Support NeoGAF

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

He's going to pretend he wasn't talking about prison rape.

First off, let's get this out of the way that I didn't actually mention prison rape. It doesn't mean I have to condone it or whatever, or that it could be interpreted that way, but the matter is that I didn't necessarily reference it in that post.

haha

 

[Kazerei]

Of course there is, feminists seem to get things done when they attack them directly. Let's take VAWA for example, it was in danger of not passing this time around but with alot of activism it did get passed. How about abortion issues, lots of activism there too.

It's the difference between directly dealing with an issue and putting it on the back burner. How long has this issue been on the back burner and how much longer will it be?

My point is that this is not a priority for feminists so while they may claim that they are interested in helping fathers get custody more, it's mostly just talk. Maybe in 100 years when they have finally flipped the gender roles?

Can you elaborate on what "attack them directly" would entail? Pointing to VAWA and abortion seems pretty vague, especially since the issues are not really comparable.

There are other issues related to gender roles and cultural attitudes that feminists care about, but aren't in the spotlight, because there's not much we can do besides gradually shift these attitudes.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

No one is dismissing feminism as a whole. It's just the feminist make claims that it is about full gender equality and that just isn't the case.

We all accept that feminism is about equality for women.

So in making two separate things equal, we are only making one thing equal? What?

 

[IHaveCandy]

Okay, at least this post is going somewhere as to WHY you think this is a problem.

First off, let's get this out of the way that I didn't actually mention prison rape. It doesn't mean I have to condone it or whatever, or that it could be interpreted that way, but the matter is that I didn't necessarily reference it in that post.

But really, do I have to make this case, since it should be so obvious? I have a hard time understanding why we don't bring in what I was talking about when I said that. It's like it's completely ignored that I was talking about someone who I think didn't deserve the given rights. What else would you like for me to say I'd want done to a guy who does the things he did? You give up your rights the second you do that kind of shit. I couldn't imagine me, in my sickest dreams, doing that sort of thing to my nephew when he was that age. You're dealing with another sensitive topic at this point (capital punishment) that has little to do with feminism.

And plus, imagine if you did what that guy did, and you get put in jail with someone that knows you decided to pick on someone who couldn't fight back against you. They're not going to take kindly to that and they are not going to be kind to you by any stretch of the imagination. Does that necessarily mean they'll rape the piss out of you? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to let you off the hook, nor SHOULD they. They're going to show you what it's like when the person CAN fight back.

But that doesn't mean that I'm condoning anything at all. You're saying that regardless of what you do and where you end up, you have unalienable rights. I'm saying that when you commit a crime, and especially a crime as deplorable as what was described in that thread, you show that you're not really wanting to be a member of the society, and will be treated as such. And you're going to see people bring in the "eye for an eye" mentality and condone things for idiots like that guy who wouldn't condone it for much else, if any else!

Why don't you just make yourself clear on the matter? Are you tolerant of prison rape?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Can you elaborate on what "attack them directly" would entail? Pointing to VAWA and abortion seems pretty vague, especially since the issues are not really comparable.

There are other issues related to gender roles and cultural attitudes that feminists care about, but aren't in the spotlight, because there's not much we can do besides gradually shift these attitudes.

As we have been talking about, anti-discrimination programs and just plain activism. Protests and such.

I really don't expect feminists to do these things but when something is a priority to them, the get shit done without saying "we have to wait until the gender roles are changed".

I want to point out the difference when feminists care about a cause and when they don't. I really have grown tired of "Well, it's the fault of the patriarchy and feminism is working on it".

So in making two separate things equal, we are only making one thing equal? What?

Have no idea what you are talking about here, sorry.

 

[maharg]

Let me explain.

No one is dismissing feminism as a whole. It's just the feminist make claims that it is about full gender equality and that just isn't the case.

We all accept that feminism is about equality for women.

Can you please demonstrate some kind of logical proof of how equality for X in a society comprised of roughly equal parts X and Y (ignoring, for the moment, the idea that gender is at least somewhat a spectrum for simplicities sake) does not also imply equality for Y?

 

[APF]

He is skeptical that feminists in general do not have a motive to make custody battles more fair for men. He may be right or wrong about that movement. I'm not familiar with how different types of feminists feel about that. But what doesn't really answer his question is to ask him if there is a single feminist out there who would permit a single circumstance where a man is awarded custody. Ofcourse here is. That has nothing to do with his question though. This should be very obvious.

He was responding to a post suggesting that much of modern feminism is concerned with targeting what many believe are the root causes of much of this sort of disparity, and his response was a loaded question that's a distraction from discussing it. What "answers the question" isn't the point, the point was to suggest that the question itself is leading and meaningless--among other things, there isn't a unanimous voice from on-high raining-down feminist pronouncements.

Can you please demonstrate some kind of logical proof of how equality for X in a society comprised of roughly equal parts X and Y (ignoring, for the moment, the idea that gender is at least somewhat a spectrum for simplicities sake) does not also imply equality for Y?

He's trying to suggest there is some hypocrisy in arguing for "equality" while focusing your efforts on one specific group of people's concerns (and not the whole). He's also trying to suggest that feminists are insincere in suggesting that by combatting eg gender norms, that equates to a win for everyone, because of this.

 

[grumble]

Can you please demonstrate some kind of logical proof of how equality for X in a society comprised of roughly equal parts X and Y (ignoring, for the moment, the idea that gender is at least somewhat a spectrum for simplicities sake) does not also imply equality for Y?

I believe his point may have been that feminism is about improving women in areas where they are oppressed, and not reducing them in areas where they are privileged.

 

[Dude Abides]

Every situation where this type of program exists faces those problems, aren't quotas used to solve that?

I am not saying it's the perfect solution but programs like Affirmative Action work on the principle that you have to force things until the public becomes accustomed to them.

No, quotas are unlawful. Even if they weren't, I don't see how you'd go about enforcing a rule that custody has to be 50/50 without completely doing away with the notion that custody should go to the parent who will best be able to care for the child.

 

[rocketknight]

Okay, at least this post is going somewhere as to WHY you think this is a problem.

First off, let's get this out of the way that I didn't actually mention prison rape. It doesn't mean I have to condone it or whatever, or that it could be interpreted that way, but the matter is that I didn't necessarily reference it in that post.

But really, do I have to make this case, since it should be so obvious? I have a hard time understanding why we don't bring in what I was talking about when I said that. It's like it's completely ignored that I was talking about someone who I think didn't deserve the given rights. What else would you like for me to say I'd want done to a guy who does the things he did? You give up your rights the second you do that kind of shit. I couldn't imagine me, in my sickest dreams, doing that sort of thing to my nephew when he was that age. You're dealing with another sensitive topic at this point (capital punishment) that has little to do with feminism.

And plus, imagine if you did what that guy did, and you get put in jail with someone that knows you decided to pick on someone who couldn't fight back against you. They're not going to take kindly to that and they are not going to be kind to you by any stretch of the imagination. Does that necessarily mean they'll rape the piss out of you? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to let you off the hook, nor SHOULD they. They're going to show you what it's like when the person CAN fight back.

But that doesn't mean that I'm condoning anything at all. You're saying that regardless of what you do and where you end up, you have unalienable rights. I'm saying that when you commit a crime, and especially a crime as deplorable as what was described in that thread, you show that you're not really wanting to be a member of the society, and will be treated as such. And you're going to see people bring in the "eye for an eye" mentality and condone things for idiots like that guy who wouldn't condone it for much else, if any else!

Feminists acknowledge that violence (including sexual violence) in prison is an issue that disproportionately affects men. Presumably, the MRA stance would be the same. You're kind of part of the problem.

 

[darkpower]

Why don't you just make yourself clear on the matter? Are you tolerant of prison rape?

Can I say no while still saying that I'd be for wishing that we can make an example out of him? Can I say that I can draw the line somewhere and not condone something while hoping that due justice is given to that guy?

The easy answer is no, I wouldn't be. The emotionally charged answer that one could make (at the risk of sounding like I'm dancing around saying yes or no on the matter) when you are angered that some sick person would do that to a defenseless infant?

I might actually leave that question unanswered. Don't really have one for that since emotion does weird things.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Why don't you just make yourself clear on the matter? Are you tolerant of prison rape?

i'm having dawkins thread flashbacks right now

 

[params7]

Can I say no while still saying that I'd be for wishing that we can make an example out of him? Can I say that I can draw the line somewhere and not condone something while hoping that due justice is given to that guy?

The easy answer is no, I wouldn't be. The emotionally charged answer that one could make (at the risk of sounding like I'm dancing around saying yes or no on the matter) when you are angered that some sick person would do that to a defenseless infant?

I might actually leave that question unanswered. Don't really have one for that since emotion does weird things.

Being emotional is fine, though emotionally charged contexts can specially create a lot of confusion in debates like in this thread where the whole subject is about establishing stances on various issues.

Prison Rape is a very fucked up part of American prison culture (no pun intended). What person x, y, or z deserves is a matter of justice law.

 

[maharg]

I believe his point may have been that feminism is about improving women in areas where they are oppressed, and not reducing them in areas where they are privileged.

He should actually say that. As he's putting it, it sounds downright Orwellian.

But yes, I do recognize that's what he means. I just think that it's a disingenuous way to put it. But again, there is no Grand Council of Feminism deciding these things and it is perfectly understandable for women to fight first for their own plight. This is not a reflection on feminism's overall aims, so long as feminist women do not actively work *against* men seeking to improve their lot in a similar manner (note: I do not believe MRAs do this. MRA doctrine is largely oppressive even to men, in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion) against the same patriarchal (or kyriarchal, if you prefer) system that disadvantages them as well.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Can you please demonstrate some kind of logical proof of how equality for X in a society comprised of roughly equal parts X and Y (ignoring, for the moment, the idea that gender is at least somewhat a spectrum for simplicities sake) does not also imply equality for Y?

I understand that you want an example of a feminist cause succeeding that would not also create equal rights for men?

Reproductive rights. Progress made here has not resulted in equal reproductive rights for men.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Can I say no while still saying that I'd be for wishing that we can make an example out of him? Can I say that I can draw the line somewhere and not condone something while hoping that due justice is given to that guy?

The easy answer is no, I wouldn't be. The emotionally charged answer that one could make (at the risk of sounding like I'm dancing around saying yes or no on the matter) when you are angered that some sick person would do that to a defenseless infant?

I might actually leave that question unanswered. Don't really have one for that since emotion does weird things.

I don't think you should be in favor of prison inmates playing the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Obviously these crimes are terrible and often strike is emotionally more than other crimes, but that doesn't give inmates the authority to act on it. That isn't their role and its not their place to act. A judicial system must be ran in a cold, calculated, methodical way, not hot and fast through anger and emotion.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

No, quotas are unlawful. Even if they weren't, I don't see how you'd go about enforcing a rule that custody has to be 50/50 without completely doing away with the notion that custody should go to the parent who will best be able to care for the child.

How do they go about promoting Affirmative Action and Title programs?

 

[Kazerei]

As we have been talking about, anti-discrimination programs and just plain activism. Protests and such.

I really don't expect feminists to do these things but when something is a priority to them, the get shit done without saying "we have to wait until the gender roles are changed".

I want to point out the difference when feminists care about a cause and when they don't. I really have grown tired of "Well, it's the fault of the patriarchy and feminism is working on it".

Still pretty vague, but it seems like you've made up your mind, so oh well.

 

[faceless007]

I understand that you want an example of a feminist cause succeeding that would not also create equal rights for men?

Reproductive rights. Progress made here has not resulted in equal reproductive rights for men.

What men's reproductive rights are being infringed?

(I suspect I know the answer but I really hope I'm wrong.)

 

[Devolution]

What men's reproductive rights are being infringed?

(I suspect I know the answer but I really hope I'm wrong.)

He's made this argument before.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

He should actually say that. As he's putting it, it sounds downright Orwellian.


But yes, I do recognize that's what he means. I just think that it's a disingenuous way to put it. But again, there is no Grand Council of Feminism deciding these things and it is perfectly understandable for women to fight first for their own plight. This is not a reflection on feminism's overall aims, so long as feminist women do not actively work *against* men seeking to improve their lot in a similar manner (note: I do not believe MRAs do this. MRA doctrine is largely oppressive even to men, in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion) against the same patriarchal (or kyriarchal, if you prefer) system that disadvantages them as well.

It's fine that feminism is about equality for women. I just wish they wouldn't claim that they are fighting for men too, they aren't Any benefit men see from feminism is incidental.

Claims like "there is no need for a mens rights movement, just become a feminist" are my problem.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

What men's reproductive rights are being infringed?

(I suspect I know the answer but I really hope I'm wrong.)

I am not interested in getting into reproductive rights. I am sure someone will come along and want to discuss that. I was simply giving you an example.

You already know the answer anyway.

Still pretty vague, but it seems like you've made up your mind, so oh well.

So Affirmative Action and Title programs can't work here? They have worked where other areas of discrimination were.

 

[IHaveCandy]

How do they go about promoting Affirmative Action and Title programs?

It usually acts as a tie breaker, which I don't like.

 

[rocketknight]

He should actually say that. As he's putting it, it sounds downright Orwellian.

But yes, I do recognize that's what he means. I just think that it's a disingenuous way to put it. But again, there is no Grand Council of Feminism deciding these things and it is perfectly understandable for women to fight first for their own plight. This is not a reflection on feminism's overall aims, so long as feminist women do not actively work *against* men seeking to improve their lot in a similar manner (note: I do not believe MRAs do this. MRA doctrine is largely oppressive even to men, in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion) against the same patriarchal (or kyriarchal, if you prefer) system that disadvantages them as well.

Even so, feminism is at the forefront of recognizing privilege and constructing a framework to explain and address all aspects of oppression. Feminism has given us the concepts of ambivalent sexism and intersectionality. In my experience MRAs don't even accept basic tools of discourse like kyriarchy or male privilege (note: having privilege, which something all of us posting on a videogame forum obviously have in many flavors, doesn't make you a bad person, but having privilege and not recognizing it can blind you to reality). Feminists tend to be more aware and accepting of these concepts than non-feminists almost by definition, which means they're already doing work to address their own privilege to an extent that many people don't.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It usually acts as a tie breaker, which I don't like.

Something has to be done. Supposedly feminism has been on the case for 40 years (I never got a straight answer) and look how little has been accomplished.

 

[Dude Abides]

How do they go about promoting Affirmative Action and Title programs?

Again, "Title Programs" of the type you refer to only require non-discrimination. If you think you've been discriminated against, you complain to a gov't agency, and they investigate. In some instances you can sue directly. A man who feels he has been discriminated against in a custody decision can bring a civil rights action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Here is more on the topic:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

As for affirmative action, they - by "they" I assume you meant the government - don't promote it. If an employer or educational institution wishes to have affirmative action, they are permitted, but not required, to use a candidate's race/gender/religion, etc. as a "plus factor" - i.e. it is an additional consideration they can make in the hiring or admission decision.

 

[darkpower]

Feminists acknowledge that violence (including sexual violence) in prison is an issue that disproportionately affects men. Presumably, the MRA stance would be the same. You're kind of part of the problem.

Going to play devil's advocate here for a moment (again, I'm not understanding why you're not taking the particular case into question here, since I think that's vastly important).

For one, this is a post on a message board we're talking about. Not providing that as an excuse, but people in that thread have called for the guy to have worse done to him than I said, yet it's my quote that's being taken apart. If you're going to say I'm part of it, then you should call out everyone that wanted to see him get castrated and things like that in that thread. How is it fair that I'm forced to go into great detail about a two line long post when people said less than me but said worse than me and they get left off the hook. Like I said, emotions can be powerful things. Should we apologize for emotions? Not exactly because it shows we care about things. Does that mean we should act or really want to see such acts? Not necessarily. There are people that might want it to happen, but you're also talking about things that are said on a message board that are partially for a rise or for a quick zinger or for rep points or what have you.

Like I said, you're picking on me when others have said far worse and they aren't even getting a second look. This shows that you don't necessarily have a problem with the quote I said per se, but you have an issue with me somewhere else and you saw that as the easy way to get something going. Does that excuse what I said? Of course not (again, though, we're on a message board and we're on NeoGAF, where I've seen the N word used, uncensored and without consequence on this site, so it's not like it's exactly a filtered atmosphere here...which I like, actually).

Does that mean I have to censor myself and watch what I say because I seem to have the morality police pick apart every single word I say, even when some of the things you read out of many posters on this site are tongue in cheek sometimes? Of course not! Everyone has said certain things that they wouldn't actually condone, but then get serious (in theory, anyway) when something that requires it does come up.

Being emotional is fine, though emotionally charged contexts can specially create a lot of confusion in debates like in this thread where the whole subject is about establishing stances on various issues.

Prison Rape is a very fucked up part of American prison culture (no pun intended). What person x, y, or z deserves is a matter of justice law.

Which brings back up the notion that no where in my post did I even SAY that term. Can it be implied in a post I made where I left the door open for that? Of course it can. But does that mean I said that?

I don't think you should be in favor of prison inmates playing the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Obviously these crimes are terrible and often strike is emotionally more than other crimes, but that doesn't give inmates the authority to act on it. That isn't their role and its not their place to act. A judicial system must be ran in a cold, calculated, methodical way, not hot and fast through anger and emotion.

I think the argument isn't if I would condone that (at least not until someone invoked the quote into this where it shouldn't have been), but more along the line of if I should've even made the comment at all. Again, I'm not sure when people thought I was this easy target or why my posts have gotten more scrutiny than anyone else that has said anything worse anywhere else on this site, but I think I've actually been somewhat civil in me explaining my case here.

Like I said, I think there's something else I said in this thread that someone didn't think they could answer off easily if they didn't bring that quote up from a thread that others made similar comments.

 

[TCRS]

I just saw an interesting discussion on feminism in Germany. The leading feminist of Germany Alice Schwarzer and femen acitivists were part of the panel. One thing that almost all agreed upon is that Germany shouldn't follow the USA model where a President can't even jokingly comment on the looks of a state attorney. And it was admitted or at least accepted that man might feel vilified due to over bearing feminism.

The feminism debate in Germany is thankfully not as polarised ("you're either a feminist or a mysoginist" lol) as in the USA. Much progress has been made, more has to be done, but also problems on the men side have to be addressed. Overall a good and balanced discussion.

 

[Kazerei]

So Affirmative Action and Title programs can't work here? They have worked where other areas of discrimination were.

I'm not sure you understand how AA and the Education Amendments work, or how that would be applied to custody law.

 

[faceless007]

I am not interested in getting into reproductive rights. I am sure someone will come along and want to discuss that. I was simply giving you an example.

So you want to use the example as an answer to maharg's question but don't want to defend or explain your example?

You already know the answer anyway.

Maybe I don't.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It's fine that feminism is about equality for women. I just wish they wouldn't claim that they are fighting for men too, they aren't Any benefit men see from feminism is incidental.

Claims like "there is no need for a mens rights movement, just become a feminist" are my problem.

I feel like feminism maintaining that men aren't rabid rape machines incapable of discretion or emotion is already doing more for men than any MRA argument regarding the same subject. MRA arguments about sexual violence seem dangerously self-hating and blame-y.

 

[FyreWulff]

What men's reproductive rights are being infringed?

(I suspect I know the answer but I really hope I'm wrong.)

Going off the last time he did this, he wants to be able to force a woman to carry a child to term.

 

[Tawpgun]

Why slap a gender on it.

This is about getting everyone fair rights. Men should have equal chance at getting custody and whatnot. False rape accusations are something that's a legitimate concern as well.

But women also need to feel safe when reporting rape, and need to be payed equally and such.


The reason I didn't use Equal Rights is because men and women are NOT equal. We are NOT built the same.

Women should be able to go on a maternity leave without losing their job or losing payment. This should NOT prevent businesses from hiring less women or paying them less. But its an example of how men and women aren't equal. And the physical differences go without saying. Women can be in combat roles but you are always going to see more men because it is easier for them to meet the physical demands and such.

Then you get into some real complicated shit like who has rights to an abortion. What if the man wants to keep it and the woman doesn't? There's no easy way of solving this that appeases both parties so you just have to be as fair as you can possibly be.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Then you get into some real complicated shit like who has rights to an abortion. What if the man wants to keep it and the woman doesn't? There's no easy way of solving this that appeases both parties so you just have to be as fair as you can possibly be.

This seems pretty simple to me. Why should the man get to decide the woman's entire life from that point forward?

 

[Dead Man]

I'm going to regret this.

Q- "Is the NAACP really concerned about the education of non-minorities?"

A- "Is there a single NAACP member that would accept a single white student into a college over a minority in any acceptable circumstance?"

NAACP makes no claim to be involved in the eductaion of minorities, does it?

So in making two separate things equal, we are only making one thing equal? What?

No, I think he means that in attempting to make things equal, in some few cases the pendulum has now swung past equal and some people are concerned about that.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Again, "Title Programs" of the type you refer to only require non-discrimination. If you think you've been discriminated against, you complain to a gov't agency, and they investigate. In some instances you can sue directly. A man who feels he has been discriminated against in a custody decision can bring a civil rights action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Here is more on the topic:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

As for affirmative action, they - by "they" I assume you meant the government - don't promote it. If an employer or educational institution wishes to have affirmative action, they are permitted, but not required, to use a candidate's race/gender/religion, etc. as a "plus factor" - i.e. it is an additional consideration they can make in the hiring or admission decision.

Perhaps some sort of program to help fathers who feel they were discriminated against in the Family Courts. An agency to report it to who would get federal funding to investigate. Something.....

Really, I just think it's funny how discrimination can be solved by the government UNTIL it's men that are being discriminated against. Then no solution can be found.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I feel like feminism maintaining that men aren't rabid rape machines incapable of discretion or emotion is already doing more for men than any MRA argument regarding the same subject. MRA arguments about sexual violence seem dangerously self-hating and blame-y.

Examples?

So you want to use the example as an answer to maharg's question but don't want to defend or explain your example?

I don't want to talk about reproductive rights, it's a huge topic. So disregard the example if you like.

Going off the last time he did this, he wants to be able to force a woman to carry a child to term.

No, you must be thinking of someone else.

 

[Tawpgun]

This seems pretty simple to me. Why should the man get to decide the woman's entire life from that point forward?

Well I think the fairest thing to do is to give the woman final say as she has the biggest burden.

Sucks for the dude, but that's what it is.

It doesn't mean it is a simple issue. Abortion in general isn't. And I'm pro choice.

 

[rocketknight]

Going to play devil's advocate here for a moment (again, I'm not understanding why you're not taking the particular case into question here, since I think that's vastly important).

For one, this is a post on a message board we're talking about. Not providing that as an excuse, but people in that thread have called for the guy to have worse done to him than I said, yet it's my quote that's being taken apart. If you're going to say I'm part of it, then you should call out everyone that wanted to see him get castrated and things like that in that thread. How is it fair that I'm forced to go into great detail about a two line long post when people said less than me but said worse than me and they get left off the hook. Like I said, emotions can be powerful things. Should we apologize for emotions? Not exactly because it shows we care about things. Does that mean we should act or really want to see such acts? Not necessarily. There are people that might want it to happen, but you're also talking about things that are said on a message board that are partially for a rise or for a quick zinger or for rep points or what have you.

Like I said, you're picking on me when others have said far worse and they aren't even getting a second look. This shows that you don't necessarily have a problem with the quote I said per se, but you have an issue with me somewhere else and you saw that as the easy way to get something going. Does that excuse what I said? Of course not (again, though, we're on a message board and we're on NeoGAF, where I've seen the N word used, uncensored and without consequence on this site, so it's not like it's exactly a filtered atmosphere here...which I like, actually).

Does that mean I have to censor myself and watch what I say because I seem to have the morality police pick apart every single word I say, even when some of the things you read out of many posters on this site are tongue in cheek sometimes? Of course not! Everyone has said certain things that they wouldn't actually condone, but then get serious (in theory, anyway) when something that requires it does come up.



Which brings back up the notion that no where in my post did I even SAY that term. Can it be implied in a post I made where I left the door open for that? Of course it can. But does that mean I said that?



I think the argument isn't if I would condone that (at least not until someone invoked the quote into this where it shouldn't have been), but more along the line of if I should've even made the comment at all. Again, I'm not sure when people thought I was this easy target or why my posts have gotten more scrutiny than anyone else that has said anything worse anywhere else on this site, but I think I've actually been somewhat civil in me explaining my case here.

Like I said, I think there's something else I said in this thread that someone didn't think they could answer off easily if they didn't bring that quote up from a thread that others made similar comments.

You were singled out because calling for prison rape is different for calling for death, and it illustrates the existence of rape culture which hurts (obviously) both men and women. It's relevant to a discussion of men's issues and how feminism addresses them because the dismantling of rape culture is quite possibly the clearest example in this context of how addressing the root cause of a problem benefits us all, and because prison rape is one of the MRM's biggest bullet points.

 

[marrec]

I just saw an interesting discussion on feminism in Germany. The leading feminist of Germany Alice Schwarzer and femen acitivists were part of the panel. One thing that almost all agreed upon is that Germany shouldn't follow the USA model where a President can't even jokingly comment on the looks of a state attorney. And it was admitted or at least accepted that man might feel vilified due to over bearing feminism.

The feminism debate in Germany is thankfully not as polarised ("you're either a feminist or a mysoginist" lol) as in the USA. Much progress has been made, more has to be done, but also problems on the men side have to be addressed. Overall a good and balanced discussion.

It's amazing to me that people still miss the point of the President's acknowledgement of the problem.

 

[TCRS]

It's amazing to me that people still miss the point of the President's acknowledgement of the problem.

I get it. That if you comment on the look of a women in a professional context, even jokingly, it reduced her to her looks. One of the feminists on the panel made that point. It just didn't seem like many agreed with her.

 

[marrec]

I get it. That if you comment on the look of a women in a professional context, even jokingly, it reduced her to her looks. One of the feminists on the panel made that point. It just didn't seem like many agreed with her.

That's unfortunate.

 

[TCRS]

That's unfortunate.

Different country, different culture. Commenting on a womans look in a professional context is not seen as something negative here unless it's a powerplay. Which wasn't the case with Obama and that state attorney.

 

[FatalT]

Not sure what the two quotes have in common, or why you invoked what I said about a man who murdered a 1 year old girl because he felt good about causing her pain into something about MRM and feminism, but okay! Whatever!

You're fucked in the head and you should probably just not post in this thread anymore.

 

[Dude Abides]

Perhaps some sort of program to help fathers who feel they were discriminated against in the Family Courts. An agency to report it to who would get federal funding to investigate. Something.....

Really, I just think it's funny how discrimination can be solved by the government UNTIL it's men that are being discriminated against. Then no solution can be found.

I just told you that a man in such a situation can sue in federal court and linked an article describing several such cases. So this post is quite baffling.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I just told you that a man in such a situation can sue in federal court and linked an article describing several such cases. So this post is quite baffling.

...but no special program to help men who are discriminated against. Why?

 

[sketchsanchez]

Which brings back up the notion that no where in my post did I even SAY that term. Can it be implied in a post I made where I left the door open for that? Of course it can. But does that mean I said that?

Holy shit. This is why you got jumped on! You're not some victim here.

We all knew what you meant.
YOU knew exactly what you meant.
stop trying to skirt around it hoping it makes you look better.


"I...I...didnt EXACTLY say it, so that makes it okay!"

Just stop.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Damn darkpower, why is the patriarchy making you so afraid to stand by your words?

 

[darkpower]

You were singled out because calling for prison rape is different for calling for death, and it illustrates the existence of rape culture which hurts (obviously) both men and women. It's relevant to a discussion of men's issues and how feminism addresses them because the dismantling of rape culture is quite possibly the clearest example in this context of how addressing the root cause of a problem benefits us all, and because prison rape is one of the MRM's biggest bullet points.

And...on a message board in which we've all said inappropriate things and the environment is harsh, I'm the one that is supposed to be serious about everything 100% of the time? I'm on the other side of the double standard that I seem to be caught in now?

Basically, I'm saying that if it was anyone else who posted the exact same thing, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Sorry, but I gotta call it how I see it.

I wouldn't condone prison rape, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it doesn't happen or that some people would.

Though this doesn't mean I condone the nasty vitriol that Anita Sarkeesian got, nor would I think she deserved all that (though I think she deserves the same amount of civil scrutiny that anyone within a movement that says controversial things should get as individuals). No one deserves that no matter how clownish they act in the public spotlight.

Damn darkpower, why is the patriarchy making you so afraid to stand by your words?

So I should just censor myself at every single point on this board for the fear that everything I say might get jumped on in the same way? Would it be okay if it was someone else that said that exact same thing? Yeah, people don't think what I said was appropriate, but does that mean you focus on JUST me and not every single other person that ever said something like that? Someone took that quote from another thread and posted it here. And then people didn't expect me to defend myself in any way or have my own opinions.

How in the hell is that fair? I mean, if I'm going to get held to a different standard when I post than anyone else will on the GAF, then just say that!

 

[Dude Abides]

...but no special program to help men who are discriminated against. Why?

There aren't special programs for women either. If a woman feels she was discriminated against in a custody decision, she would have exactly the same recourse.

And if a man thought he was discriminated against in employment or education, he could go to the same agency a woman could. There's no disparity.