life lessons from "legalizing misandry"

[fromaway]

On Essentialism:"Ideological feminists do hold out some hope for men, but only to the extent that men are willing to stop being men. From this it follows that feminists may blame those men who are unwilling to do the right thing. This has become clear in their response to recent developments in medicine. Given the relentless hostility of

Comments

[nyarbaggytep]

A woman's character, feminists insisted, should not be judged by her sexual activities outside marriage. But if women were sexually liberated and therefore indifferent to what anyone thought about their sexual activities outside marriage, why would they need or even want a law to protect them from being embarrassed about these activities?

I think that this really sums up what is going on for this author. If sexual liberation = indifferent to people's opinions, then why I am so offended by this persons? Gah. *rolls eyes*

[fromaway]

It's the worst logic ever, too. I mean, even if you take for granted that it's no big deal to have your personal business paraded around in court, they haven't established relevance, and the way they try to do that is by treating prior legal acts (having consensual sex) as if they were the same as prior criminal acts (committing sexual assault) under the heading of "sexual history." It's weaselling of the worst kind.

I agree

[nyarbaggytep]

It isn't logic, it's bigotry in a poor disguise.

Re: I agree

[fromaway]

And it's so insulting to other men! They write in other contexts that when women try to set up child custody hearings, etc. so as to protect women and children from abusers, they're implying that all or most men are abusers. What do they think they're doing referring to sex crimes in a man's past as his "sexual history"? I mean, every man has a sexual history...

[stinkypetersen]

Even that would not satisfy all women -- as we say, ideological feminists believe that women are incapable of giving their consent to sexual relationships with men and thus refuse to acknowledge that women should have some moral or legal responsibility for their own behaviour -- because a woman might always change her mind after signing.

This just blows my mind. What in the hell?

[fromaway]

Yeah, I don't get it. Is it that radical to state that if your partner says "stop," you stop? I wasn't aware.

My esteemed feminist opinion:

[permavultur]

Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with people?

Re: My esteemed feminist opinion:

[fromaway]

Perhaps they're bitter because their sexual relationships are full of ambivalence?

[ginmar]

He's not capable of being intellectually honest and yet he's going to sum up feminism for us? Sure, dude, whatever. What's this fucker's name again?

[fromaway]

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young. They're both in the religious studies department (WTF?) at McGill.

[ginmar]

Yeah, I saw that. Um, who's your buddy on the other post about this? Fighting back....against women? Sheesh, yeah, that's a burning necessity.

[fromaway]

Yeah, that kind of surprised me. But frankly I hadn't been paying much attention to his posts lately, so I guess I didn't notice him going all MRA.

Christ. I know there are men who get really shafted in divorces, but my post wasn't even about that!

[stardragonca]

Dida biggum mans gettums widdle feewings huwt? Awwwwwwwww!