Mocking people is many times used by those that lack an argument or want the opposition to shut up. If you're opposed to her ideas on abortion then challenge her to a debate and show the world that she is wrong. Use her popularity against her instead of just calling her names because she's pretty.im not making them shut up. they can continue to express whatever they want but im not against them being mocked
"...it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,"
Feminism is a crock. The world was a better place when women were women and didn't try to act like men.
Giving women the right to vote was a mistake.
Family law is a joke and for the most part, totally favors women and does nothing to actually strengthen families.
Employment laws that force employers to hire women over other candidates who might be better qualified is a crock.
Basically, we've gone backward since the 1950's and it would be nice to see us go back to a more traditional way of viewing the genders.
Such behavior is antiquated. Yet it's prevalent and women have to deal with it often. I suppose it's like black people still being called nigger by the bumbling redneck racists in the world. Modern day trash spewed from lowly mouths and empty brains.
Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 02-09-15 at 02:01 AM.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
It makes no more sense than keeping any other group of people down...bad for society overall. However when people are used to a certain status quo (is that redundant?), they often resent...sometimes not even recognize...what they see as entitlement being challenged.
Similar to some whites view of equal rights for blacks.
Whereas I can back up every claim I made with facts and data. At the end of the day, voting should be limited to one vote per pair, family law should be rolled back to where it doesn't ENCOURAGE divorce and bad behavior, and employees should be able to hire the most qualified candidate without having to meet arbitrary quotas designed to artificially prop up certain demographics.
(Gonna be fun with mail in votes...whoever picks up the mail that day votes! Or does it have to be the male's signature?)
Yes, I would like to see all that backed up by facts and data.
I've sometimes made women pretty mad at me, but they liked guys far too much for me ever to have turned them into man-haters. And it was not my views on feminism that made them mad.
I don't like women to try to act like men, either. As a normal man, I like women who act like women--i.e. nice people who are pleasant and interesting to be around, like all sorts of girly things that bore me stiff, really like men, have minds of their own--and are not carrying a chip on their shoulder.
Why does the posters' denunciation of laws that force employers to hire women even though male candidates might be better qualified, assuming there are laws which do that, deserve the insults you heaped on his post? Maybe you don't think preferential treatment of women exists. But if you think it does and yet are trying to defend it, you're only proving the OP's point.
There is no question that states continue to favor black applicants in their graduate admissions policies for state schools. I can't prove the same happens with female applicants, or in a private rather than public setting, but what I saw and heard in graduate school and in a couple law offices makes me strongly suspect it.
This poster is hardly the first person to claim that family law in general stacks the deck against men, does not strengthen families, and needs to be reformed. I'd go so far as to say that's pretty widely recognized by people who have studied the matter--including many women.
Last edited by matchlight; 02-09-15 at 03:47 AM.