Erenthia wrote:

For a sexy action shot, the picture in question isn't too far off. Just give her a [i]reason[/i] to be twisted up like gumby and have her [i]look at her fucking target[/i] unless she has a reason not to.

LatwPIAT wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

Because he's an internet white knight who's been indoctrinated with feminist propoganda, of course, though that's not what he's going to say (thanks to the aforementioned indoctrination).

I'm female. So unless you're going to claim that I'm promoting a feminist POV in order to gain brownie-points I plan to cash in for sex with [i]other women[/i], I really think your accusations of "white knighting" have no leg to stand on.

Lorsa wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

Really? Okay, then, even worse: you're just another feminist attempting to destroy and de-legitimise all alternate modes of thought and sexuality. "Oh, no! The men are thinking for themselves! We cannot allow this! We have to shame and silence them back into their proper submissive behavior!" Fuck that shit.

I don't agree with everything LatwPIAT says but would really want to keep having a conversation with her. This statement seems to me as being awfully close to an insult which is often counterproductive to all discussions. I would like to request that we stick to the topic at hand without accusing people of being X or Y.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Seekerofshadowlight wrote:

LatwPIAT, you are seeing what you wish to see. Nothing anyone can say will change that as you want to see it in that manner. You Refuse to except she is not in fetish gear, even when shown other examples of the same outfit on both men and women.

I'm going to turn that statement around; you refuse to accept she [i]is[/i] in fetish gear, in spite of the fact that there have been no pictures of men in anything remotely comparable, and the fact that pretty much every aspect and detail of it is supposed to invoke a latex fetish outfit.

Erenthia wrote:

If we could see where she was looking and there were obstacles in her way I'd give you that. The no-look shots enabled by smart-links [i]are[/i] a pretty good thing to introduce, but she isn't staring into the negative space looking for obstacles, she is looking at the viewer.

Decivre wrote:

I thought she was staring to the left of the viewer, implying that she is looking further down the hallway. Zoom in on the pic in the PDF to really see it. Her purple eyes are on the far right side of her face, while her face is only slightly leaned to the left. Which means she's looking to the left of the viewing perspective.

Erenthia wrote:

Pig-teets: This one is easy. I heard about this picture before ever seeing it and expected something WAY more extreme. Like a cock-tail dress with x3 cleavage. What I saw didn't offend me for any sexual/gendered reasons. It "offended" me how poor a piece of artwork it was. Admittedly uplifts can be hard to do, but honestly I've never understood why "breast pockets" exist in the first place. Compared to the other artwork it was cartoony and poorly drawn.

Erenthia wrote:

Agreed on all counts. I only talked more about the picture on page 82 because of the much larger uproar it caused, but the pig-tit-pic is far inferior. And not because she has multiple-teets. It looks very much like someone drew over an existing piece with a pig head and (as other have said) copy/pasted extra boobs. Personally I think it would have been better to make her extremely masculine looking, with the only sign that she was female being a tiny pink bow on her head. Page 82 is largely an eyeroll for me as an end-user, though if I were a member of PHS I would probably want more detail than just that, so I gave it.

Seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I agree on all counts as well on the pig, its just a poor image. I do wonder if transhuman pigs would developed all six Teets. I am thinking know unless they keep having large litters, if they go gown to only one or two offspring I really do not see more then two teets filling out. All in how much Human DNA they used for them. On page 82. I am not understanding the outrage really. To me its a poor fit as its screams "Comic book" its very spidermanish in pose and that along with the colors just do not fit EP to me.

LatwPIAT wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

Really? Okay, then, even worse: you're just another feminist attempting to destroy and de-legitimise all alternate modes of thought and sexuality. "Oh, no! The men are thinking for themselves! We cannot allow this! We have to shame and silence them back into their proper submissive behavior!" Fuck that shit.

Yeah! Damn those feminists and their oppressive mode of thought about how women and men should be equal.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

I don't see the point. It's like trying to discuss whether or not all the niggers and Jews are really so bad with a member of the KKK; you're not going to change their mind, and all you're going to do is waste your time and energy frustrating yourself. And yes, I just compared feminists to the KKK. Both are equally [url=http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/whats-the-difference/]bigoted[/url] movements. The only difference between them is their choice of targets, and the fact that one has been purged from the halls of power, while the other has not.

One is also a movement founded on the hatred of people who are different, a hatred they express through bombings, assassination, lynching, murder, other forms of violence, close association with neo-Nazis, and a general approval of these kinds of actions by their members.

Quote:

Feminism, meanwhile, tends to condemn hate crimes like that, and you certainly won't get organized bands of roving feminists scouring the streets to look for men to lynch in the nearest tree.

Quote:

How about we all agree that comparing the feminist movement to the KKK is a truly vile attempt at scaremongering?

nick012000 wrote:

You're implying that feminists want women and men to be equal. They don't. They want to destroy a non-existent Patriarchy by creating a Matriarchy instead.

nick012000 wrote:

And the other is a movement founded on the hatred of people who are different, a hatred they express through government extortion, character assassination, mob violence, shaming men into killing themselves, other forms of violence, close association with communists, and a general approval of these kinds of actions by their members.

Decivre wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

I wouldn't be saying it if I didn't believe it. Feminism is one of the worst things to happen to modern America. The moment that gender becomes obsolete, I'll be happily cheering its inevitable death.

It quite disturbs me that you can marginalize the Trail of Tears, the American Slave Trade, Japanese internment, a century of segregation and racism in the form of "separate but equal", and the multitude of other massacres and atrocities committed on American soil by stating that they are marginal in comparison to a group of women that started a social movement by demanding the right to vote. Mind-boggling doesn't even begin to describe it.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Or, perhaps, you need to rethink yours, you poor, indoctrinated bastard. The feminist movement is not predicated on equality and freedom, it is predicated on grabbing as much power and influence for women as possible, while also removing as many responsibilities and duties from them as possible.

And yet the only people I ever hear making these claims are people that dislike the feminist movement.

Quote:

I say this as someone who once dated a woman that could easily be described as a radical feminist... much as she discussed never taking a man's last name, or not wanting to be forced into traditional feminine social roles like the housewife, I never heard her talk about the replacement of modern social order with a Matriarchy, or some desire to eliminate any social responsibility for women. These are the sorts of things I hear in the same breath as the term "feminazi", or "bra-burner", by people who hate them.

Quote:

I wonder why that is....

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Bullshit. That number is exaggerated malarkey created by deceptive studies published by the feminist rape-trauma industry to try to make the problem appear much worse than it is. For instance, it counts things as "continuing to ask for sex until you give in" and "being held forcefully by the arm during sex" as both being rape.

Actually, rape for both sexes is estimated to be pretty damn high in the United States, and one of the most undermined social issues today pretty much across the board. Though 1 in 4 sounds a lot like a worldwide statistic I've heard.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

And what of those men whose lives are ruined by false accusations?

And of the women who have been falsely accused of seduction? Do you honestly believe that only men are ever victims of false accusation, and that it only ever occurs from the mouths of women?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Bullshit. The wage gap is entirely explained by the fact that men, as a whole, place work as a higher priority in their lives, take less leave, and work in riskier and less pleasant jobs than women do. Men make up 75% of workplace deaths for a reason.

Yet men in high-risk blue-collar jobs are paid less than men in low-risk white-collar jobs.

Quote:

Men in the same exact occupational position as women, with equal or less overtime and work output, make more money on average. The wage gap has absolutely nothing to do with work output or risk. Especially considering that risk often moves in a contradictory direction to wage increase, and fixed-salary workers with no expectation of overtime have better pay than people putting in overtime with hourly wages.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Bullshit. Women not only achieve better academic results across the entirety of the education system, but also make up the majority of college graduates.

While the former statement is somewhat true (mostly based on how you cite the statistics involved), the latter is definitely false. Women make up a majority of graduates only if you consider Universities, and only when you exempt people who aimed for a higher diploma and settled with a lower one. In advanced schooling overall, and when you take into account people who might have earned and settled with a Bachelors when they were originally aiming for a Masters, men are a significantly higher statistic than women.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

The US is one of the countries most completely dominated by the feminist Matriarchy, you mean.

Then where's my feminist master who is supposed to give me my daily dildo beatings and tell me to check my penis-privileges?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

And that makes it one of the [i]least[/i] feminist games around, because when gender and race are obsolete, so are gender and racial politics.

Which is, believe it or not, the end-goal of the feminist movement (and most egalitarian sub-movements).

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Yup. In Eclipse Phase, gender is obsolete, and that makes feminism obsolete as well. At heart, Eclipse Phase is deeply [i]anti-feminist[/i].

Sure, if you consider the Apollo program as an anti-people-who-want-to-get-to-the-moon-first movement, or cancer cure research to be an anti-cancer patient program.

Quote:

If solving the very problems that a political movement was formed to solve is considered an anti-movement, then every political group on earth is anti-itself.

Decivre wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

I didn't equate the two, you did. Feminism is [i]not[/i] "a group of women ... demanding the right to vote". Feminism is a group of women demanding to be given all the privileges and benefits men get, without any of the accompanying responsabilities, and while simultaneously attempting to shirk all of their responsabilities through cries of "patriarchal oppression". Feminism is a fundamentally bigoted movement, and while it claims to be for equality, if you examine what they actually do, they are anything but.

What responsibilities do they particularly shirk? The draft?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

No shit, Sherlock! The people who don't dislike the feminist movement don't speak out about how evil it is!

So feminists are trying to install a matriarchy that they will never discuss, to subvert a gender they never explicitly say they hate, in order to create a new woman-controlled order that they never talk about....

Quote:

... And this isn't just tinfoil hat madness because?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

They don't need to talk about it, because they've [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/tnwn8/faq_suggestion_ant... done it[/url], and it would run contrary to their narrative of "oh, poor pitiful womyn, being oppressed by the evil PATRIARCHY!!!"

How is this any different from other "guilty until proven innocent" legislation proposed by groups that [i]aren't[/i] feminist? Are you claiming that anyone who produces similar anti-piracy laws, three-strikes modifications, stand your ground laws, anti-muslim laws, or other "you will be punished before we determine your guilt" legal implements is also against "teh evil patriarchy"?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Because everyone who doesn't oppose the feminist movement has either been indoctrinated by their propoganda, or is too afraid to for fear of being labelled a mysogynist.

Ah, the good ol' "if you don't believe Bush blew up the Twin Towers, then YOU DID IT!" defense. Good job, boss.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Again, that statistic is essentially [url=http://brown-spectator.com/2013/04/lies-damn-lies-and-rape-statistics/]g.... It's essentially bullshit concocted by a feminist with an obvious agenda to exaggerate the numbers of rapes, in order to maximize her funding and political influence.

Actually, the article you quoted does an extremely shitty job of tearing down that research. Here's my favorite statement from that entire passage:

Quote:

Newlon and numerous other activists make the bold claim that one in every four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. This number is astonishing and no doubt eyebrow-raising. To put it in perspective, in the nation’s most violent city (Detroit), the total violent crime rate was 2.1 percent in 2012. That figure includes murder, rape, assault, and robbery. If the one in four figure shouted at feminist rallies is correct, the nation is willingly sending its daughters to places with a violent crime rate several times that of the most dangerous city in the country.

The cited statistic is about [i]reported crimes in Detroit[/i], a value severely underscored by the disparity of police trust in that environment; it is being compared to the estimated number of total rapes, reported or otherwise. A prejudiced comparison to say the least. Plus, the statistic in no way actually notes the number of victims per crime or the number of perpetrators. A dozen people murdered on a single night at one scene counts as one crime, not 12. The actual number of reported rapes at colleges is a significantly lower statistic, and well below Detroit's crime per capita.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

On the subject of rape, considering that male rape is almost [url=http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/ill-decide-if-you-were-raped-not... discounted[/url], and the male victims of rape ridiculed and their experiences downplayed? Yes, I will say that the false accusations of rape come almost entirely from women. Men have no incentive to do so, while women not only often have incentives to do so- both social ("I'm a good girl, not a slut") and financial ("If I accuse him of raping me while we were married, the courts will side with me during the divorce!"), but no incentive not to, thanks to the way that courts almost entirely ignore them.

[url=http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual... yet a charity generally pigeonholed with the feminist movement is one of the biggest advocates for reporting male rape.[/url] The fact of the matter is that male rape is still a touchy subject worldwide, and there are people on both the right and wrong side of that debate both within and without the feminist movement. It's a divided topic where few groups take a vehement stance one way or another. For every group like the NSVRC that marginalizes male rape, there's a group like RAINN that tries to make it part of the discussion. You do nothing but make your argument look like a joke when you cherry-pick statements that only support your anti-feminist stance.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Even some [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.... disagree with you - and that's according to an article on the Huffington Post, of all things.

Actually, it agrees with me. At no point are high-risk jobs even cited in the information present. This article explicitly states that the gender wage gap exists, but that it is closing. If anything, they cite the wage disparity as having more to do with job demand than risk or talent. Unless you're calling "economist" a death-defying profession.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

The [url=http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html]National Bureau of Economic Research[/url] seems to disagree with you, and that's just what I could find with 5 seconds of Google.

You do realize that article discusses attendance, not graduation, right?

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Waiting for you to fuck up and get a divorce. Then you get to say hello to the feminist's best friend: the Family Courts.

It depends on the topic. Neither my friend or his ex-wife wanted custody of their kids, and the courts favored forcing her to take custody.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Do you actually believe that racial and gender politics are intended to produce egalitarianism? That's cute. You actually believe what they say they're about, rather than examining what they actually do. Identity politics is a vehicle designed to get corrupt politicians elected by giving favours and political power to their chosen demographic groups. Any claims of egalitarianism is simply an obfuscation designed to confuse useful idiots like you into supporting them, or mobilising said useful idiots into attacking their political enemies.

Ah, yes. And that will make me all the more vulnerable for the Illuminati to gain access to my brain, mark me with the sign of the devil, and kick-start the apocalypse. You see, I don't actually believe that any group aims to produce egalitarianism. People can aim for it, but groups are only guided in the direction that their members wish to go. Not everyone is egalitarian, feminist or otherwise.

Quote:

This is the problem with your entire argument to me. See, when I look at the feminist movement, I see a confused mass of people with a general idea in mind, but with the problem of going in a number of directions based on individual views and opinions. I see women and men that, in their pursuit of women's rights, never really got a cohesive direction to go into, and the end-result was many organizations that often fight amongst each other.

Quote:

Pretty much like any political bloc, really.

Quote:

What you see, on the other hand, is the ultimate vagina-driven conspiracy. A cabal of women who hate penises, love lesbianism, and want every man to be declared a rapist at birth. You see some comical organization of super-villains that coalesce ridiculous villain plots that involve accusing men of rape, aborting all the babies on Earth, and poisoning the planet's water supply with birth control pills.

Quote:

The difference is that I see a movement made of people, while you see a villainous organization straight out of the most idiotic TV-show plots on the planet.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

Heh. No, it's not. See, if identity politics is about exploiting demographic subgroups in order to gain political power, then destroying the foundations that those subgroups exist within would fundamentally destroy the foundations of those aforementioned identity politics. If there is no group to exploit, they cannot be exploited. In this way, Eclipse Phase is anti-feminist, because the line between man and woman has been erased, and thus they can no longer be exploited for political power.

And lemme guess, this is how they completely collapse the Jew-controlled New World Order that threatens to consume our society?

Quote:

Again, your entire premise rests on the flawed presumption that the entirety of the feminist movement is some super-organized cult of women with very specific anti-male goals and agendas. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and there are so few real political blocs that have that unified a message.

Quote:

nick012000 wrote:

See, feminism was never supposed to solve a problem. The Patriarchy never existed; what actually existed was a small group of men who shaped society to benefit themselves, while using ordinary men and women as fodder for their ambitions. Through their relentless attempts at destroying it by destroying the privileges men possess, while removing the responsibilities women do, they have created a de facto Matriarchy, however.

So, you're argument is "the Patriarchy that feminism fights against is a falsehood, a conspiracy theory that never panned out. That matriarchy, on the other hand...."

Quote:

Oh, sweet merciful gods of hypocrisy, how you complete my life when I read things like this on the net.

Alkahest wrote:

I've never been more anti-feminist than when I went to journalism school. I've never been more pro-feminist than when I read this thread. I guess familiarity really does breed contempt.

Smokeskin wrote:

So Alkahest, as far as I can tell you didn't respond to any of his points about feminism so you think those are valid, but you think the name calling and comparisons are too much?

Smokeskin wrote:

The KKK comparison isn't that far off though. Especially the whole false rape accusation is a horrible crime. Getting incarcerated for over a decade, being at the bottom of the prison hierarchy with the repeated assaults and rapes that often follow from that, and then being stigmatized for the rest of your after release, that's something that many feminists wants to be standard punishment for a man daring to piss off a woman willing to accuse him of rape. Their idea of reverse burden of proof in rape seems very much on level with the horrors of the KKK.

Alkahest wrote:

Do you want all men who are ever accused of rape to be considered guilty until proven innocent?

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Work and qualifications for example. There are repeated attempts from feminists that women should receive higher pay simply for being women. They want more protection against getting fired than men. They want minimum quotas for women in top tier management and board positions.

Again, I'd like citations that they actually want [i]more pay and protections explicitly than men[/i]. I can get why they want more pay, considering that for the past 5 decades, they have gotten statistically less pay at the same exact job, with the same qualifications, work output and effort. I have seen no evidence that they actually want more pay than men, just that they want the same amount of pay. I can see why they want protections against being fired, but again I've yet to see anything that stipulates that they want these protections above and beyond what men can receive... objectively more protections for less.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

What are you talking about? They discuss the matriarchy at length with all their proposals and they use obvious hate speech about male activities.

Again, you'll have to do better than that. I dated a radical feminist. I still never heard shit about a matriarchy, literally in any way. I've heard her joke about how much better shit would be with a woman as president, but I don't see how that's any different than me making jokes about having a Filipino president, nor do I see it as proof that her, or I, are in a conspiracy to insert the gender or racial group of choice into a position of power as part of a greater conspiracy.

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Guilty until proven innocent is generally a bad idea, but when it comes to rape, it is absolutely horrible due to the well-documented high frequency of false rape accusations. Existence of other "guilty until proven innocent" legislation doesn't make that right, at all.

Never said it does, nor did I say that guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation is great. But I'm trying to figure out how this is proof that feminists are part of some secret conspiracy against all of my gender.

Smokeskin wrote:

Ehm no. If you can seriously defend stuff like "guilty until proven innocent" rape legislation, then there are very few options to choose from. You either: - want innocent men jailed (maybe you think that all those men jailed will be a good deterrent) - have been indoctrinated and think that false rape accusations, mistaken identification etc. doesn't happen - know such legislation is horribly unjust but you're afraid to speak honestly about it What other explanation could their be?

Shifting goal posts, Smokeskin? Aren't we better than that? Tell me, at what point did I say that guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation is good? At what point did I say any form of it is decent? My statement is "it's all equally bad, so how does this prove feminism is a greater evil conspiracy than copyright industries, religious conservatives, or just pissed off parents that want harsher punishment for anyone who might harm their kids?"

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Nice job of not understanding the statistics, and ignoring how that the vast majority of college students that the rapport listed as "rape victims" denied that they had ever been raped. They just said yes to stuff like "I didn't want to sleep with him but he gave me alcohol". That's like me saying "I didn't want to spend more than $50 drinking that night, but after 6 drinks I lost control and ended up spending double that - the barman robbed me!"

Actually, the rape statistic is an estimated figure, not directly related to any numbers in particular. It, like the estimated immigrant population, is largely speculation on the part of the researchers based on report totals, general information on how often rapes are reported,

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Oh come on. He posts something that clearly says that the wage gap between men and women is actually very small and what there is most likely simply due to demand. This highlights exactly how the feminist movement simply wants higher pay for less work compared to men. And then you try to make it about job risk so you don't have to adress the fact that the wage gap is propaganda? Please be honest.

Did you read what I said? [i]"At no point are high-risk jobs even cited in the information present. This article explicitly states that the gender wage gap exists, but that it is closing. If anything, they cite the wage disparity as having more to do with job demand than risk or talent."[/i] What part of this are you arguing against?

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

You can say the same about pretty much any group. Sure, there are reasonable people that identify themselves as feminists. Sure, different feminists have different goals. But the goals and agendas that feminists generally bring into public discourse are indeed bigoted and exploitative, even if some feminists have different views. I could mention several problems with say Republican policy. And you could find individual Republicans who had different views on those policy issues, and then you could ridicule me for believing in a "Republican conspiracy". That would obviously also be stupid.

The difference is that the Republican party, unlike feminism, has a party platform. A specific listing of goals and objectives that the party is intending to implement. Feminism has none of this, and individual groups of feminists have completely different, often competing goals. But again, there's no Republican conspiracy. A conspiracy implies some secretive agreement to bring about some desired hidden agenda in clandestine ways. Republicans are trying to use the system to implement a society they desire, and they make their goals very publicly known. The accusation I find ridiculous is that feminists are more organized and unified in purpose, when I see them more like "Occupy Wall Street, but specifically for women stuff".

Decivre wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

No, you're just trying to avoid talking about the actual issues by pointing to factional disagreements.

About the only thing I've ever seen feminists agree on is "sexism bad, rape bad". I've seen feminist disagree on every topic up to and including abortion, gender roles and homosexuality. These aren't factional disagreements; these are the sort of things that define political blocs in all other scenarios. Feminism, like most egalitarian movements, is less of a cohesive organization and more of a carried meme.

nick012000 wrote:

Pretty much everything associated with marriage in general, thanks to no-fault divorces and the broken family court system. And if you think I'm kidding about no-fault divorces: if a contract was drawn up that could be severed like marriage can be, the legal term is "illusory contract".

nick012000 wrote:

What? How did you connect that with the quoted text? Only people who oppose feminism will speak out in opposition to it; that statement is so obviously true it borders on the tautological. And feminists [url=http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-patriarchy-and-marble-cake/]do talk about it[/url], just not always in terms obvious to the layman.

nick012000 wrote:

Because those laws aren't usually the result of Left-wing Identity Politics in general, and Feminism in particular.

nick012000 wrote:

Ah, character assassination. Such a well-relied-upon weapon in the feminist arsenal. No, I meant exactly what I said: if you aren't willing to speak up against them, either you've been indoctrinated by their propaganda (and given how prevalent it is nowadays, most people are), or you've been cowed into acquiescence for fear of being accused of sexism (as many politicians are). Can you think of any other scenarios wherein someone would fail to speak up against them? Either you agree with them or you don't; if you agree with them, you're indoctrinated, and if you don't, why wouldn't you speak up unless you were afraid to do so?

nick012000 wrote:

So? You're changing the subject. That doesn't make the "1/4 women are raped!!!!!1111" statistic any less deceitful.

nick012000 wrote:

Maybe that's because every time it's come up for public debate, it's the feminists who argue against it. And note that even RAINN calls it "male sexual assault" rather than "male rape".

nick012000 wrote:

It explicitly says that the wage gap is negligible - it may or may not exist, but if it does, it doesn't matter. And yes, the riskiness of the jobs would have been taken into consideration by the feminists who did that study. And if that doesn't satisfy you, [url=http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/what-pay-gap... is another article debunking the wage gap.

nick012000 wrote:

It discusses both, if you'd bothered to actually read it. It's right in the first fucking paragraph.

nick012000 wrote:

Yes. And then it forced him to pay child support to her, and it would throw him in prison if he failed to comply. And, if she decided to refuse to allow him to visit them (despite the court mandate), what will it do? Absolutely nothing! Behold, the travesty that feminism has wrought upon the Family Courts.

nick012000 wrote:

Not the Illuminati. Just the political class that makes up the leadership of the Democratic Party, and other similar parties overseas.

nick012000 wrote:

Yeah, thank God for that. I shudder to think of what disaster they might be able to wreak if they actually managed to unify.

nick012000 wrote:

You don't have much

nick012000 wrote:

Not a vagina-controlled conspiracy. A politician-controlled conspiracy.

nick012000 wrote:

No, you see what they want you to see. I see what they really are.

nick012000 wrote:

And now the accusations of racism! Man, you're playing it by the books, aren't you?

nick012000 wrote:

No, I don't. That's your own farcical exaggeration in an attempt at defaming my character. Or, perhaps, you can't understand how an intelligent person could possibly believe as I do, so you reflexively call me an idiot in an attempt at soothing your cognitive dissonance. I believe that Feminism is a movement originally created by the communists of the Frankfurt School (along with all the other flavors of identity politics), back in the 60s, that was then subverted by the leadership of the Democratic Party to serve their own ends and assure their own re-elections, much like how the Tea Party was subverted by the leadership of the Republican Party in more contemporary politics. In pursuit of those goals, it has spread from its roots in academia to control the whole rape/abuse assistance industry in America, and it is from the control of that industry that is where many of feminism's evils have arisen from, with the rest resulting from legislation drafted by their political masters.

nick012000 wrote:

Except that it's not hypocritical at all.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

What are you talking about? They discuss the matriarchy at length with all their proposals and they use obvious hate speech about male activities.

Could you care to provide an example of how the matriarchy is discussed at length in all feminist proposals?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Guilty until proven innocent is generally a bad idea, but when it comes to rape, it is absolutely horrible due to the [b]well-documented high frequency of false rape accusations[/b].

Ha ha no. False rape accusations are hardly "high frequency"; all the methodologically rigorous studies on the rate of false rape accusations (the ones that only include only accusations that are actually false by police criteria, rather than just unproven or unverified) indicate that the actual incidence of false rape accusations is about 2%, which is in the same range as the rate of false accusations for other crimes. The UK Home Office gives a rate of rigerously determined to be false accusations at 3%, and the Victoria police in Australia gives a rate of 2.1%. Rates significantly higher than this pretty are pretty much always correlated with poor methodology or grouping unproven crimes in with false accusations. False rape accusations are about as much a problem as false arson accusations, yet I doubt anyone would blame building preservationists of hate speech if they tried to get guilty-until-proven-innocent laws against arson.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Nice job of not understanding the statistics, and ignoring how that the vast majority of college students that the rapport listed as "rape victims" denied that they had ever been raped. They just said yes to stuff like "I didn't want to sleep with him but he gave me alcohol". That's like me saying "I didn't want to spend more than $50 drinking that night, but after 6 drinks I lost control and ended up spending double that - the barman robbed me!"

I want you to clarify something for me: are you or are you not saying that having sex with a drunk person is not rape?

LatwPIAT wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

They don't need to talk about it, because they've [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/tnwn8/faq_suggestion_ant... done it[/url], and it would run contrary to their narrative of "oh, poor pitiful womyn, being oppressed by the evil PATRIARCHY!!!"

Tell me, if that's supposed to be a roundup of [i]anti[/i]-male legislation, why is the last item "The FBI recently changed their definition of rape: The revised definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator."? That really sounds like a good thing for people of all sexes to me.

LatwPIAT wrote:

nick012000 wrote:

Again, that statistic is essentially [url=http://brown-spectator.com/2013/04/lies-damn-lies-and-rape-statistics/]g.... It's essentially bullshit concocted by a feminist with an obvious agenda to exaggerate the numbers of rapes, in order to maximize her funding and political influence.

Oh, hey, look, bad statistics and misleading statements. For one, it tries to ridicule the high number by saying that many of the interviewed women didn't think they were raped, so obviously they can't have been, right? Well, actually, no. Many people, due to a fear of stigma or being unaware of what rape/sexual assault actually entails, will not be able to answer whether they've been raped if only that word is used. Therefore, the information-gatherers use language that uses the definition of rape rather than the word itself. And if something satisfies the definition of rape, then, [i]de facto[/i], it is rape. If someone tries to shoot me, and I later say "I didn't think I was attempted murdered, I thought it was my friend who was the target", that doesn't make my any less a victim of attempted murder. So that article does [i]nothing[/i] to discredit the 1-in-4 figure.