The dumbest political gender argument I have seen yet

So this somehow popped up as a head story in my online news section. The shear idiotic dribble just blew my mind, especially coming from a Time contributor.

I mean, I know Time is a Clinton supporter...and I am fully aware Clinton is pulling the female genitalia card. I get it, I would too if I were her. Why not, get free votes...just business.

However, the absolute brain dead, diluted ignorance this article imposes is beyond approach....all while pulling the evil male, poor female rhetoric. Just mind boggling.

AND a PROFESSOR at that......

However....I suppose the anti-freeze in the garage is quite tasty and good for you, it looks just like Gatorade. So let's vote for Hillary just because she is a female...flawless ideas.

http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/

Just remember, liberals will always be the victims, whether they are or not. 

What a load of crap! Guilty of speaking while female...    Just a good thing it was a rich, powerful politician that made that mistake and not an insignificant pee-on. Cripes.

Wow.

Well,
That was informative of the writers opinion, no doubt about that.

Certainly got a lot of colour.

England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

She is my favourite.

That is also a woman excercising her right to free speech, can't deny that.

What ever happened to equality?

Edit cause apparently I can't spell speech...

The obvious best choice for humanity is to completely ban heterosexual sex. From now on. Only women are allowed to have sex, and only with each other. That's equality.

(Just in case it wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm.)

The obvious best choice for humanity is to completely ban heterosexual sex. From now on. Only women are allowed to have sex, and only with each other. That's equality.

(Just in case it wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm.)

So, you like guys. Noted.

Actually, I like future generations.

Quote from: Julie Bindel

England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

She is my favourite.

That is also a woman excercising her right to free speech, can't deny that.

What ever happened to equality?

Edit cause apparently I can't spell speech...

I love Julie Bindel, she has a great sense of humor.  She ain't afraid to ruffle some feathers.

Also, where are these emails? http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50168/bush-white-house-22-million-emails/   WILL SOMEONE FIND THE EMAILS?  (p.s. I am sick of the email bullshit)

I don't know who the author of the Times article is, but this is far from the dumbest political gender argument.  There are so many dumb arguments out there, that it's hard to keep track of them.

Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2016, 10:51:13 PM

Quote from: Julie Bindel

England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

She is my favourite.

That is also a woman excercising her right to free speech, can't deny that.

What ever happened to equality?

Edit cause apparently I can't spell speech...

I love Julie Bindel, she has a great sense of humor.  She ain't afraid to ruffle some feathers.

Also, where are these emails? http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50168/bush-white-house-22-million-emails/   WILL SOMEONE FIND THE EMAILS?  (p.s. I am sick of the email bullshit)

I don't know who the author of the Times article is, but this is far from the dumbest political gender argument.  There are so many dumb arguments out there, that it's hard to keep track of them.

I wish the author could see this...what a woman thinks of that nonsense. A hybrid feminist at that.

Yes, there are plenty of dumb arguments, if I posted them all this site would be flooded. This one just stuck out so much I was literally mind blown. Especially since it was from a "professor" ...I truly hope it was some sort of joke or social experiment. Everything points to the fact it wasn't though.

Some of the most annoying "feminists" are working in academia. It's not entirely their fault. They have to go along, somewhat, in order to keep their jobs.  Just imagine the thousands of whiny babies crying for safe spaces they have to deal with.

Well there's no denying there is a double standard at play. The huge controversy and discussion of potential impeachment etc over Clinton using a private email server (which isn't a crime), meanwhile Trump's due to go to trial for child-rape and massive fraud.

So, something's at play. The question is what.
There's the Charlotte Whitton cliche after all, "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good." ("Luckily this is not hard," which really does seem to apply this election).
Misogyny seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion as to motive. But people would rather complain about the accusation, or "Not all men," it, or get defensive fast. Honestly, that article's not that bad. It's sweeping, it's dramatic, it's bold, because that's the exact purpose of that kind of article. But when it makes an accusation that some people find uncomfortable, the content gets thrown out the window and people would rather complain about the brashness (and in doing so kinda perfectly illustrating the whole point of the article. And sure, that's a cheap shot, but it's very hard to not notice that the reaction to an article mentioning 'speaking while female,' an existing term, is outrage at a woman expressing their view).

So, let's do the logical thing. Sweep away the dressing, focus on the topic of the article.

The email 'scandal' ought to be a non-entity - Compared to basically everything surrounding Trump, true. She was cleared of wrongdoing initially (the only arguable real mistake she made was sending improperly marked confidential material to her private server, if memory serves). Now there's a resurgence, which could well be nothing. But that doesn't make a story, so everyone's just speculating, and it's silly, frankly.
The people are demanding Clinton act like moral exemplars - True, again. Just compare the standards they're held to. Clinton's expected to outline detailed policies while not making any errors, Trump's expected to not be too racist, and not grope too many more people.
Men would get away with it - Well, again, compare the two candidates. If Trump was victim to proportionate outrage (one non-crime vs multiple actual crimes) it's almost unimaginable. So it seems as though at least one man could get away with it just fine.

Misogyny is at play. Is it as key to the topic as the article says? Well possibly, possibly not, but no news source publishes a 'possibly,' so of course it sounds a bit more striking. You never notice that certainty on any articles that don't make you uncomfortable, though. Accept the article as what it is; a headline.

Some of the most annoying "feminists" are working in academia. It's not entirely their fault. They have to go along, somewhat, in order to keep their jobs.  Just imagine the thousands of whiny babies crying for safe spaces they have to deal with.

I can see this as a very honest answer and reality. Though I could not fully relate of course as not being a female.

The only thing I can relate it to is my experience with academics. How the posse runs together, and if you don't follow, then you are an outcast/idiot/lower than them.

Well there's no denying there is a double standard at play. The huge controversy and discussion of potential impeachment etc over Clinton using a private email server (which isn't a crime), meanwhile Trump's due to go to trial for child-rape and massive fraud.

So, something's at play. The question is what.
There's the Charlotte Whitton cliche after all, "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good." ("Luckily this is not hard," which really does seem to apply this election).
Misogyny seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion as to motive. But people would rather complain about the accusation, or "Not all men," it, or get defensive fast. Honestly, that article's not that bad. It's sweeping, it's dramatic, it's bold, because that's the exact purpose of that kind of article. But when it makes an accusation that some people find uncomfortable, the content gets thrown out the window and people would rather complain about the brashness (and in doing so kinda perfectly illustrating the whole point of the article. And sure, that's a cheap shot, but it's very hard to not notice that the reaction to an article mentioning 'speaking while female,' an existing term, is outrage at a woman expressing their view).

So, let's do the logical thing. Sweep away the dressing, focus on the topic of the article.

The email 'scandal' ought to be a non-entity - Compared to basically everything surrounding Trump, true. She was cleared of wrongdoing initially (the only arguable real mistake she made was sending improperly marked confidential material to her private server, if memory serves). Now there's a resurgence, which could well be nothing. But that doesn't make a story, so everyone's just speculating, and it's silly, frankly.
The people are demanding Clinton act like moral exemplars - True, again. Just compare the standards they're held to. Clinton's expected to outline detailed policies while not making any errors, Trump's expected to not be too racist, and not grope too many more people.
Men would get away with it - Well, again, compare the two candidates. If Trump was victim to proportionate outrage (one non-crime vs multiple actual crimes) it's almost unimaginable. So it seems as though at least one man could get away with it just fine.

Misogyny is at play. Is it as key to the topic as the article says? Well possibly, possibly not, but no news source publishes a 'possibly,' so of course it sounds a bit more striking. You never notice that certainty on any articles that don't make you uncomfortable, though. Accept the article as what it is; a headline

People expect such things from her because that is how she presents herself. Maybe there is some gender bias, I don't know. All I know is what is in my mind. I don't see her gender, I just see another corrupt member of a proven corrupt family that uses their standing to avoid prosecution. There are much worse examples than the email nonsense. It was just the icing on the cake, especially seeing how so many others are sitting in jail for much much less.

Her policies, moral compass and world view represents most of the issues in the States, in compassed all in one person. She is the radioactive element that causes cancer, not just the tumor itself. This is my view of her, and most of the people around here share the view (many women included, they don't fall for her "vote for me because I have the same organs you have" rhetoric)

Sure their are a few very alpha males who say "I won't have some woman telling me what to do" that is the minority of her hatred though. Most is just tired of her shit corrupt above the law lying family, and just can't stand to see it anymore. Been having to deal with them for decades already ...enough is enough.

Trump...he is a hard core, everyone else be damned business mongrel. No care for who he steps on for his conquests as long as he wins. He is a dreamer and exaggerater.....just like his released audio non sense. That is Trump...exaggerating to get a rise in the spot light at the time of the people listening. I doubt it happened...just like I doubt he is worth 10 billion (only about 6-7 billion is provable) or I doubt he has donated shit to charity etc etc etc.

My biggest thing is he isn't one of them....he doesnt care. He just wants to win. I am hoping he will bring that menality with him if he gets elected. We could use someone that actually fights for america to win for once...instead of their own self interest and pocket book. That is why we are in the situation we are in now.

For the record i have stated the ex prime minister of australia that i feel would be a great president if we must have a female president. Even offered dispute a trade for her

People expect such things from her because that is how she presents herself. Maybe there is some gender bias, I don't know. All I know is what is in my mind. I don't see her gender, I just see another corrupt member of a proven corrupt family that uses their standing to avoid prosecution. There are much worse examples than the email nonsense. It was just the icing on the cake, especially seeing how so many others are sitting in jail for much much less.

Her policies, moral compass and world view represents most of the issues in the States, in compassed all in one person. She is the radioactive element that causes cancer, not just the tumor itself. This is my view of her, and most of the people around here share the view (many women included, they don't fall for her "vote for me because I have the same organs you have" rhetoric)

Sure their are a few very alpha males who say "I won't have some woman telling me what to do" that is the minority of her hatred though. Most is just tired of her shit corrupt above the law lying family, and just can't stand to see it anymore. Been having to deal with them for decades already ...enough is enough.

Trump...he is a hard core, everyone else be damned business mongrel. No care for who he steps on for his conquests as long as he wins. He is a dreamer and exaggerater.....just like his released audio non sense. That is Trump...exaggerating to get a rise in the spot light at the time of the people listening. I doubt it happened...just like I doubt he is worth 10 billion (only about 6-7 billion is provable) or I doubt he has donated shit to charity etc etc etc.

My biggest thing is he isn't one of them....he doesnt care. He just wants to win. I am hoping he will bring that menality with him if he gets elected. We could use someone that actually fights for america to win for once...instead of their own self interest and pocket book. That is why we are in the situation we are in now.

For the record i have stated the ex prime minister of australia that i feel would be a great president if we must have a female president. Even offered dispute a trade for her

Misogyny isn't something you can think of as some loud, out-proud province of a few virgin alpha-males, it's ubiquitous and insidious. People always want to think the best of themselves, but categorically that is never going to be the case. No one's perfect. The problem with creating the whole idea that it's just down to the loud, obnoxious alpha-guys is that people balk at associating themselves with it, rather than realizing that at this point in time everyone has some misogynistic thoughts. It's impossible to follow every one of your thoughts back to the origin.
I've seen about two Clinton scandals. The emails are not a huge scandal, they're a minor oversight that's pretty much just a technicality, from all I've seen. The other's the Clinton foundation, which is easily rebutted: there's pretty much no way it could do much of what it's accused of. Compare with the Trump foundation, which Trump barely donated to, and the proceeds from regular people have been used to pay for Trump's lawsuits and to buy giant pictures of Trump.
That's the vaguely well-sourced scandals at least, not including the ones like this one that claims Hillary hired a fixer to set up all manner of illicit sexual encounters, complete with a picture with a figure circled who's presumably meant to be said fixer, and is instead Ed Milliband, who was nearly Prime Minister of the UK, and isn't even the major british politician with a sex scandal.

As for Trump, goes back to what I mentioned earlier; insidious misogyny. What makes a guy a boss makes a woman a bitch. And seriously, Trump is out for himself and his money, that's his entire shtick. People who point out he's not as rich as he claims or points out that he was bankrupt (an objective fact) get sued: basically anyone that dares insult him gets threatened. If you want above the law, look at the guy who's had an absurd number of lawsuits and accusations, and always seems to settle them out of court. Plus Trump University, which is a straight-up scam (easy test: any organisation which has a section in the staff handbook dedicated to "What to do if a lawyer approaches you..." is probably not on the up-and-up).
Not caring who you step on as long as you come out ahead is not an attitude for a leader of a country. What has he ever actually done to make you think he cares about the country?

But, regardless, that's off-topic. The key is the double-standard. Objectively, the scandals that follow Trump around are worse than the ones that follow Clinton, like the emails. That's all it really comes down to. Groping women without their consent gets shrugged off, being a bit lazy with emails is unforgivable.

As for Trump, goes back to what I mentioned earlier; insidious misogyny. What makes a guy a boss makes a woman a bitch. And seriously, Trump is out for himself and his money, that's his entire shtick. People who point out he's not as rich as he claims or points out that he was bankrupt (an objective fact) get sued: basically anyone that dares insult him gets threatened. If you want above the law, look at the guy who's had an absurd number of lawsuits and accusations, and always seems to settle them out of court. Plus Trump University, which is a straight-up scam (easy test: any organisation which has a section in the staff handbook dedicated to "What to do if a lawyer approaches you..." is probably not on the up-and-up).
Not caring who you step on as long as you come out ahead is not an attitude for a leader of a country. What has he ever actually done to make you think he cares about the country?

But, regardless, that's off-topic. The key is the double-standard. Objectively, the scandals that follow Trump around are worse than the ones that follow Clinton, like the emails. That's all it really comes down to. Groping women without their consent gets shrugged off, being a bit lazy with emails is unforgivable.

This is really true. The bitch and the boss thing happens all the time. Lots of take no shit women get labeled bitches, but men who are that way are seen as admirably strong. Women who point this sort of thing out are labeled feminazis!  Trump is far from a take no shit kinda guy. He's a crybaby who literally wants to change the libel laws to make it easier for him to sue his critics. 

I really can't remember this much obsession with emails when the Bush administration lost 2 million of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same people gleefully threatening to continue investigating Clinton for years to come weren't downplaying the importance of those emails back then.

Misogyny isn't something you can think of as some loud, out-proud province of a few virgin alpha-males, it's ubiquitous and insidious. People always want to think the best of themselves, but categorically that is never going to be the case. No one's perfect. The problem with creating the whole idea that it's just down to the loud, obnoxious alpha-guys is that people balk at associating themselves with it, rather than realizing that at this point in time everyone has some misogynistic thoughts. It's impossible to follow every one of your thoughts back to the origin.
I've seen about two Clinton scandals. The emails are not a huge scandal, they're a minor oversight that's pretty much just a technicality, from all I've seen. The other's the Clinton foundation, which is easily rebutted: there's pretty much no way it could do much of what it's accused of. Compare with the Trump foundation, which Trump barely donated to, and the proceeds from regular people have been used to pay for Trump's lawsuits and to buy giant pictures of Trump.
That's the vaguely well-sourced scandals at least, not including the ones like this one that claims Hillary hired a fixer to set up all manner of illicit sexual encounters, complete with a picture with a figure circled who's presumably meant to be said fixer, and is instead Ed Milliband, who was nearly Prime Minister of the UK, and isn't even the major british politician with a sex scandal.

As for Trump, goes back to what I mentioned earlier; insidious misogyny. What makes a guy a boss makes a woman a bitch. And seriously, Trump is out for himself and his money, that's his entire shtick. People who point out he's not as rich as he claims or points out that he was bankrupt (an objective fact) get sued: basically anyone that dares insult him gets threatened. If you want above the law, look at the guy who's had an absurd number of lawsuits and accusations, and always seems to settle them out of court. Plus Trump University, which is a straight-up scam (easy test: any organisation which has a section in the staff handbook dedicated to "What to do if a lawyer approaches you..." is probably not on the up-and-up).
Not caring who you step on as long as you come out ahead is not an attitude for a leader of a country. What has he ever actually done to make you think he cares about the country?

But, regardless, that's off-topic. The key is the double-standard. Objectively, the scandals that follow Trump around are worse than the ones that follow Clinton, like the emails. That's all it really comes down to. Groping women without their consent gets shrugged off, being a bit lazy with emails is unforgivable.

I haven't spent much time in England so I don't know the condition of things there male vs female. But here it is not as you make it seem. There are plenty of women in high power positions, managers, owners, etc etc etc. The media with their liberal agenda has been demonizing men and empowering women for a long time already.

Most recent shows past 2004 and some earlier show women as the intelligent breed, and men as dumb/simple minded barbarians that the women control. The tides have been changing for many moons before the Hillary campaign.

Women can make any claims, and it is guilty until proven innocent. In court cases with divorce and child custody it is all female centered, the male is just an annoying obstacle. I could keep going on and on and on.

Simple fact....just because you possess a vagina, does not mean you are a victim (I am speaking entirely about the States, as I know there are some horrible areas in the world to be a female. I am not condoning that whatsoever.) The time is coming very soon where being a male will be an extreme liability and not just a minor inconvenience.

Funny as I thought equality was the whole point??...


I don't like Hillary because her views of the economy, direction, moral compass and the fact she is building even more walls with her "togetherness" ideals. Either be together or you will be demonized.... How does that build togetherness?? It's OK to have different cultures...what is wrong with that? We are ALL different and unique.

Appreciate the differences...practice acceptance, and learn from each other. I would love to be able to state a problem I have with someone without being labeled a racist a misogynist or whatever else. Both parties can learn from conflict and arise from it both better people.

You can't keep shutting people's mouth and expecting them to be "together"... You will just end up hating each other which is already the condition we are in now from all the PC shit.

Or even worse they over power minorities or women, and underpower the others. Again...just leads to hatred on both sides.


So...it is everything Hillary stands for I hate...not her gender. She is going to turn America into an even bigger joke than we already are with the rest of the world. Everyone who tries to achieve anything will be demonized, with their accomplishments (mainly momentary) stripped away and given to those that do nothing and just take. Build even bigger unfunded entitlements for the tax payers to pay, and PC us to the point we can't even look at someone without facing possible jail time. Yes I know exaggerated... But all true within a lesser degree.


Claiming it is because of her gender, every guy is a closet misogynist and whatever ever else rhetoric is claimed....that is just nonsense based the attempt to peddle an agenda.

Not buying it...

Equality is not the point of feminism. (liberation is)

Men are not discriminated against in custody, they tend to get custody if they want it.

No woman's claim is automatically believed. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but let me take a guess - rape? Rape convictions are few and far between. (The only people who are literally guilty until proven innocent are the ones too poor to bond out of jail. No matter the crime.)

Why does Clinton's moral compass trouble you, but Trump's doesn't? Why is she labeled a liar, when it's been proven he lies all the time? Shouldn't they both get the label if they're both liars? 

Equality is not the point of feminism. (liberation is)

Men are not discriminated against in custody, they tend to get custody if they want it.

No woman's claim is automatically believed. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but let me take a guess - rape? Rape convictions are few and far between. (The only people who are literally guilty until proven innocent are the ones too poor to bond out of jail. No matter the crime.)

Why does Clinton's moral compass trouble you, but Trump's doesn't? Why is she labeled a liar, when it's been proven he lies all the time? Shouldn't they both get the label if they're both liars?

I have already said Trump is an exaggerater...he will lie to win. I have stated ALL he cares about is winning and not being a loser. I don't "value" his moral compass. He is the lesser of two evils. Also Clinton's bad ideas, she has the know how, the backing to support, and the liberal initiative/following to actually get her ideas passed.

This to me is much more dangerous than a blow hard in office. As I said on another thread, maybe the people who surround him such as pence, that actually are quite sharp, could turn his rantings into some workable ideas and do some good. Worst case, he does nothing ...and that is still multiple times better than Clinton.

OK...women were "liberated" decades ago in the States...why is it still a "thing". It seems to me women want not just liberation, or equality, but to be the dominant gender. (At least those still involved in such a " movement")

Your custody claim is 100 percent completely false....100 percent. If you have no experience in the matter I understand why you would think it is equal, it absolutely is not. The court system is terrible in those situations... Highly biased. There are groups fighting for equality in that certain issue with no avail.


The claims I speak of is yes...cases of rape..molestation...assault etc etc. Any sort of an "assault" on a female. Their claim is taken as truth, and the male demonized. Especially if the media gets ahold of it. Sure there will be a court hearing, however, by the time you get there, you are already broke from legal fees, and guilty in the eyes of the public.

If a guy says "oh she is full of crap" or "its a lie or ploy" for whatever case. They are an evil misogynist, so you better keep your mouth shut and accept the demonizing. Guilty by claim, not by evidence. (No I am not condoning acts of violence against women, especially rape, I believe that to be equal to murder in the heinousness of the act....but it can't be hearsay)

There are still cases where men get what they want more then females, but the same goes for women.stuff like this is a pretty terrible thing. I am fine with feminism wanting equality, but it seems to me that we already have that, but we see to have overcorrected.

There are still cases where men get what they want more then females, but the same goes for women.stuff like this is a pretty terrible thing. I am fine with feminism wanting equality, but it seems to me that we already have that, but we see to have overcorrected.

How about this pretty terrible thing? http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/24/23-states-allow-rapists-to-demand-custody-of-their-victims-children/   

Yes, I admitted that the terribleness goes both ways. But trying to give tip the terribleness to one side rather than trying to fix it is a had idea.

I haven't spent much time in England so I don't know the condition of things there male vs female. But here it is not as you make it seem. There are plenty of women in high power positions, managers, owners, etc etc etc. The media with their liberal agenda has been demonizing men and empowering women for a long time already.

Most recent shows past 2004 and some earlier show women as the intelligent breed, and men as dumb/simple minded barbarians that the women control. The tides have been changing for many moons before the Hillary campaign.

Women can make any claims, and it is guilty until proven innocent. In court cases with divorce and child custody it is all female centered, the male is just an annoying obstacle. I could keep going on and on and on.

Simple fact....just because you possess a vagina, does not mean you are a victim (I am speaking entirely about the States, as I know there are some horrible areas in the world to be a female. I am not condoning that whatsoever.) The time is coming very soon where being a male will be an extreme liability and not just a minor inconvenience.

Funny as I thought equality was the whole point??...


I don't like Hillary because her views of the economy, direction, moral compass and the fact she is building even more walls with her "togetherness" ideals. Either be together or you will be demonized.... How does that build togetherness?? It's OK to have different cultures...what is wrong with that? We are ALL different and unique.

Appreciate the differences...practice acceptance, and learn from each other. I would love to be able to state a problem I have with someone without being labeled a racist a misogynist or whatever else. Both parties can learn from conflict and arise from it both better people.

You can't keep shutting people's mouth and expecting them to be "together"... You will just end up hating each other which is already the condition we are in now from all the PC shit.

Or even worse they over power minorities or women, and underpower the others. Again...just leads to hatred on both sides.


So...it is everything Hillary stands for I hate...not her gender. She is going to turn America into an even bigger joke than we already are with the rest of the world. Everyone who tries to achieve anything will be demonized, with their accomplishments (mainly momentary) stripped away and given to those that do nothing and just take. Build even bigger unfunded entitlements for the tax payers to pay, and PC us to the point we can't even look at someone without facing possible jail time. Yes I know exaggerated... But all true within a lesser degree.


Claiming it is because of her gender, every guy is a closet misogynist and whatever ever else rhetoric is claimed....that is just nonsense based the attempt to peddle an agenda.

Not buying it...

Everyone's a misogynist to some degree. Not just every guy, everyone internalises some attitudes whether they mean to or not. The problem is that even if things become slightly worse for men, that isn't inherently bad if men are already at an advantage. That is the path to equality, and you can't just assume things are already equal.
A good illustration of this point, actually, is when it comes to married names. The default is for a woman to take a man's name. A handful hyphenate, though that's pretty rare. If a woman keeps her own name, even rarer, there are accusations like "You're trying to be superior to your husband," or "You're trying to take his masculinity." It's easy to look up mens' reaction to the idea. But does that actually make any sense? The man keeps his name, surely equality would be letting the woman do the same? And yet a step away from the status quo, in women's favour, is widely viewed as, to quote, "a direct “f*ck you” to a man’s masculinity."
We aren't at a point of equality. Viewing the way things are as an ideal state is just wrong; men are advantaged and favoured all over the place.

Take your 'most recent shows.' More often than not, they're still centred around the men, and the men are often shown to be right, or the chosen one, or something. Daring to have intelligent women in a show is a step towards equality, and more often than not it's used as a way to have a female character that does something without needing to give them action scenes because women can't fight because ladyparts or something. Sure, there are some very female-focused, female-centric shows, but you actively have to seek them out, and a few of them is still equality given how many boys' own shows there are.
Trust me. I watch a bit of old sci-fi, so take Doctor Who; there was an instance of a female scientist as a major recurring character in 1970, who was... kicked off after one series because the producer wanted a dumber character who could scream. That was 1970, that's living memory, that's the generation that shapes a fair few influential people nowadays. Misogyny is alive and well. People actively trying to take steps away from that is equality.
There's some stereotyping, yeah. Men are the brute action heroes, women are love interests who're slowly starting to take steps to being more proactive. Making shows and movies with a female lead gun-slinging whatever and a prettyboy guy in the background isn't making women superior, because the other kind of movie is still around, and still a majority: it just stands out less because you're used to it.

I have no idea where that togetherness bit comes from.

Anyway, to address a few claims.

Custody
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
Very few men even seek custody of a child after a divorce. In the rare case where they do, the mother often gets the child because she was the one that raised the child, thanks to living the stereotype that the father goes out to work and the mother gets the kids. In a situation where one parent's the one looking after the child more, what would you expect?
Another illustration of a double standard there: a new mother who goes out to work is accused of being a bad mother. A father who does the same thing faces no such judgement.
And yet, when you actually look at the cases where a father sought custody, they have the advantage. So thinking mothers are more likely to get a child is just wrong.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

As for rape, the claim is never taken as truth. Rapists are vilified, yes, so people bend over backwards to avoid calling it rape. Steubenville is a great example: they were found guilty, because they had to be, they'd literally filmed themselves doing it, and yet all the news coverage was dedicated to pitying them and mourning their promising careers and the long-term consequences of being accused of rape as opposed to, you know, looking at the consequences of being raped.
Plus, of all the accused rapists, a handful are said to be false accusations. That doesn't mean they are, women who report it are treated horrifically, but then there's the fact rape is a chronically under-reported crime. There is literally no conceivable way it can be construed as being biased towards men.
Yes, there's the cliche that women are innocent, delicate flowers and men who dare hurt a woman must be punished. Sure, that cliche exists, but people find all kinds of excuses and ways around it when it comes to actual reality. There are definitely groups that emphatically take a woman's side, because statistically she's not going to be lying (no one would go through the experience of having to accuse someone of rape unless they had a reason), but they're not nearly as influential as you seem to think.
Rapists rarely get punished.
https://www.rainn.org/news/97-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment-rainn-analysis-shows

Certainly, there are issues both ways, but it should be noted that even some of the bits that disadvantage men are rooted in misogyny. It comes down to stereotypes: women need help, women should look after kids, men are stronger, men can't be raped...
Terribleness goes both ways, but that doesn't mean you can't find a root cause.

Women don't want to be dominant, they want things to be better than they are. Sure, that may make things a bit worse for men if you're used to what the standard at the moment is, but that's not a bad thing.

Trump and Clinton wise, you can't elect an incompetent for four years. If his only proposals are unworkable, and yet he's still making them despite his advisers, why do you expect that to be any better in the presidency?

Alright, which way to the concentration camps then?

Three meals a day and a bed and I'm pretty happy anyway :-)

Alright, which way to the concentration camps then?

Three meals a day and a bed and I'm pretty happy anyway :-)

If Trump is elected and the apocalypse happens maybe we can have this in the future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_to_Women%27s_Country

That's pretty cool.

I consider myself a femminist just that this thread escalated pretty quickly, woke up reading about r*pe and was a bit upset.

Some males feel as if we are all being painted as r*pists, most of us respect women, I don't think its fair to call all men mysogynists but maybe that is what has to happen for equality (tear it down and start again).

I just dont know if anyone would come to "take me out like a library book" it's a bit confronting.

I know this is a sensitive issue.

Some males feel as if we are all being painted as r*pists, most of us respect women, I don't think its fair to call all men mysogynists but maybe that is what has to happen for equality (tear it down and start again).

No one really says that. Some women are paranoid about men they don't know, but that's just because while it isn't all men, it could be any man. In general, it's just much easier to speak generally without stopping every couple of sentences "Oh and by the way I don't mean everyone," because that should a) go without saying, and b) if nothing else it's an easy way to spot the faux-feminists: the kind of guy who calls himself that to absolve himself of guilt, and to add to his ego, while not living up to the principles at all. After all, if someone's going to spend ages complaining about how they personally felt insulted by how an article or something didn't mention that some men are great, rather than tackling the likely-serious topic and the dangerous effects on women, they pretty clearly don't care. The problem is guys like that get defensive way too fast, and start talking loudly, and suddenly feminism is painted as universally accusatory.
Plus, there's a difference between actively being misogynistic, and perpetuating a misogynistic idea. Everyone does the latter, men and women, no exceptions. Misogyny can be subtle. The whole demonisation of misogyny is counter-productive; goes back to the whole "Women are delicate flowers and anyone who hurts them is evil," cliche. When hatred of women is treated as a special kind of evil, rather than a ubiquitous legacy, people respond with defensiveness rather than "Thanks for pointing that out, I'll bear it in mind."

Thanks for pointing that out, I will bear that in mind.

Personal rant.

My father was violent and abusive towards my mother and myself growing up, my mother didn't cope well with it at all and now needs constant out and somtimes inpatient care.

She hates me beause I am male and slightly resemble my father. (I can't blame her tbh)

I didn't come off scot free either I am the first to admit I have issues with how women can be treated and I have massive problems with authority.

Sorry if I offended anyone but there are guys who genuinely support womans liberation even if we propogate stereotypes unknowingly.
/rant.

Trump vs Hillary.
They are both bad people but Trump is less competent and will have more trouble imposing his will on others imo.

See what politics is doing to us?

Thanks for pointing that out, I will bear that in mind.

Trump vs Hillary.
They are both bad people but Trump is less competent and will have more trouble imposing his will on others imo.

See what politics is doing to us?

If it comes to a choice between well-meaning newcomer to politics, and possibly corrupt politician, I'd still favour the politician. For better or worse, the presidency comes down to politics: you need to know the intricacies of the law, and what's legal or not, as well as be rather diplomatic, and a suitable representative. Even if every second's an act and fake, it's still what people need for diplomacy. And even the best-meaning newcomer is going to be incompetent. The presidency's still a job, and the most corrupt person imaginable isn't going to tear down the country given they still live there and rely on it, while someone who doesn't understand the sheer complexity of what they're doing definitely could.
You wouldn't hire a defence attorney because they spoke their mind, and because they cared a lot about helping you, if they didn't know what to do in court.

And that's a well-meaning newcomer, not the egotistical, ties-to-Putin, admires-dictators, easily-baited, anti-freedom-of-the-press, jail-opponents, open-to-nuking Trump.

Jane for President!