|
PeonForHer -> RE: Special law for women bails them out of depraved acts of evil (3/26/2016 8:05:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You cretin - that's why I said "I doubt that [feminists] would be entirely happy with this ruling, because the corollary of that definition would be that women and men should be treated the same. This all seems to be based on the 'women as delicate flowers' idea of what women are - the anti-feminist idea of women, that is. This holds that, amongst other things, women are inclined to go mental after childbirth, so overcome are their delicate minds by the experience of it all." Christ, you are so fucking blind, it's incredible.
Feminists do NOT oppose shit like this. On the contrary, this is EXACTLY the kind of result for which they continually advocate. People keep telling you this and you keep burying your fucking head in the sand muttering a variation of "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" while conveniently ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of what feminists actually advocate for.
You don't believe the men, you don't believe the women - WHO TELL YOU THE SAME THING - and you keep your head-space in a bubble of fucking ignorance. You've got a candidate for the President of the United States who says that, "All rape victims should be believed", there are feminists advocating that all female testimony in sexual assault cases should be automatically deemed true (because y'know, women are so much better human beings than men) and you STILL mutter your feminist mantra like you're going to be able to block out reality for the rest of your life.
I can't understand why you're being such a glistening meatpole about this, Awareness. I'm a feminist and so is Lucy and here we are opposing it, right here on this thread, in front of your eyes. Or do you absolutely insist that feminism just *must* be defined by everything that some woman says, somewhere, that you don't like? And as I said earlier, this Canadian Supreme Court ruling isn't the product of feminism, which takes it that men and women are or should be treated equally, it's the product of a belief in 'women as delicate flowers'. If anything it's an anti-feminist ruling, you unbelievable plonker. You need to wake up and sort out the illogical junk in your head.
quote:
quote:
That should give you an indication - once the urine in your bladder has stopped boiling up through your nostrils - that I can see *both* possibilities. And, over here at least, I can assure you that nobody wants to get locked up in a hospital for the criminally insane.
I think you're going to continue being willfully blind until you're brought kicking and screaming to the realisation that the ideology you make such bold claims for is founded in deception and advocates for advantages for women.
But I'm not the one making bold claims for feminism, sunshine. It's you who's doing that. Very, very bold claims for 'an ideology' that you've done everything to avoid defining - the better to lump it together with everything insane you can think of.
quote:
Feminist orthodoxy insists that men are scum and women are innocent victims. If you're happy to line up behind such a divisive, hateful creed then there really is no help for you.
No, it does not, no matter how much you rant and rave that it must do. Feminist orthodoxy has it that men and women should be treated equally. The divisive, hateful creed is the one that you yourself appear to buy into - some pissy, rancid MRA belief that absolutely demands to define feminists in a way that means 'female self-aggrandisement' or plain 'man-hating' - which means going on regular trawls across the net to find exactly the sort of poison that you want, then chucking that in the tank labelled 'feminism'.
Look, Awareness ... I know that you favour self-taught knowledge over 'the rubbish they teach in colleges'. But, seriously, with this subject, you ought to remember that old line, 'the self-taught man was taught by an idiot'. I'm getting increasingly tired of having to teach you and, let's face it, you're not paying me, are you?
|
|
|
|
