are you a feminist?

[annabenedetti]

Read it again, these were not nationwide laws. Not a single one.


Which of those laws were nationwide?

:chuckle: So that's the litmus test? The law has to be nationwide?

 

[annabenedetti]

Wow you're right. That's exactly what she did...

Rusha's a lovely woman - intelligent, capable and caring. And strong. Some people can't handle that.

 

[Rusha]

Only too true. Egalitarianism and feminism appear to be demonically based, judging on the damage they do to families, society, women, and the hierarchical structure God intended.

 

[Rusha]

Rusha's a lovely woman - intelligent, capable and caring. And strong. Some people can't handle that.

:chuckle: It isn't my problem that certain people have issues of insecurity.

 

[Rusha]

Amazing isn't it! :devil:

It certainly is ...

Instead there are little boys (and the amazons who encourage them) sniveling about "dem mean women no longer refuse to ask 'how high' when we yell jump!"

:chuckle:

Being the male gender no longer equates to being automatically respected or entitled.

 

[Rusha]

Wow you're right. That's exactly what she did...

"Exactly what she did" is call you out on your one-sided, hypocritical view of marital relationships.

 

[Yorzhik]

Um... a man is necessary to make a baby.

No. A man is necessary to have a relationship. Babies are an indirect by-product of what may take place in that relationship. The wonderful feminist trick is that since the life or death decision of the unborn baby is entirely that of the mother, the father can, logically, wash his hands of any pregnancy. Do you see how that works or do I need to explain it to you in further detail?

And a man chooses who and when he decides to make a baby. A man is wise to be very careful in his choosing.

No, a man has no choice what-so-ever. The woman is 100% in control of whether there will be a baby delivered alive or not.

 

[Yorzhik]

:chuckle: So that's the litmus test? The law has to be nationwide?

Or at least common. If you want to condemn a nation for a societal ill, then the ill has to be nation wide. That would be logic, something ugly women like yourself find too hard. Similar to math.

 

[annabenedetti]

Or at least common. If you want to condemn a nation for a societal ill, then the ill has to be nation wide. That would be logic, something ugly women like yourself find too hard. Similar to math.

:chuckle: You're unreal. A caricature. Making up rules and play money for your own little game of Misogynopoly.

 

[Rusha]

:chuckle: You're unreal. A caricature. Making up rules and play money for your own little game of Misogynopoly.

The most amusing part of this is ... they are wasting their time replying to someone who is not reading their insignificant rantings.

 

[annabenedetti]

The most amusing part of this is ... they are wasting their time replying to someone who is not reading their insignificant rantings.

They're unintentionally hilarious. :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

They're unintentionally hilarious. :chuckle:

The most hilarious part ... is their belief that we take them seriously.

 

[rexlunae]

Read it again, these were not nationwide laws. Not a single one. And many were anecdotes outright.

Laws that legalized, by men against women, violence and rape... You'll have to supply some evidence to support that claim.

I didn't say they were, and that wouldn't make them anecdotal either. I believe all 50 states had laws to similar effect not all that long ago though, so the notion of spousal rape was nationally non-existent. And I have to say, your ignorance of easy to verify history is...well, not as surprising as it should be. Here's a starting point, do your own Googling if you want more:

http://time.com/3975175/spousal-rape-case-history/

First, love and respect are very similar and in practice only differ in a matter of authority. Thus, women would prefer to be loved.

Since you're pleading ignorance of the difference, let me explain the salient distinction. People can justify anything as an outgrowth of love, no matter how grotesque. If you respect someone as an adult, you treat them as a full equal, with the same rights, the same choices as anyone else.

Second, there were no nationwide laws making life harder for women on their own, and no woman was barred from living where ever she wanted to live.

What a strangely limited way of viewing gender equality...

Third, even where there were pockets of odd laws that wrongly targeted women, such as those listed by anecdote, they were only there because people with a mindset like yours enacted them.

What "mindset" is that, exactly?

Unlike you, people like me and all other right-wing folks believe in liberty and equality under the law.

Yeah, sure. That's why your posts on this topic started out with a sneer at all women in general. Your commitment to equality.

You realize the custody system is wrong then? So you'll fight right along side me and denounce everyone else on the left wing that fought for and fights for those very laws on that issue?

But even further than that, do you realize why they fight for those laws? If you did, and you don't like it, then you'd have to denounce being left-wing.

Specifically, which laws? The law, at least at the federal level, should require equal treatment.

In broad terms, a marriage is merely a "joining together" and through child support and alimony the man is required to stay in the marriage contract financially.

Just breaking the legal union doesn't remove the liabilities that arise from it. Child support and alimony are both there to share that load between two people who once were married. However, it enables both of the former spouses to move on and marry again while still honoring their commitments.

Women cannot be happy without men taking care of them, but men can be happy entirely without women.

Oh, ok then, I guess that's why they never asked to vote, to go to school, have careers, and live alone.

This is a personal decision. Some women may feel that way. Some men may as well. But some people are perfectly happy living alone.

How do you back up that claim?

History.

Being deprived of the vote does not mean being deprived of liberty. You'll have to back up the claim that women were not free before they had the vote. In fact, you'll find that laws have made things worse for women now than then.

So, you'd say the US Founding Fathers were on about nothing then? Why do you suppose the men running the country didn't let women vote or serve on juries?

This cannot be true since there has always been a fair percentage of single women living in the US.

For one thing, I didn't say it was impossible for women to live independently. The laws that were in place made it more difficult. And I'd love to see what statistics you're relying on to say that.

Coercion and injustice has been the only outcome of the feminist friendly laws - just look at the family court laws you (perhaps) denounce above.

Obsessed much? Did you have to go to family court at some point in your life?

There was never a time when coercion was the norm for establishing relationships between men and women and if you think so you'll have to establish it with more than the anecdotes you've brought to the table so far.

Murder isn't "the norm". That doesn't mean it should be legal. The fact that spousal rape and spousal violence was legal in all states fairly recently at least suggests that the men who made those laws considered it normal.

If you want to see the horror of relationships, then go no further than the hookup culture that feminist friendly culture has promoted.

:rotfl:

You'd think wrong. Men and women are not the same, and women prefer their men be stronger and smarter than they are.

What happened to your commitment to equality?

 

[The Berean]

Read it again, these were not nationwide laws. Not a single one. And many were anecdotes outright.


Laws that legalized, by men against women, violence and rape... You'll have to supply some evidence to support that claim.


First, love and respect are very similar and in practice only differ in a matter of authority. Thus, women would prefer to be loved.

Second, there were no nationwide laws making life harder for women on their own, and no woman was barred from living where ever she wanted to live.

Third, even where there were pockets of odd laws that wrongly targeted women, such as those listed by anecdote, they were only there because people with a mindset like yours enacted them. Unlike you, people like me and all other right-wing folks believe in liberty and equality under the law.


You realize the custody system is wrong then? So you'll fight right along side me and denounce everyone else on the left wing that fought for and fights for those very laws on that issue?

But even further than that, do you realize why they fight for those laws? If you did, and you don't like it, then you'd have to denounce being left-wing.


In broad terms, a marriage is merely a "joining together" and through child support and alimony the man is required to stay in the marriage contract financially.


Which of those laws were nationwide?


Women cannot be happy without men taking care of them, but men can be happy entirely without women.


How do you back up that claim?


Being deprived of the vote does not mean being deprived of liberty. You'll have to back up the claim that women were not free before they had the vote. In fact, you'll find that laws have made things worse for women now than then.


This cannot be true since there has always been a fair percentage of single women living in the US.


Coercion and injustice has been the only outcome of the feminist friendly laws - just look at the family court laws you (perhaps) denounce above. There was never a time when coercion was the norm for establishing relationships between men and women and if you think so you'll have to establish it with more than the anecdotes you've brought to the table so far.

If you want to see the horror of relationships, then go no further than the hookup culture that feminist friendly culture has promoted.


You'd think wrong. Men and women are not the same, and women prefer their men be stronger and smarter than they are.

I like a good action films but I sometimes have to laugh when I see female "action" heros beat the crap out of larger, stronger male villians. I think these kind of films give people, especially women, the wrong impression as to how violence in real life is all about. There's fantasy and then there's reality.

Fantasy (Female beats up TWELVE guys while her larger male partner struggles to take out one guy)

.

Real Life (Female police officer brutally beaten up. :noid: )

.

 

[Rusha]

I like a good action films but I sometimes have to laugh when I see female "action" heros beat the crap out of larger, stronger male villians. I think these kind of films give people, especially women, the wrong impression as to how violence in real life is all about. There's fantasy and then there's reality.

It would be highly unlikely unless the female in question had some serious martial arts training. Outside of that, there are reliable methods to take someone who is physically stronger down (in cases such as home invasion).

Pitbull, firearm, ice pick, etc. :chuckle:

 

[The Berean]

It would be highly unlikely unless the female in question had some serious martial arts training. Outside of that, there are reliable methods to take someone who is physically stronger down (in cases such as home invasion).

Pitbull, firearm, ice pick, etc. :chuckle:

Oh sure. Women can be trained to defend themselves. But the key is to teach them to strike quickly then run away if at all possible and not stand there going toe-to-toe with a much larger and stronger man trading punches. I hate seeing women get beat up by much larger men. Men that beat up much smaller women disgust me to no end. Obviously a firearm or a bladed weapon is a game changer.

I was more commenting on Hollywood's fantasy of women beating up large groups of men single handedly.

 

[ok doser]

Oh sure. Women can be trained to defend themselves. But the key is to teach them to strike quickly then run away if at all possible and not stand there going toe-to-toe with a much larger and stronger man trading punches. I hate seeing women get beat up by much larger men. Men that beat up much smaller women disgust me to no end. Obviously a firearm or a bladed weapon is a game changer.

scarlett johansen didn't go toe-to-toe with the guys she took down

lucky did

 

[Crucible]

If Batman went and beat up a bunch of women, someone would be bound to take issue.

No one takes issue with Lara Croft manhandling a group of men, because they know it is unrealistic.

 

[Rusha]

Oh sure. Women can be trained to defend themselves. But the key is to teach them to strike quickly then run away if at all possible and not stand there going toe-to-toe with a much larger and stronger man trading punches. I hate seeing women get beat up by much larger men. Men that beat up much smaller women disgust me to no end. Obviously a firearm or a bladed weapon is a game changer.

I was more commenting on Hollywood's fantasy of women beating up large groups of men single handedly.

:chuckle: I don't take Hollywood very seriously ... however, there was a great movie I watched awhile back that sort of fits into this discussion.

The movie is "Enough" ... the woman (Jennifer Lopez) got the help (legal and financial)and self defense training necessary to stand toe to toe and defeat the violent beast.

Sigh. I love happy endings.

 

[badp]

If I have a son and all the abusive laws imposed on men and especially divorced men are still intact, I will fully educate him on the horrors awaiting him in a feminist ruled society. Don't just marry any woman. Please take your time son because your future wife can totally ruin you with the power the law has given her.

No need for all that. Just tell him to marry a Christian woman who's a virgin.