Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > MCP wrote:
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism_rant
> > > >
> > > > Feminism is a Female Supremacist totalitarian social and
> political
> > > movement that has been called "the sexist notion that men are not
> > > people" (attributed to Peter Zohrab).
> > >
> > > What laws have been drafted by feminist organizations that do not
> > > include men?
> >
> > None that I'm aware of, but that's not the focus.  For gender
> > feminists, the focus is on preferential treatment for women.
>
> Again, if no LAWS are drafted by feminists that do not include men, I
> don't see the reason for your complaint?

There's more to a society than laws, Hy, which you full well know.
And, if laws are not enforced equally, regardless of the language,
that's an inequity in and of itself.

Lemme give you a little example.  Let's take two neighborhoods in a
city; one gets intensive police protection and enjoys a very safe
standard of living, which allows all kinds of freedom and comfort.  The
other gets no police protection, and as a result, has gang activity,
drugs, and a high level of quality of life offenses.  The residents
there are captives in their own homes, and are much more likely to be
victimized.

Now, are you going to try and claim that the laws written there exclude
that neighborhood, or do you think maybe there's an inequality of
enforcement issue going on?

> > > >
> > >  Note that by all but the most Dykist definitions, a
> > >  "feminist" need not be a woman - many men are
proud to identify>
> themselves> as (brainwashed) feminists.
> > >
> >Not only do many men identify themselves as feminists, but those men
>
> have no need to CONTROL women; when you look up the words "real men"
> you will see a feminist man because he doesn't base his own
definition>
> on the control of women.
> >
> > Try asking him what *his* definition of a feminist is, and what
*his*
> idea of equal treatment and opportunity is.  I suspect, on the whole,
> it differs quite a bit from yours and is actually more grounded in
> fairness.
>
> I did.  The answer I got was that feminism means that women should
have
> equal rights and equal opportunity at law.

Good.  Now ask him if he thinks women should receive preferential
treatment.

>  I think that is totally
> grounded in fairness.

The concept is; the application suffers.

>  And then I asked him if there were any laws
> drafted by feminists that did not include men.  He said he couldn't
> think of one.

Which, of course, was not the argument.  Maybe we can also say that 50
years ago, height and weight requirements for police officers didn't
mention excluding women.

>
> Over the course of modern history, the immediate goals of feminists
> have changed to suit the times.
> > >
> >The goals of feminism are like the goals of any other freedom
loving>
> organization; they grow with the needs arising.  That is why the>
first
> goals of feminism was the right to own property, vote, and control>
> over> > their own bodies, and why that has evolved to make sure women
> have other equal rights.
> > >
>  However, the overarching goal has always been the>  promotion of
> supremacy for women over men, both legally and> socially,
> > > while claiming to be about "equality".
> > >
>  If that's true, you would have to ask yourself the question, what
is>
> it > about equal rights for women that results in their supremacy?
> >
> > That's the question that one attempting to dodge reality would ask.
>
> So, are you suggesting that when women have equal rights they become
> superior?

Oh, absolutely not.   lol

>
> The real question to be asked is, why do we as a society unevenly
> enforce the law so heavily in women's favor?
> >
> We don't.

We do.

>  The laws are sex/gender neutral, and if those laws are being
> APPLIED UNQUALLY there's no reason we can't correct that;  of course,
> one has to PROVE that laws are applied unevenly.

You've been handed the proof several times.  That's when you usually
cut and run.

>
> AS to> > social choices, those are what they are and not relegated by
> law.
> >
> > Nope, they're regulated by something sometimes more powerful than
> law, which is custom.  Women simply have more socially acceptable
> options than men.
> >
> Customs are addressed by those willing to change.  If you don't want
to
> support a woman don't sign on for that.  If you don't want to support
> her children, don't risk having any.

Are you under the impression those ae the only two areas where customs
apply?  And, FWIW, that's what I did.  My first wife didn't follow
through on what she'd promised before we got married, and now she's the
first wife.  In my second marriage, I had exactly the number of
children *I* wanted, which I told my wife before we got married.  After
we had our son, *I* took responsibility and made sure she wouldn't get
pregnant (by me) again.

Oh, BTW, it's not HER children, it's THEIR children.

>
>  Feminists, having no regard for rationality, have claimed that women
> are a "minority",
>
> Women are not a minority, but they are often treated as one for being
> socially oppressed for so many years, as is recorded by huge amounts
of
> HISTORY.  Women don't even need HERstory in order to make that clear.
> They were denied many rights, LIKE minorities.
>
> and have attempted to acquire the politically correct equivalent of
> sainthood by allying themselves with genuine minorities, as
represented
> byw:Martin Luther King> Jr.
>
> Women and other minorities have much in common since they were denied
> equal status and equal opportunities by WHITE MEN.  That you don't
like
> women joining forces with others who were oppressed by white men
> is...well... your personal problem.

Not mine--I didn't write any of that.

>
> Feminists therefore usually support other movements such as the
w:civil
> rights movement and the w:gay rights movement -- but not the Fetus
> Rights movement or the Men's Rights movement, for obvious reasons.
> > > >
> A fetus has no more "rights" than a hemroid, but rant on if it makes
> you feel better.
> >
> > There's no need to rant.  Your comparison of a fetus to a
hemmorhoid
> (sp?) just reveals your lack of depth, or the depth of where you're
> lacking.
>
> When you compare a mass of human cells with "A" human being, you can
> clearly see that one has rights while the other does not.

So a 28 week old baby surviving outside the womb isn't a human being?

>   And, I
> didn't compare a fetus to a hemroid, but I did compare the "rights"
of
> both organisms.

Nice reversal.

>  I must admit, I did think you were bright enough to
> discern the difference, but perhaps I was wrong about that.

What you're wrong about is my willingness to allow you to parse your
words too closely and attempt an analogy designed to compare a fetus to
a mass of inflamed tissue.

>
>  When a hemmorhoid has its own DNA, or can survive outside the
> >woman's body at 28 weeks as a human being, then you'll have a point.
>
> I already have several "points" based on this issue.  First, a human
> being gets to decide what goes on inside their own body;

Then I assume you approve of allowing humans to ingest whatever drugs
they wish, in whatever quantites.  You would also approve of
state-assisted suicide.  And, you should be legalizing alcohol for
minors.

> a fetus, as a
> mass of human cells cannot and does not.

A mass of human cells that has it's own DNA, and can survive as a human
being outside the womb as early as 23 weeks.  Just out of curiousity,
would you approve of killing the baby at that point?  Because,
according to you, while it's in the womb, it's a mass of cells at that
age.  But the only real difference is placement.

>  Secondly, when it comes to
> having rights between a human being and a mere mass of human cells,
the
> human being wins hands down.

We've already been able to demonstrate that a 28 week old baby is a
human being.

>  And finally, there is really nothing men
> like you can do about women's choices over their own bodies.

Sure there is.  By praticing control over mine, regardless of what they
want, I've effectively limited their choices as far as their
relationship with me goes.  If they want something different, move on.

>  Science
> and technology have outstripped your CONTROL ability.

One person's infanticide is another person's control issue (lemme ask
you:  when you think the word 'control' does it flame in neon in your
head so that you have to capitlize it?).  But I think what you're
seeing is science and technology pushing back feminism's ability to
claim a 28 week old human is a "collection of tissue".

>
> >
> > As to men's rights, there are no EQUAL rights men don't already
have.
>  The men's rights groups are hardly a "movement"> but
what they seek
is
> SPECIAL RIGHTS.
> >
> > They're seeking equal enforcement of rights.  I understand why that
> would be anethema to you.
>
> Not at all.  When you can show me with PROOF that men's rights AT LAW
> are not being enforced, you'll have me on your side.  I'm still
> waiting.

As I said, you've been handed it time and time again, and that's when
you go 'poof', if you haven't engaged in selective snipping by then.  I
think I mentioned to you once that the surest way to make you leave a
debate was to prove it to you.  :)

>
> Feminism has effected many changes on society, including
> womens'suffrage, broad employment for women at equivalent wages
(equal
> pay for less-than-equal work),
> > >
>  Nonsense.  Women get equal pay for equal work.  Sexist men just
don't>
> like women as bosses and peers.
> >
> According to some employment statistics I read, female engineers are
> getting larger starting salaries than male engineers.
>
> How does that relate to unequal treatment?

*sigh*

>  I mean ...don't some male
> engineers hire on at higher pay than some other male engineers?  I'd
> need proof that it was just sexism.

This from the woman who thinks that a mere absence of female writers on
one newspaper's editorial page during a limited period of time is
concrete proof of discrimination?  The mind boggles at your selective
comprehension.

> > >
>  including the "right" to meet lower standards than men for entry to
> the military and police,
> > >
> Standards for women are the standards that meet the female physique,
> just like standards for men are the standards that meet the male
> physique.
> >
> > For law enforcement, those standards indicate levels of fitness,
and>
> does correspond to an ability to do the job under normal>
> circumstances--it's at the extremes where differences become
> pronounced.
>
> As long as standards for female and male personnel are not penis
> standards, I don't care what normal ability standards they use in
terms
> of fitness;  they can be as high as they demand.

They can't be, actually; they used to be, to try and be ready for the
extremes.

>
>  As far as the military goes, keeping women off the front
>  lines is just the smart way to do things.
>
> Well, as long as there is unequal military rights, than equal duty
will
> not be expected of women.  So, men should stop complaining about the
> male-only draft sign up.

Front lines aren't the only place where assistance is necessary.

> >
> > >  No longer are women accepting penis standards.
> > >
> > >  the right to divorce?,
> > >
> > > Both women and men have the same right to divorce.
> >
> > And women get preferential treatment.
> >
> No they don't.

Yes, they do.

>  Today divorce is mostly no-fault.  The couple divides
> up the commumity property (in CP states), determines any unjust
> enrichment at the sacrifice of the SAH party, and that's that.

lol  Yeah, and your definiton of "sacrifice" is the problem.  But you
love these semantics games, because it allows you to justify anything
you like.

> >
> > > including the automatic presumption of female custody of
children,
> > >
> There is no automatic presumption, save what the couple themselves
have
> put into action.  Judges tend to favor the maintenence of the child's
> intersts in primary care.
> >
> You've been babbling this for so long that I think you might actually
> believe it.
>
> Not only do I "believe" it, but so do judges.

And judges used to believe keeping blacks "seperate but equal" was
sound law, too.  Your over-reliance on judges indicates a lack of moral
underpinnings.

>
>  There *is* a default position in family courts of woman as
> > primary parent.
> >
> No, there is not.  Here is an example:
>
> http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/childcustody/94mar42.shtml
>
> "For example, in In re Marriage of Fennell, 485 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa Ct.
> App. 1992), the husband received primary physical care of the
parties'
> three school-aged children based largely on the fact that he had been
> the at-home parent for seven years. On appeal by the wife, the Iowa
> Court of Appeals acknowledged that either parent would be a strong
> custodian, but held that the husband's role as primary caretaker
> supported the trial court's award of primary physical custody to him.
> The court explained that under the statutory scheme the primary
> caretaker does not automatically receive primary physical custody,
but
> consideration must be given in any custody case to providing
continuity
> in the children's lives by allowing them to remain with the
primary..."

That's good.  Now, are we seeing some sort of societal trend, or is
this an aberration?  And, this doesn't speak to those situations where
both parents work.

> > >
>  the right to> w:abortion in total suppression of the rights of both
> the father
> > >
> Fathers can abort any fetus in their own bodies; so can mothers.
> >
> > Now you're just being stupid.
> >
> No, bodily rights are ONLY owned by the person whose body we are
> talking about.

No, it's just stupid to claim that any two people have the exact same
right when one person can't be in a particular situation.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100