Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[Japher]

Minorites are in a bad situation. There is nothing wrong with something trying to advance them and get them in a better one

And your from Coeur d'Alene, ID?

blah!

[johncmcleod]

I forgot to add something. Japher sort of beat me to the point.

The reason we do NOT need feminists is because women all already achieving milestones almost exponentially. Not many years ago it was common knowledge that a woman's job was to "cooking, cleaning, and going to church"

In not too long a time, women will be equal to men in numbers and not just in opportunity in almost all fields. There will be 50 50 representation in congress. And this is not due to feminism. The opportunities are opening up and the women are responding.

Feminism is counter-productive. All it's doing is what monkspider said, just putting people into groups.

[Chemical Ollie]

This thread is growing so fast that I skipped reading the second half. Too bad if I missed something.

Let's start with saying that I'm a modern man who do a lot of "women stuff" at home. I do 30-70 % of the laundry, dishwashing and vaccuum cleaning, 90 of the shopping and cooking (because I'm a better cook than my wife) and still 95% of some of the traditional "male stuff" (painting the house, washing the car, carpenting etc). While my wife do most of the child care, I have still taken more paternal leave than the average Swede. I was at home alone for 3 months full time and 5 months half-time with my first kid and 6 weeks full time with the second. Off course that was only possible due to the social insurance system in Sweden. I paid my dues in form of taxes, so why not get something back?

Still I hate feminists (Off course there are several kinds of feminists. Now I'm talking of the kind that you hear most from in the media). Why? Because they promote positive discrimination based of gender. They refuse to understand or accept that people's behavior and personal priorities are a complex function of biology AND environment. They refuse to accept the biology factor and think you can form someone's personality from upbringing alone, thus saying that gender is a social construction. Then they use this theory to explain everything from rape and domestic violence to occupation statistics and wage differentials. And they think they can fix the system by ignoring the biology and make social constructions.

In Sweden, over 99% of the Board of Directors in stock exchange companies consist of men. Also, very close to 100% of the thrash pickup workers are men. Guess which of the 2 occupations where feminists demand that 40% should be women by law?

[Lancer]

"Yeah, they won't get their husbands beer on demand. *****es don't know their rightful place. "

Actually they are too full of themselves to do their husband a kindness, as they are taught to be competitive based on gender, and getting their husband a beer doesn't jive with their position upon the pedistal.

So get your own damn beer Mike, and feel good about it...and since you're up...

'Since you're up' pisses me off too. What's really being said is, 'I'm not asking you to get off your pedistal, because what I'm asking takes so little extra effort, it's not really asking anything.'

'Since you're up' is for wimps.

[Lancer]

"This thread is growing so fast that I skipped reading the second half. Too bad if I missed something."

Translation: What I say has value, what you say can be ignored.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe you are incorrect.

But I'm not . Feminism is about equality. You've just been brainwashed to think otherwise.

First off, many feminists will say they want things to be equal just to justify their views, when really they have a bias against men. Secondly, the doctrine that we should be equal is equalism. Feminists say either they are for being equal because that's what they want you to believe, or they say that women should get better rights to make up for the "years of oppression."

Yes, that's what the majority of feminists believe . When feminists say they want equality, that is because they ACTUALLY want equality. To say they have a 'bias against men' is simply substituting your own bias because you want to keep women down and don't like these 'uppity' groups getting women where they don't belong (how do you like it?).

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Lancer
"This thread is growing so fast that I skipped reading the second half. Too bad if I missed something."

Translation: What I say has value, what you say can be ignored.

No, the interpretion should be: It's getting late but I want to make my post before I go to bed.

I normally read much more than I write here. Many threads I read through without even posting.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Yeah, they won't get their husbands beer on demand. *****es don't know their rightful place. "

Actually they are too full of themselves to do their husband a kindness, as they are taught to be competitive based on gender, and getting their husband a beer doesn't jive with their position upon the pedistal.

So get your own damn beer Mike, and feel good about it...and since you're up...

'Since you're up' pisses me off too. What's really being said is, 'I'm not asking you to get off your pedistal, because what I'm asking takes so little extra effort, it's not really asking anything.'

'Since you're up' is for wimps.

People who think that women who like to serve their husbands are some type of fools are missing something. Some people (both men and women) enjoy serving others that they love. Feminism has taught an entire generation that service is a dirty word. My Thai girlfriend serves me even though I do not expect it or demand it. She likes it. And I enjoy serving her with things that she enjoys. I am sure that you understand this Lancer. Too bad that the radical femenists have convinced so many that a woman should strive to be like a man and claw their way to the top along with self centered men. That is one reason why I would not touch most American women. If I wanted to marry a man I would move to San Francisco.

[Lancer]

If I wanted to marry a man I'd go to the mountain. So far, not a problem.

Lincoln, the Thai gf a Christian?

[Lancer]

Olaf, in that case, just another bad translation...

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lancer


If I wanted to marry a man I'd go to the mountain. So far, not a problem.

Lincoln, the Thai gf a Christian?

No, she is not a Christian. We are just good friends.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln


People who think that women who like to serve their husbands are some type of fools are missing something. Some people (both men and women) enjoy serving others that they love. Feminism has taught an entire generation that service is a dirty word. My Thai girlfriend serves me even though I do not expect it or demand it. She likes it. And I enjoy serving her with things that she enjoys. I am sure that you understand this Lancer. Too bad that the radical femenists have convinced so many that a woman should strive to be like a man and claw their way to the top along with self centered men. That is one reason why I would not touch most American women. If I wanted to marry a man I would move to San Francisco.

Not at all. The "fool" is the one who believes all women should be servile because it is their place. One serving the other and vice versa, or one showing consideration to another and vice versa isn't a problem. Since you mentioned San Francisco and marrying a man, I could tell you about Andy and John... John is the best damn homemaker any guy could hope to find, and, ah hell, never mind.

The problem is "no, you can't get a side job or take an evening class or go out with a couple of your friends because your job is to have dinner ready at six and take care of the kids."

How two people freely and equally choose to define their relationship is one thing. The notion that one can bind the other to a specific role because "it's a woman's place" is another.

[Lancer]

You should come to the Philippines with us. Really...

[Lincoln]

Well I still remember your invitation Lancer. Maybe some day...

[Lancer]

Next trip tentatively Sept '04. Be there, or be elsewhere.

[Lincoln]

I already have a ticket to Thailand on June 4th. I do not have the money for more this year. But if my house sells...

[Whaleboy]

"Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime"



What more can I say? Anyone familiar with the Yorkie adverts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyone familiar with the Yorkie adverts?

No... please enlighten us (and I'm expecting a good story ).

[Lancer]

>>>'04<<<

[Whaleboy]

This advertisement thing in Britain for Yorkie chocolate bars. Based on the observation that women cant seem to eat an entire Yorkie bar (its so true!), they decided on the line

"Yorkie: Its not for girls",

and based stuff around that. For example, it had a poster, with the bar, and the line,

"Save your money for driving lessons",

others were:

"Dont feed the birds"

and stuff like that. Basically I see it as a response to the anti-men tampon adverts that are really getting annoying.

I suspect that the argument to make masculinity a hate crime, is basically people feeling insecure about the notion of us threatening the political correctness of feminism by using the same "tricks". With sexual equality, something I am all for, it works like a pendulum, women get rights, but it goes a little too far, then men counter and so forth. After a while, I think the whole battle of the sexes idea will just fizzle out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

.. hopefully in an orgy .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

Quote:

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat: Nobody claims consent as a defense to armed robbery.

In an armed robbery, the person says "If you don't open the cash register I'll kill you." The cashier is forced to consent. If a man tells a women, if you don't have sex with me, I'll kill you. That is a rape. When the women actually says "Have sex with me." That is consenting and not rape.

Reread. I'm talking about claimed defenses in court after the fact, not what really happened. Rape cases leave DNA, and in a majority of reported rapes, the woman and man knew each other to at least some extent. The common defense claim is that it wasn't rape, it was consenting sex. Mike Tyson even tried that one, although he nearly had a case for it.

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
real:
Two straight white males beat a gay male nearly to death (actually or allegedly triggered when he hit on one of them in a bar), then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.

hypothetical:
Two straight white males beat a straight white male nearly to death because they were going to rob him, then got pissed that he only had $15.00 on him, and no credit cards or other valuables, then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.

Which is worse?

IMO, they're equivalent, and should be punished equivalently.

They are not equivalant. In the first one the object is to kill someone because of their sexual preference, just because of the way that they are. Saying they're equal is like saying killing someone in self-defense is as bad as murder. After all, the intentions don't matter, killing someone is killing someone. It is also saying that if you fight a war in which a lot of people die it is the same as the holocaust, because killing someone is killing someone. It us also saying that if the government gives someone the death penalty because they're a serial killer is the same as giving it to them just because they're a communist, killing someone is killing someone.

It is also saying that if the principal decides he should throw out the 15 Mexicans out of his school is the same as expelling 15 kids for getting in a bad fight.

Discriminating against someone is what caused hundreds of years of dehumanization and bigotry for Indigenous peoples, therefore that should be added to the sentence of a murder. Murder+discriminatory treatment > murder [/QUOTE]

Congratulations, in addition to a truly dumb argument, you've put more strawment into a single post than anyone I've ever seen online.

Expelling kids from school compared to murder. Is that just extreme trivialization, or do they not teach critical thinking in schools up there? BTW, expelling kids from school on the basis of race is a separate civil rights crime in itself.

White people being nasty to the Indians 100-odd years ago is a basis for sentencing people more harshly for unrelated crimes now. ok, whatever.

Calling premeditated murder with torture equivalent to premeditated murder with torture the same thing, when the killers had different reasons for not liking the people they killed, now means that self-defense is murder. I didn't know they had shrooms in that part of the country. I thought you had to go over to central Washington or Oregon for those.

[Whaleboy]

"They are not equivalant"

They are equivalent crimes, but the motivations are different. If one is to punish the crime, then one must give equal punishment. If one is to punish the intent, which is NOT a sufficient condition for the crime, then surely one should punish the other consequences of that intent. It is either illegal or it is not, and intent imo, is not/shuold not be illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, elijah, in order to perform an illegal act, you need BOTH a criminal act and a criminal intent. So intent is illegal if accompanied by an act. By itself, it isn't.

[Whaleboy]

Which is why it is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. The intent should ideally never be illegal, otherwise, it is one law for one person and another for some other person, depending on what other separate crime has been committed.

Ideally, the intent, as a thought, an opinion, a motivation, whatever, is never illegal. I dont like Mr Hypothetical right now, so thats intent to kill them, but as I will not, it is not illegal to be p!ssed off. If I do kill, then the act of killing is of course illegal, but the intent remains constant, the killing is merely a causal consequence of it, and other things. Making intent illegal is like blaming Marx for Stalin, or Plato for Hitler!

(note I'm not a lawyer, I dont know how it works in reality, I work with "shoulds", not "woulds")

[Whaleboy]

off to play network game of UT2003 now, adios!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course intent isn't a sufficient condition, but with MOST crimes (only a few are strict liability), the criminal act isn't sufficient either. They both rely on each other. If you kill and don't have the intent (being reckless is intent, btw) to kill, then you haven't committed a crime.

So, it's a grey area. I'd say the Criminal Law is the most theoretical of the fields of law (with the exception of Philosophy of Law, of course, which is just for academia anyway ).

[blackice]

Thanks for the invite Shi Huangdi

I have too been busy winning the court case I had talked about many times to post here for some time.

Imagine a male parent had to go to court to get the child tax benefit put in his name because the female refused to send the government a letter stating he is.

Imagine the male followed the letter of the law and the government dismissed the laws and gave the other gender the funding even though they did not even apply for it.

Imagine a male parent fighting to keep a child he is raising, then losing the child to the other based on gender...My child is a mess cudos to the womens groups and laws that make this possible...

It took five years...

Yup men are sure oppressing women, I can think of no one I know or see any evidence beyond the occassional nutbar in these forums to suggest in any way shape or form that any male I know collectively or otherwise are out to oppress women you?.

Next, I am working now with the U.N. and the human rights commisions from both the federal and provincial levels to challenge, again as I am not the first one, these unconstitutional laws. They have all taken on the case. By the by everyone before me won too. The government lobbying by radical feminist's groups has effectively stopped the goverment from changing laws that are gender based and bias and IMHO a hate crime.

These same women and womens groups in this article helped put in place these laws to discriminate against men (Fathers, children) and continue to do so. Hate lolol no? Then why else do they what this in place? They are only hurting kids, male and female I may add, but directed solely at men, equality not in these laws.

The research done in the report that these women bash was sound. Do some research, look back over the threads, they have all been covered.

Now ask yourself is a law that is gender bias, discriminatory and designed to allianate, harm and weaken one gender's ability to care for thier kids, medical and otherwise. Continued with malice a hate crime?

Hate Crime:
n.
A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group: “ [His]murders were hate crimes targeting victims by gender” (Jane Caputi and Diana E.H. Russell).

I say so, so does the dictionary definition... that being the case who is perpetrating the crime? On a federal scale using our money and hiding behind misinformation to the masses?

No this is but a prevarication, and an obvious one. I am sure you will find nutbars in all groups, welcome to life in the food chain. But to point out one gender's groups as the ones to be investigated is shear ignorance and prevarication that in itself is proof of gender based "hate". More so done by an arm of the government, quite amazing. No where in that report did I see any rebutles to the facts or information presented.

I did notice the disclaimer though....

Hey what did the Status of Men Canada, a federal department, say about it. Oh sorry there is none.
I wonder? did the men say the same thing when the governement funded "Where have all the women gone?

Oh ya they asked for equal time and funding damn men anyway they did not quite get the funding the women did nor the resources but what the heck it was the token offer...What right do they have voicing thier concerns with well documented facts and research.

Heck the next thing men will ask for is equal rights in areas such as the unconstitutional female gender bias ITA section 122.6. Damn them I wish they would just go away.

Hey they have a great idea, instead of allowing men thier say as men did for women and continue to do so with all our support. That I may add includes millions of dollars of federal government (our money) funding, which mens group rarely see, ( somewhere around 1% of what womens groups get) We the women will ask the government to call it a hate crime to speak up about such, unconstitutional matters as ITA 122.6, and other areas which point blank discriminate's against a gender. (Hate Crimes)

No way they say, we want the funding we want to make the rules we the women do not want to hear this tripe.

All with your and my money and the goverments support, cool eh!

While I an not anti women like some flakes here have suggested... I am for equal rights and I am for equal laws. I fight for both sides and my fight for equal laws in this area proves that. Kids matter to me you? Mind does and I took them to task, the judge heh I was embarassed for the fed lawyer. What a bad position he was in...

Most of these mens groups speak out about radical unconstitutional gender based laws, radical feminist's movement's and radical feminist's views that influence these laws and fundings. Most of all they speak out about the right to see thier children and the complete fraud of the statistics radical feminist's groups pump out to the public with reckless abandon with you guessed it our money to perpetrate these hate crimes.

Did not the women's groups do the same thing fight for thier rights?

Have radical women in groups like NOW promoted hate? You bet they did and still do.

As with every major society change an unbalanced situation becomes an unbalanced situation the other way. This move by this well known government funded feminist's sector is simply put, trying to stop the equalization of an unbalanced society shift.

No law in this or any land should be based on gender period. Therefore the logical solution would be to put in place a comity to seek out and destroy any "hate crimes" from any group be it male or female.

This stance by this well known government funded gender bias government sector should be the proof anyone needs to see that in fact they are not impartial, will not be impartial, do not look after our kids or our females, or for that matter remove themselves from hate crimes.

They do not look after the best interest of the female gender. After all why would you want your children learning hate from a men's or womans group?

Bottom line is "hate crime is a hate crime" be it from a men's group or a womans group. Especially from a government funded one let alone your government...

Understanding that basic fact allows one to see that in fact this is solely designed to clamp down on a growing discontent in the male and children in the population with regards to laws and funding based on, you guessed it gender and hate crimes.

Regards

Black

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
Congratulations, in addition to a truly dumb argument, you've put more strawment into a single post than anyone I've ever seen online.

Expelling kids from school compared to murder. Is that just extreme trivialization, or do they not teach critical thinking in schools up there? BTW, expelling kids from school on the basis of race is a separate civil rights crime in itself.

White people being nasty to the Indians 100-odd years ago is a basis for sentencing people more harshly for unrelated crimes now. ok, whatever.

Calling premeditated murder with torture equivalent to premeditated murder with torture the same thing, when the killers had different reasons for not liking the people they killed, now means that self-defense is murder. I didn't know they had shrooms in that part of the country. I thought you had to go over to central Washington or Oregon for those.

Ok, so you disagree with an argument and that makes the person that said it on drugs. Is that the critical thinking you said they didn't teach me? (which, btw, is why I will be going to a private school next year instead of a public one)

My comparisons are called figurative analogies. Instead of arguing against some of them, you just said two things are different, therefore the principle cannot be applied to both.

You mentioned that expelling kids because of their race was a crime in itself. I agree. Murdering people because of their race should be a crime in itself, also. They are different subjects same principle. Harming someone because of their race is wrong.

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
IMO, they're equivalent, and should be punished equivalently.

Pretty much what you said is: killing someone, no matter the intent, is equivalent and therefore should be punished equivalently. I disagree with that way of thinking. According to what you believe if I kill someone in self-defense it is the same as murder. My intent wasn't bad, it was to protect myself. But all the same, "killing people is equivalent, and should be punished equivalently."


Here's my philosophy:
On the 'evil' scale,
killing someone+discrimination > murder
killing someone-good intent (self defense) < murder

Your philosphy:
killing someone=murder
killing someone + discrimination=murder, should be punished the same as simply killing someone

Therefore, according to your beliefs:

killing someone - good intent (self defense)=murder, should be punished the same as simply killing someone

If you think I'm illogical, at least I put my arguments into mathematical equations.

I have no idea why I'm even arguing. We all know I'll lose. I don't even remember the last time I won an argument.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Imran Siddiqui:
Yes, that's what the majority of feminists believe . When feminists say they want equality, that is because they ACTUALLY want equality. To say they have a 'bias against men' is simply substituting your own bias because you want to keep women down and don't like these 'uppity' groups getting women where they don't belong (how do you like it?).

That's making quite an assumption. You don't know me, yet you say I am biased against women. This is bs. The only thing you replied with was: no, you're wrong, you're a sexist. If feminists want equality, why are they still around. There are few laws that give men the advantage.

Women have pretty much the same opportunities as men. The feminists say, "Look at our government. There are so many males. All the females have been put down by males and they're all at home taking care of the kids."

What they are saying is completely wrong. As long as opportunities are the same, they don't need to make changes. There's no need for females to stop being homemakers and become senators, for there's nothing wrong with a homemaker. But there is something wrong with minorities in poverty, and something needs to be done to get them out of the situation. As for what Japher said, well, I used to live in Seattle. I may not live with any minorities, but I do know that they are in a much worse situation than the majority. No one would deny this. The reason I know is from hearing about it from other people and looking at statistics.

The reason why things are the way they are, is because of genetics. I AM NOT repeat AM NOT saying women are bad leaders and all they're good for is staying at home and taking care of the kids. The reason is when we were hunter gatherers the leader was the male and the one that took care of children was the female. It is nature's way. We have evolved to be like that. Therefore, males and females have different brain skills. For example, females are much better multi-taskers, for taking care of young. Males are better at focusing on one thing, such as finding out a way to get the group of Homo Erectuses across the river.