SEXISM! What's with the standards?

[megarik]

Wow I didn't think so many people where going to defend the **** who destroyed the life of a man , you can't talk away someone's bad deeds with the bad deeds of another person, it's not about whenether a gender is right or wrong this is about a guy his life being destroyed because he accedential walked in to a women, and was damn easey for the women to do so,I strive for equality and do not support someone who rapes another person (I think some people in this thread may feel more comfertable with this term)I will never support or even feel compassion a person who does that deed.

the fact that 80% of their bosses are men!

wow well did you know that might be a good thing hence being a boss gives alot more stress than the most jobs and if you have alot of sress you'll probebly die sooner, correct me if im wrong but if you suport women (from reading your posts in this thread I can figure out you do) you want them to live longer.
but reading your posts also tells me that you are not open to change your opinion on things what makes discussing with you impossible and unplesant so i won't do that but, I want to make (or at least try to) you open for other opinion
but i am open for other opinions so convince me that that women in that situation that destroyd the financial situatiun of the men in the OP was right and it doesn't matter if it's real or not but from my experiences (yes I and almost all of my freinds can confirm that) all of the discussions I had over the topic of Sexism there was a bias to the womens side and it was talked good with things that happend to other peoples on other places with other actions.

If it seems harsh or impolite of me to say this, I am sorry I have offended someone it was not my intention, but I can get realy angry on people wo don't want to or just refuse to chancge their opinions if I adressed something as a fact and was wrong please inform me about it so I can make a better opinion.

PS: Sorry if there where any grammar mistakess I'm from Holland and am not "the best of the class" in English

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip-

You seem to misunderstand me sir/madam, I don't outright hate women, I simply say feminists go overboard a hell of a lot of the time, and yes they simply do. As soon as even there's more males doing A or B, it's clearly sexist, no matter what it is.

And as for the evidence wise.... well you should probably read the thread for one, and rights-wise yes - they do. The fact that I saw a similar thread to this (got taken down to an overload of flame-wars) mentioning how woman in the UK at least - 90% of the cases of where a kid should go to is the mother - and not the dad, I could appreciate maybe 60/40 or even 70/30% of cases but 90%? That's clear bias and you can't deny that.
If you actually check about, you'll find there's a lot of bias going in some places, not to mention aeroplane rules now, there's a law where you a man can't sit next to a kid which isn't his (obviously we're terrible beings who will influence the child into terrible things) but a woman CAN sit next to a child that isn't hers - please explain that.

Not the mention this thread points a serious point, females can claim this kind of crap and it's sad that in America you can sue for the tiniest little detail like the one mentioned. But it doesn't mean that some (not all) will go to the trouble of making a big-deal over it and spreading nasty rumours that fucks someone up.
I miss the days when woman would stick up for themselves and actually just slap someone, rather than do something bitchy like suing people (although they're obviously in their own right if something serious happened). Of course men can do just as bad things too, it's just the sexual-harassment one that seems to be the big one in case.

 

[Virtual-Goose]

We seem to be operating under the assumption that all men and all women display the same patterns of behaviour. I try to make no distinction between genders at any stage I try not to think of myself as a man but a person. Feminists who say their are for the rights of women sicken me. Men who say that their are being marginalised by feminism disgust me also. Everyone should see themselves as people not as two distinct genders. How do we get rid of sexism? Stop talking about sexes.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

so i won't do that but, I want to make (or at least try to) you open for other opinion but i am open for other opinions so convince me that that women in that situation that destroyd the financial situatiun of the men in the OP was right and it doesn't matter if it's real or not but from my experiences (yes I and almost all of my freinds can confirm that) all of the discussions I had over the topic of Sexism there was a bias to the womens side and it was talked good with things that happend to other peoples on other places with other actions.

Whoa, nelly.

Yeah, it does kind of matter if it's "real or not". Whether fabrication or exaggeration, it's indicative of the same hyperbolic gender warfare bullshit the OP is accusing this speculative woman of employing in her fantasy lawsuit.

Seriously, let's take a look at the tale we're given.

- COMPLETELY INNOCENT AND NAMELESS MAN attempts to walk past GAGGLE OF SHREWS, who are HOGGING THE CORRIDOR. His leg ACCIDENTALLY touches A NAMELESS FEMINIST. She "FREAKS OUT".
- She immediately files a LAWSUIT for SEXUAL HARASSMENT based on this lone incident. Why? Presumably because she is EVIL. No other motivation is necessary, as she is the villain of the piece.
- SHE WINS! No details. Just, SHE WINS!
- He loses HIS ENTIRE PENSION and MOST OF HIS SAVINGS, presumably to pay for lawyers? This is unclear. Maybe because she won a gonzo settlement for the leg brush lawsuit. This, I expect, is what we're intended to infer.
- He loses HIS CAREER. Presumably instantly fired for the leg brush incident. Because companies can totally instantly shit-can you for a single incident without exposing themselves to lawsuits.
- His WIFE leaves him. This one's a real kicker, clearly she was mortified by the unsubstantiated leg brush incident. Maybe she's an EVIL FEMINIST too. This isn't made clear.
- REPUTATION destroyed. With whom? The only friend we know of is this guy, who is clearly indignant on his behalf.
- OP drives home that this ONE INCIDENT of completely INCIDENTAL CONTACT with TONS OF WITNESSES to that effect resulted in this guy being "TAKEN FOR EVERYTHING HE WAS WORTH", and LIFE DESTROYED.

So one of a few things is going on here, in descending order of likelihood.

- OP is flat out lying. OP has a bone to grind with feminists, and has concocted this woo to support his position without putting much thought/effort into the details.
- OP is greatly exaggerating and/or omitting key details to make this sound a lot more fantastical than it was.
- OP likes his friend/hates the woman in question and is engaging in massive editorial bias, friend had much more checkered past than we're lead to believe.

Why do I say this? Because the above scenario is patently ridiculous. This forum is dominated by men, in the 18-24 age range, and many of those men are socially awkward. Women, and ESPECIALLY feminists, are the great Ooga-Boogeymen of this demographic. If you read that fairy tale and didn't at the VERY LEAST think "Hold on a minute..." at no less than five or six intervals, then, my friend, you are the victim of a raging confirmation bias.

If you run around believing every piece of anecdotal, scare-mongering bullshit people feed to you on internet forums, you're going to end up tilting at a lot of windmills.

 

[Darius Brogan]

For the umpteenth time: I don't care if you believe me or not, it's still true.

I see no reason to lie in real life, so why is the internet any different?

I dont know why your lying but I know more then enough about law to tell that your story is bullshit.

Re-stated for effect: Don't care. Story is true.

You can question it ALL you want, but that doesn't invalidate it. What would I stand to gain by lying?

Cash? No. Attention? Hardly. Sympathy? It wasn't ME it happened to, so no.

Once again, question it all you want, call me a lying shit, whatever, it doesn't change the truth.

 

[Darius Brogan]

so i won't do that but, I want to make (or at least try to) you open for other opinion but i am open for other opinions so convince me that that women in that situation that destroyd the financial situatiun of the men in the OP was right and it doesn't matter if it's real or not but from my experiences (yes I and almost all of my freinds can confirm that) all of the discussions I had over the topic of Sexism there was a bias to the womens side and it was talked good with things that happend to other peoples on other places with other actions.

Whoa, nelly.

Yeah, it does kind of matter if it's "real or not". Whether fabrication or exaggeration, it's indicative of the same hyperbolic gender warfare bullshit the OP is accusing this speculative woman of employing in her fantasy lawsuit.

Seriously, let's take a look at the tale we're given.

- COMPLETELY INNOCENT AND NAMELESS MAN attempts to walk past GAGGLE OF SHREWS, who are HOGGING THE CORRIDOR. His leg ACCIDENTALLY touches A NAMELESS FEMINIST. She "FREAKS OUT".
- She immediately files a LAWSUIT for SEXUAL HARASSMENT based on this lone incident. Why? Presumably because she is EVIL. No other motivation is necessary, as she is the villain of the piece.
- SHE WINS! No details. Just, SHE WINS!
- He loses HIS ENTIRE PENSION and MOST OF HIS SAVINGS, presumably to pay for lawyers? This is unclear. Maybe because she won a gonzo settlement for the leg brush lawsuit. This, I expect, is what we're intended to infer.
- He loses HIS CAREER. Presumably instantly fired for the leg brush incident. Because companies can totally instantly shit-can you for a single incident without exposing themselves to lawsuits.
- His WIFE leaves him. This one's a real kicker, clearly she was mortified by the unsubstantiated leg brush incident. Maybe she's an EVIL FEMINIST too. This isn't made clear.
- REPUTATION destroyed. With whom? The only friend we know of is this guy, who is clearly indignant on his behalf.
- OP drives home that this ONE INCIDENT of completely INCIDENTAL CONTACT with TONS OF WITNESSES to that effect resulted in this guy being "TAKEN FOR EVERYTHING HE WAS WORTH", and LIFE DESTROYED.

So one of a few things is going on here, in descending order of likelihood.

- OP is flat out lying. OP has a bone to grind with feminists, and has concocted this woo to support his position without putting much thought/effort into the details.
- OP is greatly exaggerating and/or omitting key details to make this sound a lot more fantastical than it was.
- OP likes his friend/hates the woman in question and is engaging in massive editorial bias, friend had much more checkered past than we're lead to believe.

Why do I say this? Because the above scenario is patently ridiculous. This forum is dominated by men, in the 18-24 age range, and many of those men are socially awkward. Women, and ESPECIALLY feminists, are the great Ooga-Boogeymen of this demographic. If you read that fairy tale and didn't at the VERY LEAST think "Hold on a minute..." at no less than five or six intervals, then, my friend, you are the victim of a raging confirmation bias.

If you run around believing every piece of anecdotal, scare-mongering bullshit people feed to you on internet forums, you're going to end up tilting at a lot of windmills.

Actually, you're right, it DOES matter if it's real or not, and you know what? MY lack of information stems directly from the fact that... get this... it didn't happen to ME!

Am I supposed to know everything that was ever said by every party present, and what was on every piece of paperwork despite SOMEONE ELSE being the target of the lawsuit?

Seriously? I wasn't even PRESENT for 90% of the deliberations because I was just a witness. I know what I know, and that's all.

I don't even KNOW the woman in question, nor am I afraid of feminists, nor do I hate them/women in general. I used this example because I was talking about it the day I posted this thread, and it was fresh in my mind.

For the umpteenth^34 time: It doesn't matter to me if you think it's true or not, but questioning its validity based on... It doesn't sound logical? Makes NO sense.

A robber in the states got shocked on an electric grid while he was breaking into a mans store for the 3/4 time in a row and sued the store owner. He WON! That's rediculous as well, but know what? It's also true!

 

[Darius Brogan]

Also, you don't get to "be done" with me, boy.

Yes, yes I do.

Have a nice day.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Not entirely XD. I would post on this thread, but there would not be enough space for me to vent up here. I've heard some things that I've not only found to be stupid, but also very insulting to my gender (and race in some cases). I usually just wait for some fairly sensible people to post their opinions and it usually cheers me up. Especially when one gender comes to the defense of the other and points out valid reasons for it.

Update: Just saw the video today, but YAY BOB CHIPMAN

Vent all you want, but if you've got a wall-o-text in mind, try breaking it into more than one comment, so you don't get in trouble for it.
I've seen people get suspended for some time over giant text-walls.

Despite the general air the thread's descending into, it's on a forum, and forums are for discussion.

 

[megarik]

then, my friend, you are the victim of a raging confirmation bias.

thanks for opening my eyes and altering my opinion on this radically I know my first opinion was wrong. as for the quote I am pretty impulsive on choosing sides (it usually packes out bad for me) and selecting my words, I know it's not good but I can't do anything about it thanks for enlightening me, afterall I think people are in the world to learn and develop.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually, you're right, it DOES matter if it's real or not, and you know what? MY lack of information stems directly from the fact that... get this... it didn't happen to ME!

Am I supposed to know everything that was ever said by every party present, and what was on every piece of paperwork despite SOMEONE ELSE being the target of the lawsuit?

Seriously? I wasn't even PRESENT for 90% of the deliberations because I was just a witness. I know what I know, and that's all.

I don't even KNOW the woman in question, nor am I afraid of feminists, nor do I hate them/women in general. I used this example because I was talking about it the day I posted this thread, and it was fresh in my mind.

For the umpteenth^34 time: It doesn't matter to me if you think it's true or not, but questioning its validity based on... It doesn't sound logical? Makes NO sense.

A robber in the states got shocked on an electric grid while he was breaking into a mans store for the 3/4 time in a row and sued the store owner. He WON! That's rediculous as well, but know what? It's also true!

You presented an authoritative account of the incident in question. When people asked you if you were fabricating, or going light on the details, you scoffed and told them to GTFO and stop questioning you, because it was THE TRUTH.

So, yeah. The fact that you don't really have very many details at all, and are giving us a highly editorialized, telephone-game version of events, as speculated, is pertinent information.

If you'd just said that in the very beginning, no one would care. No one expects you to have an eidetic memory. Instead, you said:

Oh yes, just for the record, He didn't 'leave anything out' of his story, and I didn't 'Miss anything' because I was there.

I wasn't even present for 90% of the deliberations! Didn't happen to me! I don't even know the woman!

And yet, somehow I know that she felt "self righteously justified" the entire time!

Cool story bro.

 

[MatsVS]

So, yeah. The fact that you don't really have very many details at all, and are giving us a highly editorialized, telephone-game version of events, as speculated, is pertinent information.

Not to mention that from later comments we can clearly deduce that he is extremely misogynistic and antagonistic towards women's rights. Boys crying on the internet because of perceived victimization towards their precious lives = me loling forever. Chuck some peanuts and move along.

 

[SeanSeanston]

We are though. That's the thing. White, heterosexual men definitely enjoy all the benefits of society. There's absolutely no downside or fear of being discrimination if you're a white, heterosexual male. Louis CK nailed it perfectly, where a white, heterosexual man could travel to any point in the past, absolutely any, and we would be at the top of the totem pole.

So a white man would be at top of the totem pole (the very top mind, not anywhere near it) in... Ancient China?
In... Moorish Spain?
In... pre-Columbian Mesoamerica?

I have to say I can't see reasons why that would be the case. At the very least, one would stick out and without doubt face some degree of suspicion and prejudice even if things weren't actually so bad. I have absolutely no idea where being a white man automatically puts you at the top of the social hierarchy even in ancient non-white societies though.

It's not like being white gives you some sort of magic power.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'm sorry about what happened to your friend. No modifiers on that.

But for every man who loses his job due to a false claim, ten men sexually harass at the workplace and face no repercussions. For ever man who gets thrown in jail for a false rape claim, one hundred men rape and then go free. For every man who loses his kids in a divorce, ten beat their wives to death before she even has the chance to speak to a lawyer.

It's always wrong when someone suffers for something they didn't do, but cases like this are exceptional because the opposite is so common. If you take a wide view of our society, there's no way a man can say he has it harder unless he is choking on his own male privilege. And this is coming from a man who has no shame whatsoever in being male. I don't hate my gender. I don't wish I was a woman. I simply have an honest view of the way the world works, and sadly a fundamental facet of that is the subjugation and marginalization of women throughout every strata of our society.

If we had a thread made every time the opposite of this incident happened, i.e. where a woman was sexually harassed, made a claim, and had it dismissed or straight-up ignored, then the forums would be flooded. Men don't have to deal with sexism every day of their lives, so when they do encounter it, they seem so shocked and indignant. Truth is, every once-in-a-lifetime complaint I see here from men happens daily to most women.

Please don't take this as too offensive... but... what rock have you been living under your entire life? I didn't start this thread because of any one instance of sexism aimed at males, I started it because sexism towards males is almost exclusively ignored in favor of 'Man up/quit being a pussy/blah blah blah.

Men deal with sexism just as often as women do, and it's ignored because they're men, and it's not manly to be bothered by it.

I'm aware of the problems women have to face on a regular basis, my sister has been the target for some of the more vulgar innuendo since she began studying to be an RMT.

Those stats of your are also entirely fictitious, by the way.
There are sexual harassment cases that are ignored, yes, but not even close to as many as you say.
If that were true, there would be a hundred thousand Male vs Female rapes/day in the US.
Not counting that a LARGE margin of sexual harassment/assault/rape goes unreported by EITHER gender.
Citing statistics isn't very accurate when every source you'll find has differing numbers.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Actually, you're right, it DOES matter if it's real or not, and you know what? MY lack of information stems directly from the fact that... get this... it didn't happen to ME!

Am I supposed to know everything that was ever said by every party present, and what was on every piece of paperwork despite SOMEONE ELSE being the target of the lawsuit?

Seriously? I wasn't even PRESENT for 90% of the deliberations because I was just a witness. I know what I know, and that's all.

I don't even KNOW the woman in question, nor am I afraid of feminists, nor do I hate them/women in general. I used this example because I was talking about it the day I posted this thread, and it was fresh in my mind.

For the umpteenth^34 time: It doesn't matter to me if you think it's true or not, but questioning its validity based on... It doesn't sound logical? Makes NO sense.

A robber in the states got shocked on an electric grid while he was breaking into a mans store for the 3/4 time in a row and sued the store owner. He WON! That's rediculous as well, but know what? It's also true!

You presented an authoritative account of the incident in question. When people asked you if you were fabricating, or going light on the details, you scoffed and told them to GTFO and stop questioning you, because it was THE TRUTH.

So, yeah. The fact that you don't really have very many details at all, and are giving us a highly editorialized, telephone-game version of events, as speculated, is pertinent information.

If you'd just said that in the very beginning, no one would care. No one expects you to have an eidetic memory. Instead, you said:

Oh yes, just for the record, He didn't 'leave anything out' of his story, and I didn't 'Miss anything' because I was there.

I wasn't even present for 90% of the deliberations! Didn't happen to me! I don't even know the woman!

And yet, somehow I know that she felt "self righteously justified" the entire time!

Cool story bro.

I love it when people skim my posts. It's entertaining.

Yes, I WAS there. I saw the ENTIRE incident play out right in front of me.
I was NOT, however, present for the DELIBERATIONS.

They're two separate entities, my friend.

And no, I don't know the woman, but when you watch her leave a courthouse and shoot a smug grin at the man she just destroyed, you tend to come to that conclusion.

 

[intheweeds]

Yes, I've read the rest of your comment, but this section warranted special attention.

To which I say: Look up the statistics, and you'll find that you're wrong.
It's not the reverse, but you're still wrong.

Read a little further back into the comments and you'll find a wall-o-text that exlpains what I'm too lazy, distracted, and tired to do.

No. Yes, assaults, especially sexual assaults against men are even more reported than against women, but something like 1 in 3 women are raped by men worldwide during their lifetimes. The reverse is nowhere near that.

Even restricting ourselves to developed nations, it tends to vary between 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women, and something like 1 in 14 men who are raped during their lifetimes (predominantly by men).

Yes, assaults against men are a very serious problem (and FFS, when we people learn that male prison rape is not funny?), but there's no reason to claim they are comparable to assaults against women.

The problem with anything reported is that the male standard usually doesn't allow a man to report being abused, raped, assaulted, or whatever because it isn't considered manly to be affected by those things.

Go back to the first page and find yourself the post with a link to tvtropes.

I know I'm getting in on this late, and it might (in fact, I hope it has) been said already, but you do realize the very feminists you complain about are against the exact same kind of sexism that allows what you are complaining about to function, right?

You are complaining about the same thing.

Follow this logic:

1) Feminists are against sexism. Actually, lets talk about the people you hate, 'Radical Feminists'. So with that, lets go so far as to say not just sexism, but misogyny ('radical feminists' don't spend as much time talking about how sexism effects men, just women, so lets start this logic with a discussion of misogyny).

2) Misogyny says that women are only good at cooking, cleaning and taking care of children. They are overly concerned with emotions and so cannot handle money, business, etc. They are also physically weak so they cannot handle manual labour. For these reasons, they are handicapped in many areas and are therefore inferior to men.

Now, if someone believes that that is true about women, then they must believe men to be the opposite right? So this must be true:

3) Men are tough. They must handle money and business because they are less prone to emotional decision making. They are more physically large and so must be the protector should anything go wrong. Because they must do these difficult jobs, possessing any traits that have been previously defined as female would make one less able to do those jobs and therefore as inferior as a woman.

My point is the same sexism tells you to 'man up' as tells women to be afraid of sexual harassment.

YOU AND FEMINISTS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

Edit: I honestly believe the whole reason anyone is fighting these stupid gender wars is the term 'feminism' itself. It should be a more gender neutral 'Gender Equalism' or something so everyone realizes they are on the same goddamned side!

 

[Darius Brogan]

Yes, I've read the rest of your comment, but this section warranted special attention.

To which I say: Look up the statistics, and you'll find that you're wrong.
It's not the reverse, but you're still wrong.

Read a little further back into the comments and you'll find a wall-o-text that exlpains what I'm too lazy, distracted, and tired to do.

No. Yes, assaults, especially sexual assaults against men are even more reported than against women, but something like 1 in 3 women are raped by men worldwide during their lifetimes. The reverse is nowhere near that.

Even restricting ourselves to developed nations, it tends to vary between 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women, and something like 1 in 14 men who are raped during their lifetimes (predominantly by men).

Yes, assaults against men are a very serious problem (and FFS, when we people learn that male prison rape is not funny?), but there's no reason to claim they are comparable to assaults against women.

The problem with anything reported is that the male standard usually doesn't allow a man to report being abused, raped, assaulted, or whatever because it isn't considered manly to be affected by those things.

Go back to the first page and find yourself the post with a link to tvtropes.

I know I'm getting in on this late, and it might (in fact, I hope it has) been said already, but you do realize the very feminists you complain about are against the exact same kind of sexism that allows what you are complaining about to function, right?

You are complaining about the same thing.

Follow this logic:

1) Feminists are against sexism. Actually, lets talk about the people you hate, 'Radical Feminists'. So with that, lets go so far as to say not just sexism, but misogyny ('radical feminists' don't spend as much time talking about how sexism effects men, just women, so lets start this logic with a discussion of misogyny).

2) Misogyny says that women are only good at cooking, cleaning and taking care of children. They are overly concerned with emotions and so cannot handle money, business, etc. They are also physically weak so they cannot handle manual labour. For these reasons, they are handicapped in many areas and are therefore inferior to men.

Now, if someone believes that that is true about women, then they must believe men to be the opposite right? So this must be true:

3) Men are tough. They must handle money and business because they are less prone to emotional decision making. They are more physically large and so must be the protector should anything go wrong. Because they must do these difficult jobs, possessing any traits that have been defined as female would make one less able to do those jobs and therefore as inferior as a woman.

My point is the same sexism tells you to 'man up' as tells women to be afraid of sexual harassment.

YOU AND FEMINISTS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

Oh no, I have no problem with Feminism, I have a problem with Radical Feminism. The Feminism that leads to "All men are chauvinist pigs!!!" and "Down with the oppressive Patriarchal society!!!!"

My mother and sister are both feminists, as well as my first girlfriend. I have NO problems with women wanting equality, but it's EQUALITY that they'll get, not favoritism.

 

[intheweeds]

Yes, I've read the rest of your comment, but this section warranted special attention.

To which I say: Look up the statistics, and you'll find that you're wrong.
It's not the reverse, but you're still wrong.

Read a little further back into the comments and you'll find a wall-o-text that exlpains what I'm too lazy, distracted, and tired to do.

No. Yes, assaults, especially sexual assaults against men are even more reported than against women, but something like 1 in 3 women are raped by men worldwide during their lifetimes. The reverse is nowhere near that.

Even restricting ourselves to developed nations, it tends to vary between 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women, and something like 1 in 14 men who are raped during their lifetimes (predominantly by men).

Yes, assaults against men are a very serious problem (and FFS, when we people learn that male prison rape is not funny?), but there's no reason to claim they are comparable to assaults against women.

The problem with anything reported is that the male standard usually doesn't allow a man to report being abused, raped, assaulted, or whatever because it isn't considered manly to be affected by those things.

Go back to the first page and find yourself the post with a link to tvtropes.

I know I'm getting in on this late, and it might (in fact, I hope it has) been said already, but you do realize the very feminists you complain about are against the exact same kind of sexism that allows what you are complaining about to function, right?

You are complaining about the same thing.

Follow this logic:

1) Feminists are against sexism. Actually, lets talk about the people you hate, 'Radical Feminists'. So with that, lets go so far as to say not just sexism, but misogyny ('radical feminists' don't spend as much time talking about how sexism effects men, just women, so lets start this logic with a discussion of misogyny).

2) Misogyny says that women are only good at cooking, cleaning and taking care of children. They are overly concerned with emotions and so cannot handle money, business, etc. They are also physically weak so they cannot handle manual labour. For these reasons, they are handicapped in many areas and are therefore inferior to men.

Now, if someone believes that that is true about women, then they must believe men to be the opposite right? So this must be true:

3) Men are tough. They must handle money and business because they are less prone to emotional decision making. They are more physically large and so must be the protector should anything go wrong. Because they must do these difficult jobs, possessing any traits that have been defined as female would make one less able to do those jobs and therefore as inferior as a woman.

My point is the same sexism tells you to 'man up' as tells women to be afraid of sexual harassment.

YOU AND FEMINISTS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

Oh no, I have no problem with Feminism, I have a problem with Radical Feminism. The Feminism that leads to "All men are chauvinist pigs!!!" and "Down with the oppressive Patriarchal society!!!!"

My mother and sister are both feminists, as well as my first girlfriend. I have NO problems with women wanting equality, but it's EQUALITY that they'll get, not favoritism.

But if you follow my logic above, starting a thread about how you have a problem with Radical Feminists is effectively equal to starting one reminding everyone how stupid extremist cults are.

That is to say - everyone already knows that. These people are fucked. Move on already.

It sounds more like the rant of the extreme in the opposite direction: "These extreme right wing nuts are nuts! I'm going to become an extreme left wing nut to show them!"

 

[Darius Brogan]

But if you follow my logic above, starting a thread about how you have a problem with Radical Feminists is effectively equal to starting one reminding everyone how stupid extremist cults are.

That is to say - everyone already knows that. These people are fucked. Move on already.

It sounds more like the rant of the extreme in the opposite direction: "These extreme right wing nuts are nuts! I'm going to become an extreme left wing nut to show them!"

That's an incredibly good point, but it does bring to light one thing: Despite my topic of choice being, obviously, controversial, it's my topic of choice because A) The people who know about it are usually silent, and it's not helping equality at all, and B) I rather enjoy discussing things a bit more interesting than 'So, who's buying Skyrim?'

I've noticed that the opinions are on one of two extremes. 1) People agree with me. 2) People don't agree with me.

That much is obvious, as there will always be two sides to a discussion. If there wasn't, there'd be no discussion, however, those who don't agree with me usually ask me why I bother, or insult me in some fashion, or claim bullshit....

What is the problem with posting a topic on a public discussion forum? Am I not allowed to do so anymore?

If so many people have issues with almost ANY possible topic, then why the hell are they on a forum?!?