Modern Feminism gives women an excuse to be horrible people.

There is no equality under the law. Especially when it comes to custody of the children. Most of the time, the women gets the children and the man has to pay. Biological differences are considered by the court and most of the time, very young children are given to the woman. Apparently biological differences aren't meaningless.

 

If I ever become a Catholic, you can measure me up for a straitjacket..



Maybe Popey and his priest chums just don't like girls, wonder which bit of this they don't understand?-
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Bible:Galatians 3:28 )

 

This is the latest 'stupid trend' here in the UK . . .



It's one - only one, though! - of the reasons I'm totally convinced humankind is going insane. I mean it's bad enough that one woman thinks it's a good idea, but when others latch on to it as well, then that sure is weird.

 

Did you know that in over half (51%) of custody cases, the parents agree jointly to make the mother the custodial parent. In 29% of custodial cases, the decision is made by just the parents without involving judges or lawyers. In fact only 4% of custody cases ever go to trial and of those, only 1.5% complete custody litigation. This means that 91% of custody cases are decided outside the family court system, which kind of negates your argument.

 

Yes, there needs to be more gender equality, that's the whole point of feminism. True gender equality benefits everyone.

 

That is the dictionary definition of feminism but it is not the point of modern third wave feminism which is about all sorts of things EXCEPT equality.

 

None of them happen outside of the family court system.

Even those cases where an agreement is reached by both parents must be given approval by the courts.

First of all you need some citations for your statistics but even if they are 100% accurate ( and they might be ) it does not take into account parenting arrangements which are agreed upon by both parents for the simple reason that everyone knows the mom will get what she wants and fighting it in court is a waste of time.

 

So what is the point of third wave feminism?

 

Well, this is what I get for not checking my sources well enough. I found an article on HuffPost, but the link they had for the stats is dead. Sorry about that. I'll see if I can come up with something more concrete (and double check my sources!)

 

Misandry, Identity politics, virtue signaling and marxism

 

The misandry argument has been used since women fought for the right to vote, so nothing new there. As for identity politics, yes it is, and this is not a bad thing. Virture signaling I had to look up, and while I have seen it among feminists, I've also seen it among all social groups, including the right (e.g. using the term RINO). Finally, anytime the right don't like anything the left is doing, it is called Marxism.

 

Actually no the misandry argument was not used since then as it would be illogical it is quite logical now. Feminists are fighting and in some cases succeeding to attack men. An example being the dear colleague letter sent by Obama's Department of education to colleges nation wide. This was a feminist initiative and an overt effort to avoid and side step due process for men accused of rape and sexual assault. It succeeded in establishing witch hunts in universities nationwide.

Identity politics is a very bad thing and quite idiotic it is why we have feminists and SJWs making endless false claims. It ultimately led to the election of Donald Trump because people are sick of the lies about white privilege and being told to check it.

Modern feminists have no equality battle left to fight. Women have equal rights in every aspect and even superior rights in many areas. Therefore modern feminism is about anything except equality. You cannot fight for what you have. Nor is it threatened and in need of being defended.

 

I thought it would be obvious I was talking about a CONTESTED divorce.

 

Here is an anti-suffrage cartoon from 1914:



Feminism is not about taking away rights from men, it is about making sure women have the same rights. What rights, as a man, have you actually lost in the past 30 years?

Also, protecting people from rape is not a "witch hunt".

What do you think Identify Politics is? Wikipedia defines it as "...political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations."

When the chance of a woman being raped in her lifetime is 1 in 4, and only 4% of the time, it is a stranger (Rathus, Spencer A., Jeffrey S. Nevid, and Lois Fichner-Rathus. Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity. Third Ed. Needham Heights, MA. Viacom Company, 1997), 93% of women murdered, are by people they know (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2016.pdf), and three women a day die from domestic violence (http://nnedv.org/getinvolved/dvam/1307-dvam-blog-series-1.html), there is something wrong with our society.

When only 4% of Fortune 500 CEO's are women (http://fortune.com/2016/06/06/women-ceos-fortune-500-2016/), less than 20% of congress is female, and we have never had a female president, there is inequality.

 

No where in that cartoon is the word misandry used or implied so massive fail there.

Clearly you missed the point or are deliberately ignoring it. Women have all the same rights as men and in some cases more rights. One such right for example is protection against involuntary genital mutilation.

Since it is FACT women have all the same rights as men there feminism can NO LONGER be about fighting for equal rights.

I already pointed out to you feminism has attacked men on college campuses accused of rape and sexual assault and you are out right lying and denying fact.

When the dear colleague letter was sent by Obama's department of education to universities it caused them to start witch hunts and yes that is precisely what it is. It is not a fight against rape it is a fight against ALLEGED rape and colleges overwhelmingly suspend any form of due process in order to penalize those who are accused without evidence. They do so with panels and tribunals which examine accusations and simply use biased judgments to penalize the accused who in turn have no rights or say in the matter. This is by definition a witch hunt when the accusation IS the evidence and no legal defense is permitted.

Saying something is wrong with our society is subjective and meaningless. Anyone anywhere can say that with as much meaning. First of all your claim of 1 in 4 women raped is a false statistic which the FBI proves flat out wrong.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....16/table_16_rate_by_population_group_2013.xls

The same data shows murder and other violent crimes ( to include DV ) is also in decline nationwide. Calling it a problem when violent crime is in decline is completely deceitful misleading.

Fortune CEO's prove nothing when the fact is fewer women seek such positions so it proves nothing about equality it only proves men and women tend to make different choices.

As for congress women vote those leaders in so their choice in more male leaders than female proves true equality.

Deciding politics based on group association rather than intelligent thought is by definition not intelligent.

Women have equality and more that is undeniable fact. When they have it feminists can no longer honestly state they are fighting for equality

 

Sorry I don't have time a lot of time, so I'll make this quick.

In the upper left hand corner of the cartoon, it says "Down with Man". If that is not Misandry, I don't know what is.

I'm not EVEN getting into an argument about circumcision.

Please show evidence that due process is being suspended at college campuses.

As long as it is happening, it is a problem.

Your statistics is the percent of women raped in a year, my statistic is the percent of women raped over their lifetime. Apples to oranges.

Please show proof that 96% of women don't seek out such positions.

If the only candidates are men, then women can only vote for men.

So you believe that the religious right voting block is wrong?

 

The misandric argument did not apply then it does now.

You won't argue because you will lose.

Your stats are weak and false mine are strong.

Yes one is a problem but not in justifying massive changes to the justice system and I have already proven what you asked for.

The proof is that they do not seek such positions.

No one stops women from being candidates. Voters including women simply do not vote for them and that crushes your false narrative

 

So feminists and MRA's must see eye to eye on a lot of things I guess

 

The stupidity of people that believe this is necessary is easily exposed.

If a man were to walk into Compton wearing a KKK getup, holding as sign that said "lynch all blacks now!" What do we suppose would happen here? Do we think this man would be, at best, beaten to within an inch of his life, or at worst, gruesomely murdered? Now, any reasonable person wouldn't be surprised by the result of this action. Let's say he's murdered. Is it still murder? Yes. Did this man take unnecessary risk when it came to his life? Also yes. Should the murder be investigated and prosecuted? Yes, assuming burden of proof is met. Should anyone feel sorry for him, given his choices were so stupid that he put himself in that situation? No.

Let's alter the scenario now.

A college woman goes to a frat party wearing a slut's uniform. She drinks, and dances all night, flirting with anyone she can. She portrays herself as someone that wants to get laid. What do we suppose would happen here? She'd likely find someone very willing. But what if she suddenly changes her mind and decides it's rape? Is it still rape if she says no? Yes. Was she taking unnecessary risks when it came to her conduct that night? Yes. Should the rapist still be prosecuted? After an investigation, absolutely, assuming burden of proof is met. Should anyone feel sorry for this woman, given her choices were so stupid that she put herself in that situation? No.

I guarantee you can ferret out the irrational, inane liberal thinkers by presenting the two above scenarios. You'll either force the liberal to admit that their views on rape are too extreme, or, you'll force them to reveal their cognitive dissonance.

 

Nah social scenarios like this can't really considered equal. Essentially what is being put forward here is that both candidates are asking for it. The difference I would say, is that it's perfectly normal for anyone to dance, get drunk, and flirt. It's normal, and perfectly socially acceptable; happens universally and in most cases doesn't lead to any aggravation.

The first scenario is none of the above so it's not a valid comparison I'm afraid. Good try though.

 

It's absolutely applicable because, as typical with anyone that tries to say these scenarios aren't the same, you completely overlook the fact that I went to lengths to point out the woman was acting like a slut. Dancing, Drinking and Flirting are normal, conducting yourself like a slut is what puts you in danger. The exercise isn't about social acceptances, it's about risk aversion, and for that matter, is to show precisely the response you gave. Cognitive dissonance it is.

 

Snore...

Well, acting like a slut is also socially acceptable, in fact it's encouraged. So now what?

Smoking crack would be better. Smoking crack isn't encouraged or socially acceptable, risks involved are well known and therefore you knowingly take your chances smoking it. It would be less easy to have sympathy for a dead crack head. But a dead/raped/attacked reveller (male or female), just partying like we ALL do... yeah I can have sympathy for that.

Some people might get upset at the sight of young girls, scantily clad, dancing suggestively in a party. But I can't relate to those people at all, I think they're insane. All I would say is that everyone takes their chances when it comes to going out to parties and getting drunk, every A&E is packed full of intoxicated revellers on a Friday - Saturday night. So going out and getting drunk period carries risks with it... but I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where the simple act of partying was considered to be an invitation to be attacked -- the same way as could be said of your first scenario.

 

Except they're not really the same at all, are they? You're the shining example of what this scenario seeks to expose. The inability to relate risk to consequence. Again, the scenario is worded very specifically, but that doesn't seem to matter to you, does it? Women don't get a free pass to act stupid, and somehow think that consequences aren't a possibility, just like men don't get that free pass.

That is, after all, the point of feminism, is it not? The equality of genders? It amuses me greatly that so many people seem to forget that the institution was built to bring equality to the genders, yet, something as simple as risk assessment and evaluation seems to only be a male responsibility.

For the record, acting like a slut is only socially acceptable to liberals, which whether they seem to believe it or not, is actually a very large global minority.

Edit: Fun fact, in many places I've run this exact scenario with the genders reversed. And the result was essentially the same.