Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Taylor]

Sasha Gray getting paid more than the anonymous male pr0n stars that she ****s for the same film.

Go on, explain that.

That's easy.

He gets no face time.

 

[cartwright]

Fast asleep is the resident churchian. Swallowing too many blue pills will do that. GD and SRP have hundreds of pages of discussion related to the issues you raise and yet you still ask these questions. Have you not been paying attention?

that they do! Including your comments on UFO's being angels, Obama = Satan & the idea that a cheating woman deserves to be shot by her partner.

Just a note for those, who might not have been paying attention.

 

[Maggie5]

Just a point for the sake of accuracy: MGTOW isn't a movement, it's a phenomenon. MGTOW has no leadership or stated goals.

MGTOW discussion has spoken at length on the topic of gynocentrism and female nature. This is a good thing because it delves far more deeply into underlying men's and gender issues than merely focusing on a symptom like Feminism.
The MGTOW community also doesn't have concern trolls and the PC thought police attempting to shame men into compliance and/or silence.

"A concern I have at the moment with this domestic violence push against men is the language being used". This short video explains what is specifically meant by "violence against women". There's the common use meaning, and then there's its use as a political tool. There's a difference.

Wow, where do you get these videos from. I must admit that I normally skip over your posts but I actually watched this latest video.
Seems to me he has only repeated what you like to hear, no facts, no statistics, just what is in his little mind.
Damn, just wasted 4 minutes.

 

[kfc1]

Agree, perhaps some here may learn something if they spent a couple of days in court or even did some voluntary work in some of the agencies. (Better hurry though as the Federal government has seen fit to cut funding).
I would have thought that all who post on here would be against family/domestic violence as the cost physically, emotionally and financially is enormous on men, women and especially children.
People need to stop finger pointing, recognise that is a problem and support any program/media/individual that is trying to eradicate it.

Who actually doesnt think DV is an issue? Looks like a strawman to me.

The only denial of DV being an issue is from those who ignore or reject male victims

 

[cartwright]

Who actually doesnt think DV is an issue? Looks like a strawman to me.

The only denial of DV being an issue is from those who ignore or reject male victims

Who has ignored or rejected there are male victims?

 

[tesseract]

that they do! Including your comments on UFO's being angels, Obama = Satan & the idea that a cheating woman deserves to be shot by her partner.

Just a note for those, who might not have been paying attention.

Didn't you say that both sides of the argument were attempting to shut down debate? Then you come out with this typical feminist/SJW attempt to silence dissenting voices through shame... and not for the first time either. Good work contradicting your claim.

 

[Maggie5]

Who actually doesnt think DV is an issue? Looks like a strawman to me.

The only denial of DV being an issue is from those who ignore or reject male victims

That was the point I was trying to make. Who has been denying male victims?

 

[cartwright]

Didn't you say that both sides of the argument were attempting to shut down debate? Then you come out with this typical feminist/SJW attempt to silence dissenting voices through shame... and not for the first time either. Good work contradicting your claim.

There is no "debate" with you though.

There have been some decent discussions over these threads. Telsor presented some interesting point of views early on. Pity you ruined that thread. I distinctly remember him asking you to not agree with his point of view.

 

[tesseract]

There is no "debate" with you though.

There have been some decent discussions over these threads. Telsor presented some interesting point of views early on. Pity you ruined that thread. I distinctly remember him asking you to not agree with his point of view.

The very post that you responded to with a strawman was a debate between I am Jack and myself. Unless you're being a disingenuous sophist, which is quite likely the case given you put quotation marks around the word 'debate'.

I'm glad I "ruined" these threads for you. It must mean that my posts hit far too close to home for your comfort.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Fast asleep is the resident churchian. Swallowing too many blue pills will do that. GD and SRP have hundreds of pages of discussion related to the issues you raise and yet you still ask these questions. Have you not been paying attention?

OK demonstrating your incapacity to engage in rational argument again. Man has dominion over nature and chicks - is that how it goes?

 

[evo]

Didn't you say that both sides of the argument were attempting to shut down debate? Then you come out with this typical feminist/SJW attempt to silence dissenting voices through shame... and not for the first time either. Good work contradicting your claim.

I have to confess I had to look up what SJW stood for. Hehe, pretty amusing epithet. There's is certainly plenty of those types around here.


Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

 

[telsor]

That was the point I was trying to make. Who has been denying male victims?

Considering them unimportant and not worthy of discussion then...and I think you'll find most of KVs comments on the issue would reflect that view.

 

[Maggie5]

Considering them unimportant and not worthy of discussion then...and I think you'll find most of KVs comments on the issue would reflect that view.

I doubt that there would be anyone who would deny that now.

 

[telsor]

I doubt that there would be anyone who would deny that now.

Yeah, nah.

In the Rosie batty thread, I posted that male victims should be acknowledged (in the context of how leaving them out left her DV advocacy incomplete and thus flawed), KV wouldn't even do that, justifying her exclusion by stating that women and children are disproportionately the victims.

 

[Maggie5]

Yeah, nah.

In the Rosie batty thread, I posted that male victims should be acknowledged (in the context of how leaving them out left her DV advocacy incomplete and thus flawed), KV wouldn't even do that, justifying her exclusion by stating that women and children are disproportionately the victims.

Have not made any comment re Rosie Batty.
Just don't see where men have not been considered. To me domestic/family violence is children, females and males and doesn't necessarily have to be physical to be destructive so not sure what you are getting at.

 

[romeoh]

Yeah, nah.

In the Rosie batty thread, I posted that male victims should be acknowledged (in the context of how leaving them out left her DV advocacy incomplete and thus flawed), KV wouldn't even do that, justifying her exclusion by stating that women and children are disproportionately the victims.

Men are also victims of DV but women and children are more the victims so why would you take issue with that?

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Men are also victims of DV but women and children are more the victims so why would you take issue with that?

I think it's more the lack of acknowledgment and dismissiveness from some parties that men can be victims that is the problem.

It's like saying that only men die serving at war or die at work and that female fatalities in these cases don't deserve to be recognised because they are in the small minority.

It is a very disingenuous and ignorant stance to take.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Yeah, nah.

In the Rosie batty thread, I posted that male victims should be acknowledged (in the context of how leaving them out left her DV advocacy incomplete and thus flawed), KV wouldn't even do that, justifying her exclusion by stating that women and children are disproportionately the victims.

You know, young males come under the rubric of 'children'.

In fact Rosie started her advocacy because of a male victim; her son.

Chief is it possible to have 'Gynocentric' as the little phrase below my user name?

 

[Chief]

Yeah, nah.

In the Rosie batty thread, I posted that male victims should be acknowledged (in the context of how leaving them out left her DV advocacy incomplete and thus flawed), KV wouldn't even do that, justifying her exclusion by stating that women and children are disproportionately the victims.

This is an invalid argument.

It assumes that any advocacy must include all possible permutations of injustice at all times or it is incomplete and flawed.

That is an indefensible argument. It ignores the evidence that targeted campaigns can be more effective than general campaigns.

Road safety campaigns will concentrate on speeding, drink driving, school zones, seat belts, child seats and so on. Are these all flawed because they concentrate on one facet of "road safety"?

No of course not. That's nonsensical.

 

[Chief]

You know, young males come under the rubric of 'children'.

Shush - white, heterosexual adult males are the only group that counts. Everyone else is just sponging off society, you SJW.

 

[fleabitten]

This is an invalid argument.

It assumes that any advocacy must include all possible permutations of injustice at all times or it is incomplete and flawed.

That is an indefensible argument. It ignores the evidence that targeted campaigns can be more effective than general campaigns.

Road safety campaigns will concentrate on speeding, drink driving, school zones, seat belts, child seats and so on. Are these all flawed because they concentrate on one facet of "road safety"?

No of course not. That's nonsensical.

So where is the targeted campaign for women who abuse men and/or children?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

The insanity that Jennifer Lawrence embodies female suppression is... insane.

I dunno man, she was pretty objectified when when all those photos of her butthole were released.

 

[Chief]

So where is the targeted campaign for women who abuse men and/or children?

Start one.

 

[Chief]

Chief is it possible to have 'Gynocentric' as the little phrase below my user name?

You should be able to change it yourself.

 

[Chief]

OK demonstrating your incapacity to engage in rational argument again. Man has dominion over nature and chicks - is that how it goes?

Except when that man is Obama, who is an agent of Satan.