"Even if I say yes, it doesn't mean I mean yes" - Feminists

[LUClEN]

Pointing out logical fallacies is a valid way of arguing. However, I've found that online most of the people that resort that do so because they can't actually come up with a cogent argument of their own.

I had a great argument

the feminists in the op being illogical is my argument

 

[desertrain10]

Whether or not it's selfish is besides the point

Morals aside one could even argue a legal abortion is no different than wearing a condom...the desired result is the same

Again...

Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself

Pregnancy is life threatening, life altering experience

Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone both men and women have the CAPACITY to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them

When a man can create and carry a child in his own womb, come back to me about equal rights for men

1) Whether it's selfish or not is not besides the point. We're talking about rights that people should have. Women don't have the right to fulfill every selfish desire they may have.

2) Are you kidding me with the comparison you making? You wear condoms to prevent pregnancies. You get abortions to end pregnancies. The distinction between those two things is not a moral one, it's a biological one. In the first case there is no new human life and you're taking measures to stop that from happening. In the second case, you've created an early case of human life and you're destroying it.

3) My wife and I have a car in both of our names. She uses the car a lot more than I do. It has a much bigger affect on her life than it does on mine. That doesn't mean she can just go sell it without consulting me or without my permission. We both engaged in the act of buying it. We both contributed to purchasing it. We both get say in what happens to it regardless of which one of us is more strongly affected. The same goes with pregnancy. Both people consent to having sex. That's the act of "purchase." Both contribute DNA. That's the "money." Both should have some say in whether it's aborted or not. That's the "sell." Maybe the woman should have more say since she's more greatly affected, but the idea that she should be able to make the decision without regard to what the man wants at all is BS especially given that the decision can greatly affect the man's life.

4) You don't get to move the goal line as you see fit. This is what you and the rest of the feminists don't seem to get. You can't define what is a right based on what benefits you. Pregnancy is life altering, but so is bringing the child into the world. Whether or not the baby is born can have a huge effect on every aspect of a man's life so again, it's nonsense for you to act like the woman is the only one that has any real stake in the future of that decision is bullshit. You're so concerned with biology. There are general differences between men and women. Men are generally more physical capable, more logical in their thought processes, and are not subject to things like menstruation or pregnancy which can take women away from work or at the very least detract from her work. Those are all biological, so why is it not ok to screen workers based on those biological facts, but ok to deny rights based on the biology of who carries a child?

Lol

What I was arguing is that someone being a feminist and than saying a woman should have the right legally or otherwise to not have to consult with the father or get his consent regarding whether or not she was to keep a baby IF she chooses not to is not contradictory in nature or hypocritical...you would also have to weigh in other factors to suggest otherwise

I'm all for gender equality...However gender equality does not necessarily require gender neutrality. Fact is pregnancy is a temporary condition unique to women that impacts her health and means to provide for herself. Just as we legally require that buildings provide ramps, pathways and elevators for those bound to wheel chairs so that they are just as capable of reaching their desired destination as their able bodied counterparts ...we should provide protections for pregnant women to equal the playing field

And like I already did a great job of explaining this not an issue of equality anyways considering when it comes carrying a fetus to term the woman bears 98.9% of the burden

Than once the child is born men still have the option of just walking away from their families without much consequence, with the exception of having to pay child support. An argument could be made that child support does force fatherhood upon the reluctant, however it isn't a feminist idea and actually many feminist are fighting to reform the child support system so that men can enjoy a greater amount of sexual freedom. Not to mention paying cs pales in comparison to raising a child

Furthermore I believe if the woman decides have the baby that men should be given a time sensitive, one time opportunity to sign away all their parental rights and financial obligations...if they don't, only then should they have to pay cs... an idea I got from a prominent feminist writer kerrie thornhill

Also like to repeat I would have an abortion without talking to the father first...but on the other hand I don't want to force my morals and values upon another being concerning what she does with her own uterus and the contents of her uterus

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

This thread seems to have turned into an abortion thread.

 

[desertrain10]

@BARON_$AMEDI

It's a false equivalency to suggest that fighting for something women may benefit from automatically comes out of a selfishness

not to mention many of your aforementioned grievances you blame on feminism stem from something else entirely

For instance, your complaint why do women expect men to always foot the bill ...blame that on chivalry. You know the chivalry

some people like to claim feminism killed

When it comes to bearing a child, i feel a man should have some say but only up until a certain point ...it should ultimately be a woman's decision

For instance if a man does not want a baby, we shouldn't be forcing women to have abortions

Nor should we force women to have babies

If we were to force women into these predicaments that wouldn't be fair to women

If you're position is that men should be given a way to sign away their parental rights and obligations at some point in time, in that I can agree with ...but that's only if he can prove was never or never planned on being active in the child's life, I.e. never paid a medical bill, wasn't married to the mother...and is actually a popular position among other feminists from what I've read

 

[desertrain10]

Idk why yall goin bacc n for wit that bish...her arguments havent had a foundation since page 1...clearly omitting logic

expound ...and please without the name calling

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Whether or not it's selfish is besides the point

Morals aside one could even argue a legal abortion is no different than wearing a condom...the desired result is the same

Again...

Yes both men and women contribute to the biology of the fetus, however fact remains the choice to have or not to have a child significantly affects the biology of a woman not the man, therefore she should be able to make that decision for herself

Pregnancy is life threatening, life altering experience

Equal rights consist of things like all genders being able to vote, because everyone both men and women have the CAPACITY to vote, and should be able to vote. By not allowing a certain segment of society to vote, we are discriminating against them

When a man can create and carry a child in his own womb, come back to me about equal rights for men

1) Whether it's selfish or not is not besides the point. We're talking about rights that people should have. Women don't have the right to fulfill every selfish desire they may have.

2) Are you kidding me with the comparison you making? You wear condoms to prevent pregnancies. You get abortions to end pregnancies. The distinction between those two things is not a moral one, it's a biological one. In the first case there is no new human life and you're taking measures to stop that from happening. In the second case, you've created an early case of human life and you're destroying it.

3) My wife and I have a car in both of our names. She uses the car a lot more than I do. It has a much bigger affect on her life than it does on mine. That doesn't mean she can just go sell it without consulting me or without my permission. We both engaged in the act of buying it. We both contributed to purchasing it. We both get say in what happens to it regardless of which one of us is more strongly affected. The same goes with pregnancy. Both people consent to having sex. That's the act of "purchase." Both contribute DNA. That's the "money." Both should have some say in whether it's aborted or not. That's the "sell." Maybe the woman should have more say since she's more greatly affected, but the idea that she should be able to make the decision without regard to what the man wants at all is BS especially given that the decision can greatly affect the man's life.

4) You don't get to move the goal line as you see fit. This is what you and the rest of the feminists don't seem to get. You can't define what is a right based on what benefits you. Pregnancy is life altering, but so is bringing the child into the world. Whether or not the baby is born can have a huge effect on every aspect of a man's life so again, it's nonsense for you to act like the woman is the only one that has any real stake in the future of that decision is bullshit. You're so concerned with biology. There are general differences between men and women. Men are generally more physical capable, more logical in their thought processes, and are not subject to things like menstruation or pregnancy which can take women away from work or at the very least detract from her work. Those are all biological, so why is it not ok to screen workers based on those biological facts, but ok to deny rights based on the biology of who carries a child?

Lol

What I was arguing is that someone being a feminist and than saying a woman should have the right legally or otherwise to not have to consult with the father or get his consent regarding whether or not she was to keep a baby IF she chooses not to is not contradictory in nature or hypocritical...you would also have to weigh in other factors to suggest otherwise

I'm all for gender equality...However gender equality does not necessarily require gender neutrality. Fact is pregnancy is a temporary condition unique to women that impacts her health and means to provide for herself. Just as we legally require that buildings provide ramps, pathways and elevators for those bound to wheel chairs so that they are just as capable of reaching their desired destination as their able bodied counterparts ...we should provide protections for pregnant women to equal the playing field

And like I already did a great job of explaining this not an issue of equality anyways considering when it comes carrying a fetus to term the woman bears 98.9% of the burden

Than once the child is born men still have the option of just walking away from their families without much consequence, with the exception of having to pay child support. An argument could be made that child support does force fatherhood upon the reluctant, however it isn't a feminist idea and actually many feminist are fighting to reform the child support system so that men can enjoy a greater amount of sexual freedom. Not to mention paying cs pales in comparison to raising a child

Furthermore I believe if the woman decides have the baby that men should be given a time sensitive, one time opportunity to sign away all their parental rights and financial obligations...if they don't, only then should they have to pay cs... an idea I got from a prominent feminist writer kerrie thornhill

Also like to repeat I would have an abortion without talking to the father first...but on the other hand I don't want to force my morals and values upon another being concerning what she does with her own uterus and the contents of her uterus

I'm not going to respond to all that. I'm just going to say that you can't claim to be about fairness and think it's ok to treat a man unfairly when it comes to the handling of a child that he helped create. Basically, this is a circumstance where females have the power, and you basically are saying that you don't feel like you have to be fair to the man or even attempt to be fair. So given that men have the power in this country, I'm not sure you feel why we have to be fair or attempt to be. That's the contradiction and hypocrisy. When you're treated unfairly, it's something that needs to be fought. When you're in a position where you can treat the other side unfairly, you have no problem doing it and feel fully justified in it. If you don't see how that make you a hypocrite, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[aka_OG]

^^^^

in here like

 

[PILL_COSBY]

The feminist movement started out as something good and was needed at the time. Now it's just a shell of it's former self. It's still needed now but nowhere near how it was needed in the past in america. In some of these places outside of the U.S where women are basically baby making indentured servants. They are the ones who need this movement. What is this movement about again? Oh yeah, female empowerment and a equal standing with men. I thought a loving father, brothers, loving boyfriends, uncles, and loving husbands was all the empowerment a girl needs. Not from some random female who more than likely didn't have that foundation. The equal standing with men has been blown waaaaay out of proportion to a point where it's laughable. These are all facts!

The modern day feminist movement is mostly filled with entitled sociopathic spoiled brats. It's full of opposing views, contradictions, flip flopping, scorned women, gay women, THOTS, and manipulating set situations to fit their needs.This is the very opposite of the goals of the movement. This is not female empowerment, this is placing women on a undeserved pedestal. The feminist who actually have some sense just sit back and let them run wild. Which makes them guilty by affiliation. So there goes the movement.....

[video=youtube;b4o8fGha5Vo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4o8fGha5Vo[/video]

[video=youtube;WLXoSLEm7OQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXoSLEm7OQ[/video]

 

[LUClEN]

Opinions without evidence are fairly meaningless

basically just feelings

Nothing went over my head

Zombie thinks correlation is causation and that there's some immense inequality in the legal system

yet provides no evidence to show that feminism has a causal relationship with legal precedents or any stats showing the inequality

Longer prison sentences are common knowledge but existed before feminism

You're arguing against him in the exact same way that he's arguing against you. The difference is the evidence for his stance exists in all western countries

Sorry but I have absoluty 0 tolerance for people that wax obtuse about feminism or "feminist theory"(lol).

It's literally the opposite extreme of Nazism and it's just as deadly. It's a cancer to everything it touches

That's still just correlation

And sometimes correlation should be heeded

Absolutely

But as Correlation, not causation

 

[LordZuko]

People.are.under the assumption that first wave feminism was the only truly well intentioned feminism. But they were just as much a bag of hypocritical sour cunts back then as they are today.

You have to study white society and the laws back then to understand feminism

Coveture laws

Divorce proceedings

Domestic violence laws, yes there has never been a time where beating your wife was cool

The temperance movement

The white feather girls

So it's not even close to the picture that feminjsts created but you have to look at the laws and events how shit went down to understand this.

 

[Mister B.]

I'm still waiting on some sort of explanation for this. Guess I'll wait a bit longer, huh?

 

[haute]

Why would you want an explanation for idiotic ramblings

Unless you too were an idiot?

 

[Mister B.]

Why would you want an explanation for idiotic ramblings

Unless you too were an idiot?

Mostly because you idiot FemBots are so quick to defend the bullshit, so defend this....

I'm guessing by your feelings caught, you're admitting that some of you FemBots are hypocritical, just as most of us have been saying all along.

 

[haute]

Um your calling names because I called an idiot an idiot?

But I'm the one with feelings????

Bruh calm down

You'll get pussy some day

Who am I kidding

You won't

Kill yourself

 

[Mister B.]

Awww.....did someone get your laundry-day Granny tent panties ruffled?

Don't get mad at me cause the FemBot logic has been torn down about six times in this thread to the point where you can't even defend their fuckery.

 

[LUClEN]

Domestic violence laws, yes there has never been a time where beating your wife was cool

I was going to refute that but decided to double check

Smh @ the propaganda

Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb. Thus, one constantly runs into assertions like this:

someone might want to be careful using "rule of thumb" in a sarcastic way. my criminal law teacher at UCLA noted that rule of thumb started in England for punishing wives who cheated on their husbands. the rule was that the rod used to beat them could not be thicker than one's thumb(!).

However, Christina Hoff Sommers documents how the link between the phrase

"rule of thumb" and wifebeating is a feminist-inspired myth of recent vintage.

In her book "Who Stole Feminism" (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 203) Sommers writes:

..The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed...

The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. Is is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.

 

[haute]

So me calling you AND feminist a bunch of morons is fembot logic?

Wow you sure told me