot to hide. This agency
specialises in traumatising vulnerable women. They give medically
incorrect information to women about abortion, stating that abortion
causes breast cancer, child abuse, depression, fridgitity, promiscuity
and infertility. They also have told women that have been raped that
it is impossible to become pregnant from rape. None of this is true
and the only reason they tell women these lies is to try to impede
their abilitiy to make an informed decision. They have also been known
to breach the confidentiality of people seeking counselling 
informing family members without consent that a woman is pregnant and
may be considering an abortion, giving a woman's contact details to
priests, and posing as a boyfriend to try and persuade a clinic to
cancel an appointment for abortion.

The agency promises women that they will be given contact details for
abortion clinics in England as soon as they have had an unnecessary
and expensive ultrasound at a private clinic that may take several
weeks to procure. When the woman returns with her ultrasound scans the
clinic then uses the images to try and talk her out of her decision
once more. The reason they engage in such a tactic is to try and cause
a woman additional delay and expense in the hope that this will
prevent her from being able to procure an abortion.

Related Link: http://choiceireland.blogspot.com/

----------


## tkdyo

> Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white. 
> 
> Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.
> 
> For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?



And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illegal abortion?  Not being cynical, actually serious.

Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say.  If she didnt want the child, fine, we would have taken it.  but, if you are old enough to play around you are old enough to accept the consequences which she didnt want so she found herself a loop-hole.  I know not all abortion cases are like this but this one was.  

You answered the question yourself.  What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.

I really dont have a problem with your view.  The fact you are against it at some stage is still good enough to me.  but, if you are so against my view I will stick around and defend it.


Sekrat:  You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining.  Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.

oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.

----------


## bluefinger

> And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illeagal abortion?
> 
> Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say.
> 
> You answered the question yourself.  What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.



Well, first of all, with the ban on abortion, there was also no contraceptives either. So that made things a little hard _not_ to get pregnant if you were young and dating. So considering _circumstances_, such situations are bound to happen, whether it was my mother or not in that period of time (and it happened more often than not).

You can't force someone to bear children. I mean, I could decide I don't even want to knock up a girl (near-term and long-term) and go and have a vasectomy. Am I being inconsiderate towards any future girlfriends who may want to become pregnant? No, my body, my choice. It's the same with them. Besides, if it was really a problem, then there's always adoption.

As for the 'order' of things, consciousness is the key factor, but a clump of cells is not conscious. In fact, I actually see no objective reason why humans should be valued any more than the next animal. Any reasons are purely sentimental and subjective in such a case. As for you, you also proved a point, it is not _life_ you value, it is _consciousness_. Therefore you shouldn't really have a problem with early-term abortions.

As the late (and awesome) George Carlin framed the whole thing: "Pro-life is Anti-woman"

----------


## tkdyo

Never was a big fan of him, anyways:

ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.  

wait wait wait.  So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can?  Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights.  Am I following right here?

Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.

----------


## bluefinger

> Never was a big fan of him, anyways:
> 
> ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.  
> 
> wait wait wait.  So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can?  Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights.  Am I following right here?
> 
> Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.



No, I may have qualms against it, but that's _personal sentiment_. I would _never_ impose personal sentiment against someone else in order to force them into doing something they may not be willing to. Just as someone has no right to deny me my vasectomy, you don't have any right to deny a woman the choice whether to bear a child or not. Denying someone the right to their own body is fucking evil, in my opinion. We are not reproduction machines.

----------


## tkdyo

It is fing evil to deny a child life.  This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view.  A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is.  Which i have no problem with btw.

----------


## Serkat

> Sekrat:  You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining.  Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.
> 
> oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.



There's no baby. It's a clump of cells. A potential baby is not a baby. You're arguing potentialities. That is highly illogical and I will ask you to refrain from doing that. Potentialities are no more than mental masturbation. You can't deny a potential child life because there is no potential child.

I know that you will answer with the same nonsensical arbitrary distinctions again ad nauseam, so please just don't write anything.

----------


## bluefinger

> It is fing evil to deny a child life.  This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view.  A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is.  Which i have no problem with btw.



Note the wording, _child_. The correct term is foetus. If the foetus is not conscious, then it is just a clump of cells. There's nothing there to suggest a human in the eyes of someone who values _consciousness_.

It _is_ about the woman. We have come a long way to ensure equal rights to women, why the fuck should we start taking steps back all of a sudden? Why should you deny a fully conscious, fully developed, sentient being the right to its body, just because there's a clump of cells (which are not conscious, not aware) inhabiting inside that being's body? Where is the logic in that?

----------


## tkdyo

arguing potentiallity?  How often do they not?  In the rare times there is a miscarriage?  Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not.  I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less?  No

----------


## tkdyo

> Note the wording, _child_. The correct term is foetus. If the foetus is not conscious, then it is just a clump of cells. There's nothing there to suggest a human in the eyes of someone who values _consciousness_.
> 
> It _is_ about the woman. We have come a long way to ensure equal rights to women, why the fuck should we start taking steps back all of a sudden? Why should you deny a fully conscious, fully developed, sentient being the right to its body, just because there's a clump of cells (which are not conscious, not aware) inhabiting inside that being's body? Where is the logic in that?



sorry for the double post.

Note your wording as well, I said not ONLY about the woman.  The logic is that this clump of cells are the only ones that can become a sentient being.  If you think it is a step back to ensure the life of another sentient being then we are at an impasse.

----------


## bluefinger

> sorry for the double post.
> 
> Note your wording as well, I said not ONLY about the woman.  The logic is that this clump of cells are the only ones that can become a sentient being.  If you think it is a step back to ensure the life of another sentient being then we are at an impasse.



And yet most fertilised eggs don't get to attach to the uterus, because most get washed away by that 'convenient' time of the month. So, by your logic, every woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer.

The voice of reason... right here  ::roll::

----------


## tkdyo

yeah, thats exactly what im saying  ::roll::

----------


## Serkat

> arguing potentiallity?  How often do they not?  In the rare times there is a miscarriage?  Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not.  I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less?  No



It doesn't matter whether it will be a human or not. It _is_ not, hence we can abort it. Simple, ain't it? The potentiality argument is really the worst of all. Potentialities don't mean anything because they are not real. They are mental masturbation. At least try and come up with something a bit more convincing... tell me why a batch of cells _has_ human moral properties (as opposed to _could have_ and _will have_). Until then...

----------


## tkdyo

because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same.  because it will become human, the abortion occurs.  The potentiallity goes both ways.  If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?

----------


## Serkat

> because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same.  because it will become human, the abortion occurs.  The potentiallity goes both ways.  If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?



Yes. I'm not denying that it will become human if not aborted. I'm arguing that whether or not something _will_ be something is irrelevant to it's moral status. What counts is what it is. And it's a batch of cells. If tomorrow I get hit by truck and have to live in a wheelchair, that doesn't mean I can demand disabled benefits today.

----------


## tkdyo

I can see where you are coming from.  But how do we have a right to say how far back it is from not being human?  you could argue the first brain waves, or the first organs, or the cells because they still had the genetic potential.  as bluefinger said, I dont think it is so black and white.

I feel I have to make this edit cause maybe Im coming off as one.  but Im not a fundamentalist christian.  Im not even christian actually, I believe in evolution and science...just still have a spiritual side too I suppose.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

If it doesn't breath, it is not a true human.

----------


## Serkat

> I can see where you are coming from.  But how do we have a right to say how far back it is from not being human?  you could argue the first brain waves, or the first organs, or the cells because they still had the genetic potential.  as bluefinger said, I dont think it is so black and white.



Well, that's another issue. Surely it would be similarly illogical to say that cutting the umbilical cord determines the independence of a human organism. It's in between. My main point was that a bunch of cells with no neuronal activity whatsoever shouldn't have moral rights. I am currently not knowledgeable enough in the area to determine at which point I think a fetus should be given the right to life. Surely there would have to be signs of consciousness, i.e. independent mental functioning.

----------


## tkdyo

HD surely you are being sarcastic with that remark.  

Serkat:  I see...so does that mean you do think it should be illegal after a certain point?  cause if so thats good enough for me.  At the cellular level I have been back and forth many times, which is why I enjoy debate about it.

----------


## Serkat

> HD surely you are being sarcastic with that remark.  
> 
> Serkat:  I see...so does that mean you do think it should be illegal after a certain point?  cause if so thats good enough for me.  At the cellular level I have been back and forth many times, which is why I enjoy debate about it.



Yes. Surely it shouldn't be allowed to abort a baby a couple of days or hours before birth. Whether it has an organic tube coming out of it's naval or not is irrelevant for its moral status.

----------


## juroara

hmmmmmm


I really can't stand abortion debates, and where the line of humanity begins and ends. people make such pathetic claims

anyone who is an avid lucid dreamer, would begin to see them self as the ghost in the machine. a lucid dream, may be created in the mind, but the mind - the you - the real you- certainly is experiencing everything without the body. that body is not you. you are the mind in the body. you are mind. you are consciousness.

you don't have to research to far to find a wealth of information regarding the mind of a fetus. we know, fetus at some point has a mind. we know they can hear and recognize their mothers voice. and many of us are convinced they can dream.

one of the most cowardly and pathetic arguments I have ever heard regards the dependency of a fetus. that the fetus isn't human because its completely dependent on its mother, thus a parasite.

show me how a new born is independent. show me how a three day old baby is independent. how a week old baby is independent. there is no such thing as a independent baby. this is how humanity has evolved. we have evolved to develop close bonds, and we start off by needing someone to take care of us.

the fetus is truly a human baby that needs its mother. you damn cowards.

----------


## bluefinger

> hmmmmmm
> 
> 
> I really can't stand abortion debates, and where the line of humanity begins and ends. people make such pathetic claims
> 
> anyone who is an avid lucid dreamer, would begin to see them self as the ghost in the machine. a lucid dream, may be created in the mind, but the mind - the you - the real you- certainly is experiencing everything without the body. that body is not you. you are the mind in the body. you are mind. you are consciousness.
> 
> you don't have to research to far to find a wealth of information regarding the mind of a fetus. we know, fetus at some point has a mind. we know they can hear and recognize their mothers voice. and many of us are convinced they can dream.
> 
> ...



My argument was on the basis of consciousness. Until something shows signs of consciousness (neurons developing enough to show activity), then the whole argument is moot. The foetus and the newborn baby _are_ completely dependent on the mother, thus the importance of making sure the mother actually wants the child in the first place. You can't force someone into a situation unwillingly because of a difference of opinion.

The reason we are so dependent at birth is because compared to other mammals, we are all born premature. The skull is not even fully developed, and would be impossible for the mother to give birth to if the baby were to born developed with a fully developed skull. This is actually a predicament caused by the evolution of our rather sizeable heads, not for something such as 'love'.

What the arguments have been going on here were about consciousness, not dependence. Read before you react.

----------


## Sornaensis

I can't see why idiots like Tkdyo can't simply have people fucking choose for themselves!

It's not like it means every woman will have an abortion. Fuck. It's a choice.

It's people like you who thrive on the media mind, thing like communes, cults, etc. You want to a) deprive people of choice and b) not only give someone your opinion or let them see things your way, you want your way to be the only way.

Get out.

----------


## Universal Mind

> you are the mind in the body. you are mind. you are consciousness.



Then there is no "you" in a fetus until right around the 25th week, when the neurons necessary for consciousness have been developed and the fetus has a mind.  Before that, nobody is home.  Nobody is there.

----------


## tkdyo

> I can't see why idiots like Tkdyo can't simply have people fucking choose for themselves!
> 
> It's not like it means every woman will have an abortion. Fuck. It's a choice.
> 
> It's people like you who thrive on the media mind, thing like communes, cults, etc. You want to a) deprive people of choice and b) not only give someone your opinion or let them see things your way, you want your way to be the only way.
> 
> Get out.



idiots like me huh?  I already stated I am not a fundamentalist christian in this very thread, to further the claim I am not a member of any organized religion.  I also already said I just enjoy debating the side Im not sure of, I said Ive been back and forth on the pre-fetal state.  Why dont you learn something about someone and read the thread before making a personal attack and making yourself look like a jackass?

Killing a person is also a choice, so should we allow that freedom too?  I already admitted Im not 100&#37; on the pre-fetal state, but after that it is the same as killing a human.  

Oh and Im not going anywhere, if you cant take it then maybe you are the one who needs to take a walk

----------


## juroara

> What the arguments have been going on here were about consciousness, not dependence. Read before you react.



I can give my opinion - I don't care to read anyones babbling arguments on this forum regarding abortion. 

the argument of dependency was brought up before by the very forum members here

----------


## bluefinger

> I can give my opinion - I don't care to read anyones babbling arguments on this forum regarding abortion. 
> 
> the argument of dependency was brought up before by the very forum members here



Just seems somewhat out of place considering the rest of the thread.

----------


## i make it rain

> lol. Make that into a bumper sticker. We'll split the profits.



DAMN. Got me with my own thing.  :tongue2:  I guess I'll go into business with you. I will even start advertizing right now. 

HEY ALL YOU OUT THERE. WANNA BUY A BUMPER STICKER? They are super cool. If you buy one now, you get another one FREE, yes no charge, but the offer is only good in the next 10 minutes. Call now. Must be 18 or older to order. 

Brought to you buy Minerva's Rain Co.  ::banana:: 

Bumper stickers are not suitable for children under 3 years of age. Minerva's Rain Co. is not reliable for vehicle damage due to some idiot reading the bumber sticker and not watching the road.

----------


## Sornaensis

> idiots like me huh?  I already stated I am not a fundamentalist christian in this very thread, to further the claim I am not a member of any organized religion.  I also already said I just enjoy debating the side Im not sure of, I said Ive been back and forth on the pre-fetal state.  Why dont you learn something about someone and read the thread before making a personal attack and making yourself look like a jackass?
> 
> Killing a person is also a choice, so should we allow that freedom too?  I already admitted Im not 100% on the pre-fetal state, but after that it is the same as killing a human.  
> 
> Oh and Im not going anywhere, if you cant take it then maybe you are the one who needs to take a walk



When did I _ever_ say different on my opinion of when abiortion should be legal?

You fucking idiot.

Yes, you are a moron. Get out.

----------


## tkdyo

lol, wow, you really didnt read the whole first half of my post did you?  

If you are implying you ARE on the same page as me for when abortion should be legal then why are you so hostile?

You are making yourself look more and more like an idiot.  This is quite entertaining for me now.

----------


## Halocuber

> When did I _ever_ say different on my opinion of when abiortion should be legal?
> 
> You fucking idiot.
> 
> Yes, you are a moron. Get out.



Seismosaur, why  did you  join dreamviews fourms anyways??? You NEVER  post anything that is dreams-related and your arguments always has  unnecessary profanity in it  and  they are always poorly research.

----------


## Sornaensis

> lol, wow, you really didnt read the whole first half of my post did you?  
> 
> If you are implying you ARE on the same page as me for when abortion should be legal then why are you so hostile?
> 
> You are making yourself look more and more like an idiot.  This is quite entertaining for me now.



Then why are you here?

Exactly.

Get out.

----------


## tkdyo

> Then why are you here?
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Get out.



lol, you need a little more substance to your posts.  Im not exactly sure what you are trying to accomplish but you are making me laugh so Im definitely staying to see what you do next  :smiley:

----------


## wiltors42

> I hate feminists.
> Dividing people into 'Jews' and the rest of the world started WWII.



I thought that was Germany being all pissed off at France after WWI because they had to pay them millions of dollars among other things. I'm pretty sure Jews were just who Hitler and his evil army wanted to blame for all their misfortunes, it wasn't them being segregated that started it, in fact I'm pretty sure they were un-segregated before the war. :S

But you do have a good point, every person should have equal rights. I don't even kill spiders.  :tongue2:

----------


## Halocuber

> I thought that was Germany being all pissed off at France after WWI because they had to pay them millions of dollars among other things. I'm pretty sure Jews were just who Hitler and his evil army wanted to blame for all their misfortunes, it wasn't them being segregated that started it, in fact I'm pretty sure they were un-segregated before the war. :S
> 
> But you do have a good point, every person should have equal rights. I don't even kill spiders.



How was hitler army evil????   Only the SS soliders were the ones who handles the jews and such.   The rest of the army had very little knowledge of what was happening to the jews .   Also hitler army were people who were  fighting for their country. Just like  the other countrys were. 

Thats like saying America is evil because Bush is oil hungry or something like that.

But of course your statement was a opinion , so I guess your entitle to your opinion.

----------


## juroara

a lot of americans don't support bush. if we all did, by all means, call us evil

last I checked, nazis more than support hitler *they loooooovvvvvveeed him*  :Eek:

----------


## i make it rain

I believe most people just liked Hitler because he was giving them prosperity or were required to like him out of fear.

And I don't kill spiders either. VIVA LA SPIDER.

----------


## tkdyo

mmhmm.  Jews were the easiest scape goat for the country's porblems.  He was quite loved, there are still some people we know who lived in Germany then and support him now...its sad...

Then you have the president of Iran saying the Holocaust never happened...I wonder if he truely believes that...

----------


## Halocuber

Typical American response out of all of you.  Stereotyping a country because of their history.  Thats like me saying that  America is terrorist  because  America was built by Terrorism . Examples ,  Boston Tea Party , breaking from Britain and such .  That would be Terrorism .  

 I have been to Germany many times and I never met one person who even cared about Nazis.   Also Germany is your Allies now  LOL

Check this to see why America history falls in the definition  of Terrorism   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

----------


## tkdyo

You did see most of us were talking in past tense right?  As in Germany isnt that way anymore.  And how was mine stereotyping?  I was specifically talking about Hitler and the Iran's president.  And the thing about people still liking him, I know, because we have met some!  So dont tell me Im stereotyping when I didnt even say most or all, just some.

And ya, I admit my country has done some bad things too.  We arnt perfect but what country is?  Every country is trying to better itself

----------


## Universal Mind

> Typical American response out of all of you. Stereotyping a country









> Examples , Boston Tea Party , breaking from Britain and such . That would be Terrorism .



How was pouring tea into Boston Harbor terrorism?  You must be thinking of the Pearl Harbor party.  How was breaking from an oppressive government terrorism?

----------


## Halocuber

> How was pouring tea into Boston Harbor terrorism?  You must be thinking of the Pearl Harbor party.  How was breaking from an oppressive government terrorism?



By breaking away from one's country by using violence would be counted as Terrorism.  Go sink a oil rig (because you do not agree with the oil prices ) and see what kind of charges you would get.  

Pearl Harbor , lets not start on that subject.

----------


## i make it rain

> By breaking away from one's country by using violence would be counted as Terrorism.  Go sink a oil rig (because you do not agree with the oil prices ) and see what kind of charges you would get.  
> 
> Pearl Harbor , lets not start on that subject.



I don't believe there was much violence in the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Massacre had real violence (and it came like 3 years ealier).

----------


## dragonoverlord

> Then you have the president of Iran saying the Holocaust never happened...I wonder if he truely believes that...



He never said the holocaust never happend, Hes questioning to what extent the holocaust did happen. IE hes saying that the extent of the holocaust (number of people rounded up and gassed) is exagerated or innacurate and not millions of jews were murdered but rather hundreds of thousands. I could be wrong feel free to look it up.

As i understand it thats not saying the holocaust never happend.

----------


## tkdyo

> He never said the holocaust never happend, Hes questioning to what extent the holocaust did happen. IE hes saying that the extent of the holocaust (number of people rounded up and gassed) is exagerated or innacurate and not millions of jews were murdered but rather hundreds of thousands. I could be wrong feel free to look it up.
> 
> As i understand it thats not saying the holocaust never happend.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1124255.shtml

He called it a "myth"  as I understand it that is saying the holocaust never happened.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Typical American response out of all of you.  Stereotyping a country because of their history.  Thats like me saying that  America is terrorist  because  America was built by Terrorism . Examples ,  Boston Tea Party , breaking from Britain and such .  That would be Terrorism .  
> 
>  I have been to Germany many times and I never met one person who even cared about Nazis.   Also Germany is your Allies now  LOL
> 
> Check this to see why America history falls in the definition  of Terrorism   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism



Doesn't this make you a hypocrit? I mean, by you saying "typical American response"....which is stereotyping.

----------


## snoop

> Doesn't this make you a hypocrit? I mean, by you saying "typical American response"....which is stereotyping.



I do believe that you are correct.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

>

----------


## Original Poster

I consider myself a feminist because I want to empower females to make their own choices and not necessarily except passive roles.  When women accept passive roles they don't really want, they end up becoming passive aggressive as an outlet for their disagreements and that's not healthy at all.  I think women should be empowered to form equal partnerships with men.

There are some man-haters out there, but I think most women are attracted to guy that can take control and handle business.  I just think that when the girl wants to try and handle business a little, she should the chance.

Most of all people need to accept what works for you may not work for everyone else.  There are some very dominant women that want very passive guys, and some women that want to feel protected by a dominant guy who wants to do everything himself.  The most important thing is to make sure you and your partner have similar interests in this level.  I only have a real problem with dominant women that think all women should be dominant, like as payback for guys being dominant for most of recorded society.

And I'm personally the kind of guy with no problem taking charge, but I don't NEED to be in charge.  I want an equal relationship, I guess, where my girl and I work out decisions together and do what's best for our family and if need be sacrifice our egos for the sake of the family.  For instance, if she's getting paid better at her job than I am at mine and we just had twins, I'll volunteer to stay at home and take care of them because that's what's best for the situation.

----------


## dweezil

YAAAAAY for guys like ominus deus!!!

----------


## snoop

I feel the same as him also.

----------


## bluefinger

Omnius has the right idea...

----------


## dweezil

then you guys are fucking awesome too!

----------


## dragonoverlord

> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1124255.shtml
> 
> He called it a "myth" as I understand it that is saying the holocaust never happened.



_"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."_ 

Doesn't neccesarily mean  he is denying the persecution  and murdering of Jews during WWII but when he says the holocaust he refers to in his opinion the ridiculous figures given in the name of the holocaust. I think he refers to the Myth as the high figures given cloaked under the name of the holocaust or whatever. It depends how you read it. 

 and if you read down in the article and read inbetween the lines he actually does acknowledge that the "big crime" did happen and calls upon western countries to take responsibility for it and give up their own land as reperations to the jews instead of punishing a people who took no part in the events( the Palestinians)

Akmadinejad argues that the Holocaust has been exagerated and exploited for Political means and justification of the  forceful Acquisition of Palestine by the Jews.

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah the Jews should have gotten part of Germany.

----------


## tkdyo

I think the Jews shouldnt have gotten part of anything.  They should have just moved back if they wanted to live in the holy land again.  I think its sickening to say that land makes up for lives.

----------


## Original Poster

Who said land makes up for lives?  It's just with a Jewish homeland controlled by Jews they won't face persecution like they have for the last 3500 years.

It's not about making up for something, it's about making sure the problem stops repeating itself.  Now all a jew has to do to avoid persecution is move to Israel.

But IMO Israel should have been taken out of Germany because the Germans actually did something, the Palestinians did not

Anyway  ::hijack::

----------


## tkdyo

lol, true.  but, if I understand correctly most German people were ignorant of it at the time werent they?  In that case it seems rather unfair to do that to them or the palestinians.  Give em Austria  :wink2: 

but yes, let us return this thread to its purpose

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah but inaction in the face of injustice is injustice.

----------


## Lëzen

I think what you really mean to say is "I'm not ashamed to admit I hate _misandrists_" (which, if you didn't know, literally means man-hater).

Which is a perfectly normal thing. See, women hate misogynists (woman-haters), so it is only natural that we hate misandrists.

There is virtually no reason a member of one sex should hate someone based on them having the same genitalia or not. None. Whatsoever. This message is especially for misandrists: I don't care how many times you were molested by your fathers as children - NOT ALL MEN are this way. So drop it or go to hell.

So I agree with you insofar as I hate misandrists (as well, I encourage women to hate misogynists!). And I quasi-believe that a goodly amount of feminists just _happen_ to be misandrist as well. But you gotta admit, there _are_ still some feminists who still fight for the righteous cause. So perhaps it's not quite fair to say you hate _feminists_...just _misandrist feminists_.

----------


## tkdyo

> Yeah but inaction in the face of injustice is injustice.



I agree, but I thought they literally didnt know it was happening, as in it was kept from the pubic that they were being killed...in which case they couldnt do anything if they didnt know...

edit: Lezen may be on to something...

----------


## grasshoppa

> And now, dividing people into women and men could start another.



So women and gays vs men...Lol obviously we win. But we also need pussy, so that war would be great as it would cause enslavement of women and gays and therefore feminism would be gone.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> So women and gays vs men...Lol obviously we win. But we also need pussy, so that war would be great as it would cause enslavement of women and gays and therefore feminism would be gone



Let me get this straight. Women and gay men lose against men. You need sex and so enslavement of females through war is needed while assuming feminism would disappear. You know how old fragile people need a walking frame to help them walk? This sounds like you need a thinking frame to help you have a soul. Disturbing.

----------


## tkdyo

Im pretty sure he was being sarcastic...

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

::disconcerted::  Lets hope so then. It still isn't a good frame of mind without something more solid supporting it.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Wow grasshoppa, nice twisted outlook on women.

This thread disgusts me, how much dominance and hate men have for women, why don't you guys try not dominating something for a change.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Wow grasshoppa, nice twisted outlook on women.
> 
> This thread disgusts me, how much dominance and hate men have for women, why don't you guys try not dominating something for a change.




How can you blame us? Nothing is more frustrating than a woman playing tug-a-war for power. Ask any man. It just drives us up the wall. Wether that is right or not, is a different story.

In the end, we mostly give up and let her win. Mostly.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> How can you blame us? Nothing is more frustrating than a woman playing tug-a-war for power. Ask any man. It just drives us up the wall. Wether that is right or not, is a different story.
> 
> In the end, we mostly give up and let her win. Mostly.



Well I don't get mad when a woman tries to play 'tug of war', I feel proud of them actually and I join in, I've never fit in with the male..mentality..never will...you said ask 'any' man...

Not all men feel threatened by women as you guys are, im not threatened by them trying to gain equality, im proud of them, more power to them.

Female power!  ::D: 


And for the record, I don't hate all men, I just hate some men, If I hated all men, I couldn't date them now could I?

----------


## Serkat

> Well I don't get mad when a woman tries to play 'tug of war', I feel proud of them actually and I join in, I've never fit in with the male..mentality..never will...you said ask 'any' man...
> 
> Not all men feel threatened by women as you guys are, im not threatened by them trying to gain equality, im proud of them, more power to them.
> 
> Female power!



I don't feel threatened by women trying to gain equality any more than I feel threatened by a kitten trying to sneak up behind me to paw-pwn me.

----------


## tkdyo

> I don't feel threatened by women trying to gain equality any more than I feel threatened by a kitten trying to sneak up behind me to paw-pwn me.



QFT

----------


## Lëzen

> Wow grasshoppa, nice twisted outlook on women.
> 
> This thread disgusts me, how much dominance and hate men have for women, why don't you guys try not dominating something for a change.



Sorry, dude, but I've gotta say you're full of shit.

That misandrist statement is grossly overgeneralizing men. _Grossly_. It may be true for old white men who still have those archaic beliefs about women, but for today's generation of males it simply isn't true (for a grand majority of us, anyway).

Statements like yours cast women in an even more negative light and, quite frankly, only reinforce all stereotypes about them being frigid, bitter, spiteful harpies. And it's even worse, considering _you're_ a man - no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. You don't even realize that your words shame both the gender you are and the gender you wish to be.

Because of people like you who look for prejudice in all the wrong places, harmony between the two sexes will never exist. I hope you're happy living with that knowledge.

----------


## RockNRoller123

> I hate feminists.
> 
> And not the awesome ones back in the twenties who honestly were doing the right thing- those flapper chicks were hot! Nowadays I don't hate the regular feminists who think they deserve equal opportunity. That's completely fair and anybody who says otherwise is just stupid as hell.
> 
> No, no no. I hate radical feminists.
> 
> The ones who march day and night. The ones who hate me just because I happen to have balls and not ovaries. Y'see, it's one thing to be equal. I think we're there right now, as a matter of fact. But it's as if they're trying to actually     consciously trying to show how much better they are then me. They aren't. And I'm not better then them accept for the cold, hard, fact that they're fucking stupid and I'm not.
> 
> I may be a lot of things, like a jackass, an asshole, and a jerk, but I am not a chauvinist. I hate them too. If they want to get anywhere in the world they should stop dividing. Dividing people into black and white started the American Civil War. Dividing people into 'Jews' and the rest of the world started WWII. And now, dividing people into women and men could start another.
> ...



Sir, you are right. ABSOLUTELY! That is exactly how I feel! Another thing I hate is how they say they want equality, but they don't. They want to be treated BETTER than us, and that sir, is absolute bullshit!  I don't know who said it, but they said in best in saying, "This is how rain works. Evaporation gathers water particles in the clouds, Eventually there is too much water, and feminists make God cry."

----------


## grasshoppa

> Let me get this straight. Women and gay men lose against men. You need sex and so enslavement of females through war is needed while assuming feminism would disappear. You know how old fragile people need a walking frame to help them walk? This sounds like you need a thinking frame to help you have a soul. Disturbing.



Souls don't exist silly.





> Statements like yours cast women in an even more negative light and, quite frankly, only reinforce all stereotypes about them being frigid, bitter, spiteful harpies. And it's even worse, considering you're a man - no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. You don't even realize that your words shame both the gender you are and the gender you wish to be.
> 
> Because of people like you who look for prejudice in all the wrong places, harmony between the two sexes will never exist. I hope you're happy living with that knowledge.



Quoted for props.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> Sorry, dude, but I've gotta say you're full of shit.
> 
> That misandrist statement is grossly overgeneralizing men. _Grossly_. It may be true for old white men who still have those archaic beliefs about women, but for today's generation of males it simply isn't true (for a grand majority of us, anyway).
> 
> Statements like yours cast women in an even more negative light and, quite frankly, only reinforce all stereotypes about them being frigid, bitter, spiteful harpies. And it's even worse, considering _you're_ a man - no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise. You don't even realize that your words shame both the gender you are and the gender you wish to be.
> 
> Because of people like you who look for prejudice in all the wrong places, harmony between the two sexes will never exist. I hope you're happy living with that knowledge.




That's nice that you spent all of that time to write that when it doesn't make sense, I never generalized all men into one category, and if I did, It was unintentional.

I've said it 1,000 times, I don't think all men are pigs, just a large dying group.

And when I say 'you guys' I am specifically talking to male pigs, not all men.

(Next time I'll explain myself more, I'm too vague.)

----------


## dragonoverlord

> That's nice that you spent all of that time to write that when it doesn't make sense, I never generalized all men into one category, and if I did, It was unintentional.
> 
> I've said it 1,000 times, I don't think all men are pigs, just a large dying group.
> 
> And when I say 'you guys' I am specifically talking to male pigs, not all men.
> 
> (Next time I'll explain myself more, I'm too vague.)



You sound like a women  ::roll::

----------


## Good as Gold

How the fuck did this happen?

----------


## SmoothGroove

This thread is being WAY too over-thought.

Women and men aren't equal. They have different though processes due to genetics and due to the how they are viewed in society, they are, therefore, not equal. 

Women aren't better than men, and vice versa, though the contrary has been implicitly implied over the past 10 pages of trash talk. 

Really on teh topicz0rz:

Radical "feminists" piss me off as well, the groups of women who don't like men, and can't stand to be associated with men. They aren't much better than overly racist people.
This goes without saying that overly sexist men piss me off as well. 

Anyway, the thing I usually hear in ye olde "Men suck" speeches are:

"US WOMEN ARE BEING OBJECTIFIED! WE ARE MORE THAN THAT! WE ARE [email protected]!!!  ::bslap:: "
Yes, some men do objectify women and do nothing else. Some women bitch about their men behind their backs. Some men rape women. Some women have sex with men to take their money.

People aren't perfect, men aren't, women aren't.  When a man is sexually attracted to a woman, they won't be thinking: 
"Wow...her personality is soo sexy, I wanna TAP THAT!". It is in male nature to objectify a woman when they appear sexually attractive, the "issue" lies in when a group of horny men can't keep it in their pants, and end up objectifying every women he sees. That, is an individual's problem, and isn't fair to label slightly under half the worlds population the same. 

Well that went a bit offtopic. But yes I dislike huge pain-in-the-ass female superiorists who think men are the cause of all problems.

----------


## wendylove

> Women and men aren't equal. They have different though processes due to genetics and due to the how they are viewed in society, they are, therefore, not equal.



The genetic difference is trivial, humans are not that genetically diverse. They don't have different thought processes, like me arguing asians or white have different thought processes because they have different genetics. Which, before somebody calls me a a racist I don't. Genetics plays a small part.




> Radical "feminists" piss me off as well, the groups of women who don't like men, and can't stand to be associated with men. They aren't much better than overly racist people.



Firstly, Feminist don't hate men. That as ignorant as saying feminist are lesbiens. Feminist or Radical feminist just want women to be treated the same and as men like I don't know having equal wages. If it wasen't for the so called radical feminist, women would not be able to vote and they would certaintly not be able to work. 

This thread is a joke. If I said I hate radical black people, who want black people to be equal and then made up some rubbish about how black people who want equal rights are racist against white people and hate them, well I would proberly get banned. 

Feminism is just the fight against sexism, which is really good. Its kind of like the fight against racism.




> But yes I dislike huge pain-in-the-ass female superiorists who think men are the cause of all problems.



Men are in power. So yes they are. Historically, women have been treated like slaves and finally when they get the vote, which took alot of work and sacrifice. During the war women were used as cheap labour, and now they want equal pay, which they don't get.

----------


## Chastity-Autumn

Hey, I'm a girl and I even hate these "radical feminists." 

Fair enough, we all should be equal (I've always believed that men and women should be treated the same way) but when women just start becoming sexist towards men it just takes the mick. It's absolutely ridiculous. 

Sure, a lot of people have pointed out how women were treated in the *past*, and many have learned from history. Women do have equal rights now when it comes to pretty much anything and kudos to those women who fight for us when we're not being treated equally, you're really doing us girls a favour and all the things that have been done have made a huge difference. 
It's just the "extremists" who take everything just that one step further that annoy me. To me it just seems like hypocrisy when a gender that is trying to be equal to the other, appears to be trying to become the more "dominant" gender.

As for my views on abortion. I do strongly believe that it's the choice of the mother _and_ the father (or just the mother in a case of a rape, which is terrible!) If they want to abort the foetus, then they should be free to do so. If the woman had been raped and doesn't think she could cope with having what's known to some people as a "rape child" then I do believe she should be able to get an abortion with no objection. Whatever the abortion limit is now in the UK is fine the way it is. (I can't remember how many weeks it is but I remember agreeing with it.) 

I just think that the women of *today* need to stop taking it out on the men of *today*.

But on the flip side, I don't like the guys who constantly think they're better, either. I believe that we should just all be equal. We all have to coexist in this world--the world that we *all* live in--and why make it hard for each other? It's utterly pointless. 

The best quote in the whole thread in my opinion is this -





> In the long run we need to look past things like race, religion, and gender and unite under one banner: Human.



Amen.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> I don't feel threatened by women trying to gain equality any more than I feel threatened by a kitten trying to sneak up behind me to paw-pwn me.



It's not a matter of women gaining equality. Any sentient self aware living organism intuitively understands women and men are neither inferior or superior to each other just opposites of nature. Hence I don't feel any more threatened by your intelligence in this instance than I do of someone stuck on a merry go round tripping heavily on acid in Vegas.

----------


## Chastity-Autumn

> Any sentient self aware living organism intuitively understands women and men are neither inferior or superior to each other just opposites of nature.



That's amazingly put! I couldn't agree more!

----------


## i make it rain

I think the OP was just venting about that one super-feminist that every guy knows. The one that disects your words for a nuance that could almost kind of maybe be taken the wrong way. It is cool if you fight for wages and respect, but don't go on and on about me not saying "he or she" when I just say "he". I even once had a teacher who thought "he or she" was sexist because the "he" came first. They made me write "she or he" on my paper. 

And to argue a bit, the genetic differences are not trivial. Most differences between men and women are genetic. Men are genetically stronger and more aggressive. This leads us to naturally fall in leadership positions. At the risk of starting a nature vs nurture debate, the reason men generally do X, is because back in the day, they did X and it worked. Then we naturally selected our way here. Then society saw that as right and kept on doing it, so nurture backed it up. Now a days, we don't need to have men do X anymore. But that is another issue. So in terms of the actual part of the brain that is different, of course it is relatively small, but I think it originally caused men and women to be where they are. And you cannot argue that the difference between a black and a white man is the same between a man and a woman. Women have different parts, different hormones, ect.

----------


## tkdyo

> Firstly, Feminist don't hate men. That as ignorant as saying feminist are lesbiens. Feminist or Radical feminist just want women to be treated the same and as men like I don't know having equal wages. If it wasen't for the so called radical feminist, women would not be able to vote and they would certaintly not be able to work. 
>  .



You completely misunderstood what he meant.  Equal wages and all that are great, he's talking about the women who think women should become the dominant sex and that men are always pigs and wrong and blah blah blah.  That is an extreme feminist, not someone who wants equality.

----------


## SmoothGroove

> The genetic difference is trivial, humans are not that genetically diverse. They don't have different thought processes, like me arguing asians or white have different thought processes because they have different genetics. Which, before somebody calls me a a racist I don't. Genetics plays a small part.



I disagree, the affect of genetics varies in people.

"_Researchers from Uppsala University, Karolinska Institute, and the University of Chicago, have determined that there are hundreds of biological differences between the sexes when it comes to gene expression in the cerebral cortex of humans and other primates...the cerebral cortex [is] that area of the brain that is involved in such complex functions in humans and other primates as memory, attentiveness, thought processes, and language."_ 

"_On average, an adult human male body produces about forty to sixty times more testosterone than an adult female body..."_

_"It's not surprising that our levels of testosterone are understood to affect our behaviour. Testosterone receptors are found in our brain, which means the hormone interacts and binds with our neurons, relaying to them important messages for action. Deborah Blum, author of Sex on the Brain, says this indicates the brain is "prepared to listen to what testosterone has to say" and that "most researchers consider this at least indirect evidence that testosterone is capable of altering the brain, and thus, influencing our behaviour."_ "

Since the amount of wacky hormones getting pumped out of different peoples brain varies due- yet again, to genes and circumstance, many people will have significant attitude change, whilst some will be barely influenced at all. (If you want me to cite that tell me).





> Firstly, Feminist don't hate men. That as ignorant as saying feminist are lesbiens. Feminist or Radical feminist just want women to be treated the same and as men like I don't know having equal wages. If it wasen't for the so called radical feminist, women would not be able to vote and they would certaintly not be able to work.



tkdyo kind of answered it for me, but yeah I was referring to the women who want men wiped off the face of the earth, or women that call a man sexist if they say the word "vagina".

I put "feminist" in inverted commas because I KNOW that the original concept on feminism was for equality, and believe me, i'm all for it. But radical groups of women who are all for the castration of men have often also associated themselves with the label of "feminist, so I apologize if I misled you there.





> This thread is a joke. If I said I hate radical black people, who want black people to be equal and then made up some rubbish about how black people who want equal rights are racist against white people and hate them, well I would proberly get banned.



I think the topic starter kind of misled alot of the people in this thread as well. I assume that he was referring to the groups of women who think men are inferior to them, or that men are constantly being sexist to them. He did state initially that he was all for equality between men and women so, again, I just think this thread is being WAY too over-thought by people, comments are being purposefully twisted to make them offensive.





> Men are in power. So yes they are.



That is completely unfair. If you think men are the cause of all problems, then you are one of the people that piss me off. 
Problems are caused by PEOPLE, not by men, and not by women. Mistakes, misguided desicions, lack of understanding and compassion- they are things that EVERY person encounters in their lifetime, and that EVERY person either overcomes or lives with. 
That is like saying all white people are the cause of all problems, the majority of men in power are white, isnt that just as plausible a cause for all the problems in the world?





> Historically, women have been treated like slaves and finally when they get the vote, which took alot of work and sacrifice. During the war women were used as cheap labour, and now they want equal pay, which they don't get.



I agree. Women were treated like shit over the course of history, and I too think that is disgraceful. I also agree that women are still disadvantaged in the work-place, but you have to understand that intergrating women _fairly_ into the work-place will take time. This is because since the dawn of our race, men were the dominant sex (generally speaking of course, and not referring to cognitive ability), they were the dominant hunting sex, they were driven solely by primitive urges.

Now we have had 50 or so years in which we are supposed to attempt to reverse the psyche of men, allowing woman to be equal when it comes to "hunting and gathering" (or makin' bling bling, you know what I mean), when the basic male instinct is to fight over the women, supply for the women, let them look after children. This has been instilled in us for the past 160,000 years++ (I don't wanna get into an argument about the birth of the human race, but let us just say it has been a very long time), so we can only assume that acceptance of women into the male's natural role will take awhile.

As time goes on, the intergration will become stronger, and women will have more equal rights in the workplace. I agree that they deserve equal pay and equal rights, but this thread isn't so much about female equality as female superiority.

----------


## Good as Gold

Let me put in the final word.

Both guys and chicks have interpreted my original post differently, and I left the website for family reasons for awhile and come back to ten mind fuckin' trillion posts of garbage, with a few gems shining out of that shit. I'm not going to say I'm right, (I am) and I'm not going to demean you (I will) but I  will say that radical feminists still suck.

Notice how I said 'radical'. Dumbasses. Quit acting like I hate women. *I don't.* I love em'. The people who interpreted it that way are the same fucking people who are pissed that woman has the word 'man' in it and are lesbian simply because they hate men. I don't like  the radical, in your face feminist who wants to kill guys.

You people talking about equality! I laugh in your general direction! If a guy applied for a job as a waiter at Hooters, would he be able to join without legal action? Of course not! There are guys in Hooters, by the way, and the vast majority of that tiny minority got there by threatening to sue their asses! I could say that Hooters is biased! Blaming your sex on not making enough moolah is like blaming the bee for stinging you after bothering it's nest. It's bullshit, that's what it is, and kindly shut the hell up.

Oh, give me your figures. Please do. While your at it, stuff them wherever you feel is appropriate, because I don't care. The reason they aren't getting paid enough is because their ass conforms to long gone expectations for work. *Cowboy(girl) up and stop bitching.* Honestly, most men these days aren't like what you see in a 50's sitcom. Get over yourself.


Some girl early on said that, "Men don't know what women put up with." Sure, I'll bite. Most women don't know what men put up with. That's all I got to say about that.

I am Good as GOLD! I am a man, and I'm proud as hell about it- but if I were a woman I'd feel the same way.

-God of Wine

----------


## ray

> I hate feminists.
> 
> And not the awesome ones back in the twenties who honestly were doing the right thing- those flapper chicks were hot! Nowadays I don't hate the regular feminists who think they deserve equal opportunity. That's completely fair and anybody who says otherwise is just stupid as hell.
> 
> No, no no. I hate radical feminists.
> 
> The ones who march day and night. The ones who hate me just because I happen to have balls and not ovaries. Y'see, it's one thing to be equal. I think we're there right now, as a matter of fact. But it's as if they're trying to actually     consciously trying to show how much better they are then me. They aren't. And I'm not better then them accept for the cold, hard, fact that they're fucking stupid and I'm not.
> 
> I may be a lot of things, like a jackass, an asshole, and a jerk, but I am not a chauvinist. I hate them too. If they want to get anywhere in the world they should stop dividing. Dividing people into black and white started the American Civil War. Dividing people into 'Jews' and the rest of the world started WWII. And now, dividing people into women and men could start another.
> ...



YAY! i hate them too!

----------


## Indecent Exposure

The feminist movement is simply illogical. Some animal societies are matriarchal, with females being dominant  and often larger. The fact that is that simply isn't the case with human society. Throughout humanity's history men have been in charge. Human society is Patriarchal, end of story.
However, thats not to say women are inferior to men at all, simply different. They're better, (in genereal) at some things, and worse (in general) at certain things. 
But men are leaders. End of story.

----------


## Chastity-Autumn

> But men are leaders. End of story.



I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. *Anyone* regardless of race, gender or religion have the ability to lead. And I think you'll find that *today's* society isn't Patriarchal - That may just exist in a few countries, but overall no, it's not.

But I do agree that men are better at certain things and women are better at certain things. At the end of the day, we -- regardless of gender --- all have things that we can and can't do. 

Like said in the very first post, we're all *human*.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Alright, if we choose to look at the worlds 8 most powerful countries and then look at who rules them, you'll find each one is a male. Yes in the past there have been women who have lead but these have been exceptional. And yes of course we're all human, but there are fundemental differences between the two genders. And one of those is whose the leader/provider. 
the fact that human society is and always has been patriarchal shouldnt really be a discussion point as it is hard fact.

----------


## Chastity-Autumn

That's the point though, women HAVE ruled in the past, and you even said it yourself -- they were good at their jobs. The fact that men rule the most powerful countries therefore, doesn't really prove anything. Women can be just as strong at leading if they wish to do so. 
There will always be differences when it comes to each gender but it's ridiculous to think that it could hinder their abilties. Both men and women are completely capable of leading or providing - it's stupid to make them gender specific because regardless of gender people can have the ability to lead or the ability to provide.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> they were good at their jobs.



Margaret Thatcher?  :tongue2:

----------


## Chastity-Autumn

Well she must have done seeing as though she was in power for five years and was the leader of one of Britain's major parties. 

People just see her differently depending on what party they choose to vote for. The situation is that it will be people who like to vote for labour or another party that would say she wasn't good at her job because she was leader of the conservatives. People who support conservatives will say she was good at her jobs. 

So...really...it'd just be a pointless debate between supporters of different parties. =/

----------


## Serkat

> Alright, if we choose to look at the worlds 8 most powerful countries and then look at who rules them, you'll find each one is a male. Yes in the past there have been women who have lead but these have been exceptional. And yes of course we're all human, but there are fundemental differences between the two genders. And one of those is whose the leader/provider. 
> the fact that human society is and always has been patriarchal shouldnt really be a discussion point as it is hard fact.



You have no clue what you're talking about. The elected leader of Germany is a woman.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

oh shit yeah, it was an assumption, admittedly not thought through,
The point still stands based on the ratio, just altered slightly.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> Well she must have done seeing as though she was in power for five years and was the leader of one of Britain's major parties. 
> 
> People just see her differently depending on what party they choose to vote for. The situation is that it will be people who like to vote for labour or another party that would say she wasn't good at her job because she was leader of the conservatives. People who support conservatives will say she was good at her jobs. 
> 
> So...really...it'd just be a pointless debate between supporters of different parties. =/



 
She fucked the country up, thts the end all and be all of it.

----------

