INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: bodie on April 29, 2011, 01:40:43 PM
-
In today's royal wedding, Kate Middleton decided she will not
'obey' her husband!
What? I don't blame her...seriously, in a modern marriage,
why should only the wife promise to alway's 'obey' her
husband.
The old fashioned, traditional vows are
Both parties say To have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse,
for richer for poorer,
in sickness and in health.
Groom only To love and to cherish, till death us do part.
Bride only To love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part
Just wonder what you think. Me, i am not, never was, never will be wed, so it doesn't
matter to me really but if i absolutely had to get married i would also omit the 'obey.'
Princess Diana did not 'obey' i think the last royal 'obey' was the Queen herself to The Duke
of Edinburgh. The Duchess of York (fergie) obviously did not obey, but she added
a silent one herself 'i promise to fleece thee'
-
Yes. Didn't think people did the obey bit anymore.
-
I thought the Bride and Groom vows went the other way.
Only the Groom says obey.
That's what my wife told me anyway. :autism:
-
:thumbup:
If you want someone to obey you, get a dog.
-
Did the newlywed's vows also include the part about forsaking all others?
-
And what makes the royal wedding such a significant event? :orly:
-
Of course the obey thing is ridiculous and outdated, but then the whole thing is - I mean I saw the vows part afterwards on the news and whatshisname, the pope-reject with the hat... C of E guy... canterbury... he went "and who gives this woman to this man?" or something like that
the entire concept of marriage is inherently sexist as it's about passing on posession of a woman and everythign she "owns" , from her father to her husband. hence the "giving her away" crap. If I was a woman and getting married I'd be a bit weirded out by that kinda thing I think
so yeah the obey stuff is out of date, but so is the whole thing really
-
yes i agree a right load of bollox
Jack - the 'obey' is an option in the Church
of England Ceremony, therefore still can be used
but only rarely is. My Mum chose to obey but that
was over fifty years ago.
I think the civil ceremonies are the more popular
choice and you can write your own vows and
not mention the word 'god' once. Much better
IMO as you can actually really mean what you say.
-
We Americans chose not to obey. :viking: :arrr:
-
I like to see signs of someone knowing their own mind and standing up for that. Good for her for not saying "obey" as I think it is outdated, for anyone. I'm not anti-marriage though even given my own rather awful experience with it. It's about the person it's with and even though people say marriage doesn't change anything, I think it does. Seems to add more permanency to it. Hard to put into words.
-
We Americans chose not to obey. :viking: :arrr:
I don't think I am allowed to choose not to obey :tinfoil:
-
We Americans chose not to obey. :viking: :arrr:
I don't think I am allowed to choose not to obey :tinfoil:
Lit would disagree. :litigious:
-
We Americans chose not to obey. :viking: :arrr:
I don't think I am allowed to choose not to obey :tinfoil:
Lit would disagree. :litigious:
Lit isn't married to my wife :autism:
-
We Americans chose not to obey. :viking: :arrr:
I don't think I am allowed to choose not to obey :tinfoil:
Lit would disagree. :litigious:
Lit isn't married to my wife :autism:
Since your wife isn't a 15-year-old virgin with a love of ATM, he probably wouldn't be interested. :autism:
-
:lol:
-
:plus:
-
:thumbup:
If you want someone to obey you, get a dog.
Isn't that what will's did?
-
Lit would have to have an 'anal passage'
included in his wedding vows
-
Lit would have to have an 'anal passage'
included in his wedding vows
I don't know whether to :zombiefuck: or :laugh: at the ambiguity.
-
:thumbup:
If you want someone to obey you, get a dog.
Isn't that what will's did?
Twas the other way round i hear, did you not see will's little baldy patch on
his head? That's because Kate 'pats' it whenever he retrieves a stick
"good boy"
-
:thumbup:
If you want someone to obey you, get a dog.
Isn't that what will's did?
Twas the other way round i hear, did you not see will's little baldy patch on
his head? That's because Kate 'pats' it whenever he retrieves a stick
"good boy"
Probably. They're both hideous anyway. So tacky. I don't understand why she had to lose weight. I never bought into the whole mother teresa/diana thing either
-
i didn't know she had dieted for the wedding. Hardly fat?
I dislike the royals anyway. Diana was :screwy:
and she lapped up the publicity when it suited her, but then
complained when it didnt.
A survey asked so many girls aged 18-30 if they would want
to be in Kate's shoes, and only 10% said yes. They didn't want
the intrusion. Diana knew what the role was. I think Kate does
seem a bit more 'together' and she is quite brave really, considering
how it ended for Diana
:dunno:JMO
-
Not fat at all.
Did you know diana had dandruff? They found her head and shoulders on the dash board.
I'm quite suprised more girls didn't want to be in Kate's shoes, especially in today's world. Famous for nothing.
Maybe Kate is just an attention seeking whore, or genuinely loves him.
-
Not fat at all.
Did you know diana had dandruff? They found her head and shoulders on the dash board.
I'm quite suprised more girls didn't want to be in Kate's shoes, especially in today's world. Famous for nothing.
Maybe Kate is just an attention seeking whore, or genuinely loves him.
:lol:
-
Not fat at all.
Did you know diana had dandruff? They found her head and shoulders on the dash board.
I'm quite suprised more girls didn't want to be in Kate's shoes, especially in today's world. Famous for nothing.
Maybe Kate is just an attention seeking whore, or genuinely loves him.
Tee he he i actually tittered at that, but on the phone to my mate, she asks 'what did you just larf at'
i told her....phone silence..and then she said 'that's not funny'
-
Not fat at all.
Did you know diana had dandruff? They found her head and shoulders on the dash board.
I'm quite suprised more girls didn't want to be in Kate's shoes, especially in today's world. Famous for nothing.
Maybe Kate is just an attention seeking whore, or genuinely loves him.
Tee he he i actually tittered at that, but on the phone to my mate, she asks 'what did you just larf at'
i told her....phone silence..and then she said 'that's not funny'
You should've just told her.
-
She did tell her.
-
She did tell her.
:indeed: She said so.
-
:lol:
-
:lol:
-
Maybe my diagnosis was right after all. I thought you meant you told her you were laughing at phone silence :'(
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
-
A good wife always sucks her own shit of her husband's cock. :ATM:
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
What King?
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
What King?
The Queen, obviously. Insisting that the Queen should be referred to as one particular gender is cissexist. :autism:
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
What King?
King Dong
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
What King?
The Queen, obviously. Insisting that the Queen should be referred to as one particular gender is cissexist. :autism:
:plus:
edit: damn, I already got you this hour. Well, :lol: at least.
-
A good wife always sucks her own shit of her husband's cock. :ATM:
That reminds me of what my friend told me. His mate got sent down for drug dealing. They wired his car, and the transcripts were read out in court, one of them was a guy in the car with him saying "fucked my bird up the arse last night, and got her to suck the shit of me cock after".
-
:lol:
I know I want to be in her shoes, and I want to kill off Elizabeth and Charles. Then I can just dig my claws into the King~
What King?
The Queen, obviously. Insisting that the Queen should be referred to as one particular gender is cissexist. :autism:
That would be solved easily, just say 'monarch'
or, like most of The Queen's 'subjects' "cunt" is a popular term :zoinks:
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
-
A good wife always sucks her own shit of her husband's cock. :ATM:
That reminds me of what my friend told me. His mate got sent down for drug dealing. They wired his car, and the transcripts were read out in court, one of them was a guy in the car with him saying "fucked my bird up the arse last night, and got her to suck the shit of me cock after".
:bunny:
-
A good wife always sucks her own shit of her husband's cock. :ATM:
That reminds me of what my friend told me. His mate got sent down for drug dealing. They wired his car, and the transcripts were read out in court, one of them was a guy in the car with him saying "fucked my bird up the arse last night, and got her to suck the shit of me cock after".
Nooooo it can't be true, i had a notion it was purely something they did in sweden, where they
fornicate all day long as a national passtime....it can't be spreading eeew
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Even it'd been up yours?
-
No cocks up my arse thanks :autism:
-
A good wife always sucks her own shit of her husband's cock. :ATM:
That reminds me of what my friend told me. His mate got sent down for drug dealing. They wired his car, and the transcripts were read out in court, one of them was a guy in the car with him saying "fucked my bird up the arse last night, and got her to suck the shit of me cock after".
Nooooo it can't be true, i had a notion it was purely something they did in sweden, where they
fornicate all day long as a national passtime....it can't be spreading eeew
There's twisted people in every country. Its funny about theo's obsession with arse fucking. A guy I used to work with kept talking about fucking girls up the arse. Then they found out he'd run up huge bills on his work phone, calling gay sex lines.
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Even it'd been up yours?
I think he wants you to be his new Emlion, Soph. :autism:
Just kiddin, it's pretty obvious he is targeting Bodie
-
If Elizabeth and Charles was dead, Will would be the king. I thought that was obvious...
-
They didn't know I stole his phone :vibe:
-
They didn't know I stole his phone :vibe:
That's not a phone. ;)
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Even it'd been up yours?
I think he wants you to be his new Emlion, Soph. :autism:
Just kiddin, it's pretty obvious he is targeting Bodie
I'm buttering her up. Lol, i'm spoken for anyway. Me and Em were just playing around. She's attractive, but I couldn't deal with a girl with more issues than me. I doubt i'd ever date an aspie again after experiences.
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Weakling :hahaha:
-
I know :emosad:
-
They didn't know I stole his phone :vibe:
That's not a phone. ;)
they both vibrate.
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Weakling :hahaha:
Not everyone gets turned on by crap you spastic.
-
I don't think I would even wanna be with a girl who'd suck a cock that had just been up someone's arse tbh
Weakling :hahaha:
Not everyone gets turned on by crap you spastic.
:poop: :wanker:
-
Should I find you guys some scat porn to post here since you seem to like crap?
-
:vibe: why is it blue anyway?
i never had a blue one :(
-
Should I find you guys some scat porn to post here since you seem to like crap?
Has someone said they liked you? :LOL:
-
Should I find you guys some scat porn to post here since you seem to like crap?
I already have my old hard drive full of it. :eyelash:
-
Nevermind why this :vibe: is blue - why the fuck is THIS :vibrator: blue?
I will admit to being sexually inexperienced, but what the fuck is the blue stuff
and as MLA has pointed out, why is she levitating?
-
:vibrator: look closely, there is a green bit too.... :screwy:
-
Female ejaculation is urineless peeing...
And I guess the green bit is supposed to be a dildo or vibrator.
I agree with blue being a stupid vibrator color, but maybe there's some people who like the color blue...
-
I think that is the :vibe:
which doesn't bother me as much as the blue stuff, as I dunno what colour :vibe: s usually are anyway lol
the strange blue stuff coming out of her vaginanar is ver disconcerting though :M
Having said all this, we could also point out the fact that she is bright pink :P
-
Female ejaculation is urineless peeing...
And I guess the green bit is supposed to be a dildo or vibrator.
I agree with blue being a stupid vibrator color, but maybe there's some people who like the color blue...
Once you go blue...
-
Once you go blue...
...you wonder what the fuck you were thinking and go back to violet
-
when I think of blue I think of city
-
when I think of blue I think of city
Wash your mouth out you cunt. Think of Chelsea :angel:
-
Where the fuck are chelsea in the league, eh? In fact, where the fuck are they in anything? :2thumbsup:
united on set to win the champions league again, and pretty much got the premier league in the bag already :thumbup:
-
Having said all this, we could also point out the fact that she is bright pink :P
Yeah I don't think they were going for realism. :laugh:
-
Having said all this, we could also point out the fact that she is bright pink :P
Yeah I don't think they were going for realism. :laugh:
And if she is levitating, why does the ejaculate stop at her feet. Shouldn't it fall all the way to the "ground"?
-
Where the fuck are chelsea in the league, eh? In fact, where the fuck are they in anything? :2thumbsup:
united on set to win the champions league again, and pretty much got the premier league in the bag already :thumbup:
2nd? If we beat you, and arsenal do :/ it could come down to goal average. We've had a rough season, and don't bully the refs to help us :thumbup:
The only things man u have on their side is the final is in England. The fact is, their team is lacking class. Messi could make a mess of their shoddy defense.
-
ha ha i am a blues fan too
but Birmingham City
and before you say "who the fuck are you"
we beat Arsenal at wembley and hold the cup
:zoinks: :zoinks: :zoinks:
-
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/greenvib3.jpg?t=1304118243)
???
-
ha ha i am a blues fan too
but Birmingham City
and before you say "who the fuck are you"
we beat Arsenal at wembley and hold the cup
:zoinks: :zoinks: :zoinks:
acrinton stanley woulda beat arsenal in the final. They always crumble when it matters :hahaha:
-
ha ha i am a blues fan too
but Birmingham City
and before you say "who the fuck are you"
we beat Arsenal at wembley and hold the cup
:zoinks: :zoinks: :zoinks:
acrinton stanley woulda beat arsenal in the final. They always crumble when it matters :hahaha:
Look it's the only piece of silverware we have ever had - so don't piss all over my fire
actually Arsenal beat us a few times in the past, i remember one time we played em at home
and i was sat behind the goal, their keeper back then was 'seamen' (great name) fucking hands like shovels, real
huge geezer, to cut it short - i touched his bum :zoinks: spent rest of game looking at it :P
i love football - it's a contact sport
-
You know what they say about big hands. Too bad his hands couldn't have saved that lob from ronaldihno. Yeah, they will beat you in the league, cause you're a shit team. But they'll always bottle it when it counts. You touched his bum? You cheeky girl.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMZjv1UZuU
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMZjv1UZuU
How many threads about shitty music Doom metal have you made?
I could say the same about them.
-
I refused to say "obey" in my wedding vows too. I said that there was no point starting out our marriage with a lie.
-
I refused to say "obey" in my wedding vows too. I said that there was no point starting out our marriage with a lie.
:lol: :plus:
-
when I was married, it happened in 5 minutes. I dont really remember what I said. I think it was just "I do".
-
when I was married, it happened in 5 minutes. I dont really remember what I said. I think it was just "I do".
I'm still trying to figure out how you ended up with someone who is so radically different from you.
Although now that I type that out, I suppose the same could be said for me marrying my ex :lol:
-
when I was married, it happened in 5 minutes. I dont really remember what I said. I think it was just "I do".
I'm still trying to figure out how you ended up with someone who is so radically different from you.
Although now that I type that out, I suppose the same could be said for me marrying my ex :lol:
yes we are very different. :laugh: He is a genius, though, and a brilliant artist......But the most vanilla man in the world.
well, we were together almost 5 years :-\
-
when I was married, it happened in 5 minutes. I dont really remember what I said. I think it was just "I do".
I'm still trying to figure out how you ended up with someone who is so radically different from you.
Although now that I type that out, I suppose the same could be said for me marrying my ex :lol:
yes we are very different. :laugh: He is a genius, though, and a brilliant artist......But the most vanilla man in the world.
well, we were together almost 5 years :-\
It's never easy, is it. I was with my ex for 10 years and he's been in my life since I was 14. Even though he is a collosal ass, there were things about him that I loved.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMZjv1UZuU
How many threads about shitty music Doom metal have you made?
I could say the same about them.
Seeing as you're a mass media slore, it would not be any surprise.
-
Pippa Middleton's arse is like a JK Rowling book, sooner or later you know Harry will be in it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMZjv1UZuU
How many threads about shitty music Doom metal have you made?
I could say the same about them.
Doom metal sucks.
(http://ih3.redbubble.net/work.5435039.1.flat,550x550,075,f.laughing-cat.jpg)
-
*snip*
How many threads about shitty music Doom metal have you made?
I could say the same about them.
Doom metal sucks.
*snip*
Keep on drinking the Kool Aid. :orly:
INSERT UNFUNNY CAT PIC HERE!!! LOL!!!
-
*snip*
How many threads about shitty music Doom metal have you made?
I could say the same about them.
Doom metal sucks.
*snip*
Keep on drinking the Kool Aid. :orly:
INSERT UNFUNNY CAT PIC HERE!!! LOL!!!
(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/yep_its_poop.jpg)
-
Pippa Middleton's arse is like a JK Rowling book, sooner or later you know Harry will be in it.
:plus:
-
Seeing as you're a mass media slore, it would not be any surprise.
At least I'm confident enough to be myself instead of desperate to look different like you are Duke. ;)
-
:screwy:
-
NOW OMG who the hell cares!?
-
K, this is old now, you probably seen it. I just came across it and it made me titter so i am sharing :2thumbsup:
The T-Mobile Royal Wedding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug#ws)
-
Of course the obey thing is ridiculous and outdated, but then the whole thing is - I mean I saw the vows part afterwards on the news and whatshisname, the pope-reject with the hat... C of E guy... canterbury... he went "and who gives this woman to this man?" or something like that
the entire concept of marriage is inherently sexist as it's about passing on posession of a woman and everythign she "owns" , from her father to her husband. hence the "giving her away" crap. If I was a woman and getting married I'd be a bit weirded out by that kinda thing I think
so yeah the obey stuff is out of date, but so is the whole thing really
In times gone past the "giving over" was the Father (quite often old) basically giving the duties of protecting the wife and ay kids they have and providing. He was giving to a suitable groom these responsibilities. I do not call that sexist. I call that honourable and decent. It belonged to a different time.
-
:facepalm:
It's still sexist, you fucking idiot
-
:facepalm:
It's still sexist, you fucking idiot
No it isn't, you fucking moron. :explode:
-
So it wasn't sexist that women were viewed as a possession ?
Lol
No wonder your wife divorced you :laugh:
-
So it wasn't sexist that women were viewed as a possession ?
Lol
No wonder your wife divorced you :laugh:
Women were viewed as someone to protect and keep coddled. The women in the society were more valued than the men. The society was geared to oblige men to work and pay for their wife and children and protect them and give them security and stability. They were not obligations that women had. Women had different obligations.
Because you are not born into that time or intimate with that culture you "do not get it". What you read into things is a society of chauvinistic bigots "keeping the women down" and taking away their rights. That is because you are a bit of a dickhead.
It was a different time and both genders with forced roles. It is only when childhood diseases and female death in childbirth has been reduced (thanks I guess to discoveries of some men, ditto contraception pills, etc) that the standard of living and life expectancy has allowed for a change in society.
The need for a Father to give away the bride, the social obligations that were required and necessary back then because of the difficulties faced in society are simply not needed now. It was not sexist then. It was women and children being provided and protected in the best way socially for the level of healthcare, technology and such and whilst it is obsolete now, it was not a bad thing then.
Oh, and go fuck yourself with a cactus Adam ;)
-
(http://images.travelpod.com/users/1life/2.1267137343.roast-dog.jpg)
I wonder what they would serve Rover with? What do you think, Adam?
-
Wow. I can't believe you genuinely think that isn't sexist.
You're actually using the same - "it wasn't sexist - women we just more valued"line you used to suggest it isnt sexist in Iraq :laugh:
And yeah, you're right - sexism is something I "don't get" in that I think it's wrong. Unlike you obviously ;)
-
"sexism" is a form of discrimination where someone is treated unfairly or differently because of their sex. It can apply to men or women.
The old fashioned marriage vows are sexist. They make the woman vow to obey her husband, but not vice versa.
The Royal Family in UK have only just changed their rules of succession to the throne. Rules which make men and women equal.
Prior to this the rules of succession were sexist. Despite the fact that our three most successful and long term monarchs were Queens. Namely Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II
-
bodie, can you please shut up and stay out of this conversation. Women shouldn't be discussing things like this. It's not a nice thing for a woman to be thinking about. I'm only doing this to protect you btw.
-
(http://magazine.motilo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Penelope-Pitstop-and-The-Hooded-Claw.jpg)
will you protect me from the hooded claw?
-
If, by "protecting you", I can justify locking you in my house all day and raping you whenever I feel like it, sure!
I hope you'll be grateful that I'm treating you this way because I value you as a commodity btw
-
*swoon *
Will you excuse me?
I have dishes to do
-
Make me a sandwich while you're in there.
Also, I insist you cover up your face on that avatar. I can maybe tolerate your eyes showing, but that's it. Otherwise you're inciting the terrible sexual thoughts of other men on here.
-
I rebel
:moon:
-
:nerdy:
-
Well now I'm gonna have to stone you to death, bodie
I'm sorry you had to make me do this, but it's for your own good.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwEtn1HPVg4j_bSI_cIgmMafCMvc7YeORc_s8qibVFHeU_yHvb)
-
Bodie is :viking: for rebelling against oppression. :autism:
-
It's not oppression. I just value her and wish to protect her
-
Because you are a good Muslim :nerdy:
-
I hate her because everyone likes her.
-
I promised to love, honor and obey. I just didn't ever intend to obey. PA however does fetch, roll over and give his paw.
-
Of course the obey thing is ridiculous and outdated, but then the whole thing is - I mean I saw the vows part afterwards on the news and whatshisname, the pope-reject with the hat... C of E guy... canterbury... he went "and who gives this woman to this man?" or something like that
the entire concept of marriage is inherently sexist as it's about passing on posession of a woman and everythign she "owns" , from her father to her husband. hence the "giving her away" crap. If I was a woman and getting married I'd be a bit weirded out by that kinda thing I think
so yeah the obey stuff is out of date, but so is the whole thing really
In times gone past the "giving over" was the Father (quite often old) basically giving the duties of protecting the wife and ay kids they have and providing. He was giving to a suitable groom these responsibilities. I do not call that sexist. I call that honourable and decent. It belonged to a different time.
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
-
Don't forget the 'dowry' thing. Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
:zombiefuck:
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
-
It doesn't Jack. But the name of the game here is to pretend to act really sexist and then attach this to a barbaric religious practice and throw the word oppression around. It is a hip new game that the cool kids are all playing. For extra point you get to introduce the word sexism.
-
Don't forget the 'dowry' thing. Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
:zombiefuck:
Actually the dowry was meant to compensate the daughter for her share of the inheritance. It would be maintained separately (ideally) for her use if she became a widow.
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife
THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession
Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.
-
Don't forget the 'dowry' thing. Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
:zombiefuck:
Actually the dowry was meant to compensate the daughter for her share of the inheritance. It would be maintained separately (ideally) for her use if she became a widow.
In India
Dowry is a payment of cash or valuable gifts from the bride’s family to the bridegroom upon marriage.
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife
THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession
Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.
Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.
-
(http://images.travelpod.com/users/1life/2.1267137343.roast-dog.jpg)
I wonder what they would serve Rover with? What do you think, Adam?
Aw fuck. I just saw this :zombiefuck: More fucking pictures of dead animals :thumbdn:
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife
THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession
Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.
OK so you can 100% say for absolute certain that a) It is legal for a man to rape his wife and b) that possession as in slave OR possession as in she is mine and with me so you can't have her and she is my responsibilities.
For is to "be legal for a man to rape his wife" UI want you to show that law because I know that in some cultures rapes are hard to prosecute for because courts do not want to go there.....but that is not to say it is legal. So, big claim, can you back it?
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?
I'm not saying it's barbaric. I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it. Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up.
It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner. Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves? No. But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.
-
Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.
Is what what this discussion is about?
The whole sexism thing is over a few threads, but it's generally been about
1. marriage historically being about passing on a woman from her father to her husband
2. women's position in present-day Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc
And as for the slave thing, of course it's not the same thing. But the whole concept of someone being owned by someone else is. A woman was owned by her father and then by her husband.
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
-
OK so you can 100% say for absolute certain that a) It is legal for a man to rape his wife and b) that possession as in slave OR possession as in she is mine and with me so you can't have her and she is my responsibilities.
For is to "be legal for a man to rape his wife" UI want you to show that law because I know that in some cultures rapes are hard to prosecute for because courts do not want to go there.....but that is not to say it is legal. So, big claim, can you back it?
a. Rape of woman by her wife was not even legally recognised as rape until relatively recently. You would not be prosecuted for raping your wife as it was not even seen as rape.
It is still not a criminal offence in a lot of countries, even today
And yes, there have been cases in the UK where (before the law was changed) men have got away with rape of their wives because of the marital rape exemption.
http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r (http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r)
b. Not sure what you're asking of me here? What do you want evidence for?
Of coures I'm not saying that me referring to my wife as "my" wife is the same as slavery. I'm not even saying the historical status of wives is the same as slavery. I'm saying legally and socially, they were viewed as the property of their husbands. They were people owned by their masters. Of course they weren't sold at auctions, but they were owned by their husbands nonetheless. Not slavery, but ownership of a different kind.
-
Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.
Is what what this discussion is about?
The whole sexism thing is over a few threads, but it's generally been about
1. marriage historically being about passing on a woman from her father to her husband
2. women's position in present-day Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc
And as for the slave thing, of course it's not the same thing. But the whole concept of someone being owned by someone else is. A woman was owned by her father and then by her husband.
I was just commenting about marriage ceremonies and the sense of ownership married couples and parents can experience; you responded with rape and slavery and I wasn't talking about that. Have no argument to what you say on those topics, so I'm not going to discuss that with you.
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?
I'm not saying it's barbaric. I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it. Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up.
It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner. Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves? No. But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.
Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.
As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?
I'm not saying it's barbaric. I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it. Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up.
It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner. Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves? No. But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.
That makes sense, though am still fond of chivalry.
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
Their half.
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
It's called dutch in the US too; never got it either. It seems more commonly expected these days; men don't necessarily always have the larger pay check anymore.
-
Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.
Is what what this discussion is about?
The whole sexism thing is over a few threads, but it's generally been about
1. marriage historically being about passing on a woman from her father to her husband
2. women's position in present-day Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc
And as for the slave thing, of course it's not the same thing. But the whole concept of someone being owned by someone else is. A woman was owned by her father and then by her husband.
I was just commenting about marriage ceremonies and the sense of ownership married couples and parents can experience; you responded with rape and slavery and I wasn't talking about that. Have no argument to what you say on those topics, so I'm not going to discuss that with you.
Oh ok, sorry. I thought you were responding to the whole argument in general.
I agree about people being territorial in a relationship etc, and about people viewing kids as theirs.
-
No worries. :)
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
It's called dutch in the US too; never got it either. It seems more commonly expected these days; men don't necessarily always have the larger pay check anymore.
I think a lot of the time it's whoever asks for the date (if it's a first date or if it's obvious) who pays now.
-
OK so you can 100% say for absolute certain that a) It is legal for a man to rape his wife and b) that possession as in slave OR possession as in she is mine and with me so you can't have her and she is my responsibilities.
For is to "be legal for a man to rape his wife" UI want you to show that law because I know that in some cultures rapes are hard to prosecute for because courts do not want to go there.....but that is not to say it is legal. So, big claim, can you back it?
a. Rape of woman by her wife was not even legally recognised as rape until relatively recently. You would not be prosecuted for raping your wife as it was not even seen as rape.
It is still not a criminal offence in a lot of countries, even today
And yes, there have been cases in the UK where (before the law was changed) men have got away with rape of their wives because of the marital rape exemption.
http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r (http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r)
b. Not sure what you're asking of me here? What do you want evidence for?
Of coures I'm not saying that me referring to my wife as "my" wife is the same as slavery. I'm not even saying the historical status of wives is the same as slavery. I'm saying legally and socially, they were viewed as the property of their husbands. They were people owned by their masters. Of course they weren't sold at auctions, but they were owned by their husbands nonetheless. Not slavery, but ownership of a different kind.
Do marital rape laws discriminate based on the genders of the rapist and victim?
There are still laws on the books that define rape as being a man's attack on a woman. In Scotland, only men can be rapists because rape must be committed with a penis.
That's just a tangent to the main argument, though.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)
-
I have no idea actually.
Rape of men (by women or other men), even today, is still a big problem. I dunno the figures, but men who've been raped often won't come to the police etc (I know that's true of women who've been raped too, but I'm sure it's even more common among male victims). So I'm guessing historically it's been even more of an issue. I doubt many men who'd been sexually assaulted by their wives would have even admitted it back then, so I'm not sure how it would have been treated in law. Will have a look if I can find anything.
-
I have no idea actually.
Rape of men (by women or other men), even today, is still a big problem. I dunno the figures, but men who've been raped often won't come to the police etc (I know that's true of women who've been raped too, but I'm sure it's even more common among male victims). So I'm guessing historically it's been even more of an issue. I doubt many men who'd been sexually assaulted by their wives would have even admitted it back then, so I'm not sure how it would have been treated in law. Will have a look if I can find anything.
:thumbup:
-
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
It's called dutch in the US too; never got it either. It seems more commonly expected these days; men don't necessarily always have the larger pay check anymore.
I think a lot of the time it's whoever asks for the date (if it's a first date or if it's obvious) who pays now.
It's been a long while, and i can't remember :laugh:
-
We must ask the Dutch about the peculiar expression :hyke:
-
Not sure exactly what to search for here. Everything I'm finding seems to be about men raping their wives, present day stuff and the occasional porn link.
I guess I'd have to read through the actual laws, but I'm too knackered to do that now. I might see if I can find the actual referncce to rape in the marital rape exemption. I would guess that it explicitly states raping the woman, but I'm not sure. It would be interesting to know how an incident like that would have been treated in the courts.
-
We must ask the Dutch about the peculiar expression :hyke:
Their expression? Do the Dutch say they're going Dutch? :laugh:
-
One suggestion is that the phrase "going Dutch" originates from the concept of a Dutch door. Previously on farmhouses this consisted of two equal parts (Sullivan 2010)[full citation needed].
The Oxford English Dictionary connects "go Dutch" with "Dutch treat" and other phrases many of which have "an opprobrious or derisive application, largely due to the rivalry and enmity between the English and Dutch in the 17th century," the period of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. Another example is "Dutch courage".[1]
-
:nerdy:
-
No. If it is illegal to rape a woman THEN unless there is specific exclusions, the law applies to wives as well. Whether courts in a backwards way may choose at any point not to enforce that is another matter.
(ie If the judge preceding over the court has been fed the whole no sex outside of marriage thing all their life and suddenly someone is bringing the complaint of rape, he may (wrongly) disbelieve men would do that to wives (in the same way that Queen Victoria when informed of male and female homosexual sex acts, banned homosexuality between men as a perversion but allowed lesbian sex acts on basis she thought it would not happen and could not bring herself to believe it was a real sexual persuasion and the sex practices true) or he may (also wrongly) say "Oh yuck vaginas..I don't want to hear about what goes in and out of vaginas. I am a sexually repressed man who only ever has sex with my wife in missionary position with lights off and covers on and try not to ever see her naked.")
But this is not the same as "being legal to rape wives". Can you show me where it is legal....actually legal. You make this claim a lot so let's not treat it as a given
-
No. If it is illegal to rape a woman THEN unless there is specific exclusions, the law applies to wives as well. Whether courts in a backwards way may choose at any point not to enforce that is another matter.
Uh, I think I showed you that there was a specific exclusion and it had been used.
(ie If the judge preceding over the court has been fed the whole no sex outside of marriage thing all their life and suddenly someone is bringing the complaint of rape, he may (wrongly) disbelieve men would do that to wives (in the same way that Queen Victoria when informed of male and female homosexual sex acts, banned homosexuality between men as a perversion but allowed lesbian sex acts on basis she thought it would not happen and could not bring herself to believe it was a real sexual persuasion and the sex practices true) or he may (also wrongly) say "Oh yuck vaginas..I don't want to hear about what goes in and out of vaginas. I am a sexually repressed man who only ever has sex with my wife in missionary position with lights off and covers on and try not to ever see her naked."
Nice ramble
But this is not the same as "being legal to rape wives. Can you should me where it is legal....actually legal. You make this claim a lot si let's not treat it as a given
I've shown you that it was legal for men to rape their wives.
-
No. If it is illegal to rape a woman THEN unless there is specific exclusions, the law applies to wives as well. Whether courts in a backwards way may choose at any point not to enforce that is another matter.
Uh, I think I showed you that there was a specific exclusion and it had been used.
(ie If the judge preceding over the court has been fed the whole no sex outside of marriage thing all their life and suddenly someone is bringing the complaint of rape, he may (wrongly) disbelieve men would do that to wives (in the same way that Queen Victoria when informed of male and female homosexual sex acts, banned homosexuality between men as a perversion but allowed lesbian sex acts on basis she thought it would not happen and could not bring herself to believe it was a real sexual persuasion and the sex practices true) or he may (also wrongly) say "Oh yuck vaginas..I don't want to hear about what goes in and out of vaginas. I am a sexually repressed man who only ever has sex with my wife in missionary position with lights off and covers on and try not to ever see her naked."
Nice ramble
But this is not the same as "being legal to rape wives. Can you should me where it is legal....actually legal. You make this claim a lot si let's not treat it as a given
I've shown you that it was legal for men to rape their wives.
http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r (http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r)
The crucial case
In Regina v R (1991) the husband had been charged with rape upon his wife and actual bodily harm (ABH). The wife had left to live with her parents but there was no formal separation, although the wife had consulted solicitors. The prosecution claimed that the husband had broken into her parents’ home and raped her.
The defence argued that there was no such offence, because of the marriage exemption. The case was appealed until it reached the House of Lords. The judgment was given by Lord Keith of Kinkel who said that the contortions being performed in the lower courts in order to evade the marital rights exemption demonstrated how absurd the rule was. He said that, the marital rights exemption was a “common law fiction” which had never been a true rule of English law. Kinkel concluded that “the fiction of implied consent has no useful purpose to serve today in the law of rape” R’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, and he was convicted of the rape of his wife.
Yes you have show a judge making a stupid and incorrect and illegal ruling. We get that every other day in the media. That is NOT showing it is legal to rape a wife that is showing an incompetent and probably sexist and malicious judge making a stupid ruling and as I say we see a lot of miscariages of justices. YOu said you have shown where it is "legal to rape a wife" I contest that you have.
-
Annnnnd this thread is infected with unfair bullshit. Lemme help you, Ross.
-
Hurdur m-muh privlij
-
mu-sojiny
-
I <3 The psychopathic liberal agenda.
-
And now, for something completely different. Heroism. The only good "ism".
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTY4ZYDZvQ3meWZ3h-91wujGR5XiSB8S4TSUsW6Y9_-VPb8QM49bw)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjY6mGezdmmF0uAVynXHYk3nBgzgAQabj3GVQb2BrZ-La1EJPG)
(http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/girlwriteswhat2.png)
-
ITT: Targeting any demographic is the work of a sick mind. Quit it. Pic related. Its my reaction when I see this garbage.
(http://2.asset.soup.io/asset/3114/3666_1d1b_720.gif)
-
Damn Rage I did not know you knew any of these BUT yes :)
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?
I'm not saying it's barbaric. I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it. Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up.
It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner. Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves? No. But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.
Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.
As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed
OK, I'm not even sure if we're disagreeing or talking apples and oranges.
Are you saying the tradition wasn't sexist then, or are you saying it's not sexist now?
-
Dessa - Dutch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3EcrRXO50#)
In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.
Do you mean the full bill, or just their half? In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch' - i have no idea why
It's called dutch in the US too; never got it either. It seems more commonly expected these days; men don't necessarily always have the larger pay check anymore.
I think a lot of the time it's whoever asks for the date (if it's a first date or if it's obvious) who pays now.
Really? Oh, the stupid awkward things I am so happy I avoid by not doing dinner dates. Also, I wonder how much this explains men not making the first move even then I can kinda tell they want to. (Answer: It probably only explains the extremely cheap mofos.)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html)
-
Not yet? Typically Britain. Here it has been a crime since 1965.
-
It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories. In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away). That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.
It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.
Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?
I'm not saying it's barbaric. I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it. Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up.
It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner. Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves? No. But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.
Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.
As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed
OK, I'm not even sure if we're disagreeing or talking apples and oranges.
Are you saying the tradition wasn't sexist then, or are you saying it's not sexist now?
Sexist now
-
Damn Rage I did not know you knew any of these BUT yes :)
Yes, I know dude. I know..
I'm just SOOOO sick of dealing with this diseased garbage, its become difficult to respond when I see that state of mind beginning to fester.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html)
I have to take action here. Soaf, what are you trying to prove? Muh privlig? Whats your problem, dude?
-
What are you trying to say? ::)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html)
No. If it is illegal to rape a woman THEN unless there is specific exclusions, the law applies to wives as well. Whether courts in a backwards way may choose at any point not to enforce that is another matter.
Uh, I think I showed you that there was a specific exclusion and it had been used.
(ie If the judge preceding over the court has been fed the whole no sex outside of marriage thing all their life and suddenly someone is bringing the complaint of rape, he may (wrongly) disbelieve men would do that to wives (in the same way that Queen Victoria when informed of male and female homosexual sex acts, banned homosexuality between men as a perversion but allowed lesbian sex acts on basis she thought it would not happen and could not bring herself to believe it was a real sexual persuasion and the sex practices true) or he may (also wrongly) say "Oh yuck vaginas..I don't want to hear about what goes in and out of vaginas. I am a sexually repressed man who only ever has sex with my wife in missionary position with lights off and covers on and try not to ever see her naked."
Nice ramble
But this is not the same as "being legal to rape wives. Can you should me where it is legal....actually legal. You make this claim a lot si let's not treat it as a given
I've shown you that it was legal for men to rape their wives.
http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r (http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r)
The crucial case
In Regina v R (1991) the husband had been charged with rape upon his wife and actual bodily harm (ABH). The wife had left to live with her parents but there was no formal separation, although the wife had consulted solicitors. The prosecution claimed that the husband had broken into her parents’ home and raped her.
The defence argued that there was no such offence, because of the marriage exemption. The case was appealed until it reached the House of Lords. The judgment was given by Lord Keith of Kinkel who said that the contortions being performed in the lower courts in order to evade the marital rights exemption demonstrated how absurd the rule was. He said that, the marital rights exemption was a “common law fiction” which had never been a true rule of English law. Kinkel concluded that “the fiction of implied consent has no useful purpose to serve today in the law of rape” R’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, and he was convicted of the rape of his wife.
Yes you have show a judge making a stupid and incorrect and illegal ruling. We get that every other day in the media. That is NOT showing it is legal to rape a wife that is showing an incompetent and probably sexist and malicious judge making a stupid ruling and as I say we see a lot of miscariages of justices. YOu said you have shown where it is "legal to rape a wife" I contest that you have.
If rape is illegal AND there is no common law exception THEN IF your wife is a woman.....well what I mean to say is, where is it legal to rape your wife Adam and why have you kept asserting that it was when it does not appear to have been?
-
What are you trying to say? ::)
I'm asking a question. WHAT IS THIS ACTUALLY ABOUT OTHER THAN ATTACKING "PENIS PERSONS" AND DEGRADING THEM SO THAT "WOMYN" CAN BE ELEVATED TO POSITIONS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE AND AUTHORITY? I'm asking why bullying people is so fucking important, that they would actually lie and disguise it as social "justice".
Shut the fuck up Schleed. You just want to argue with me, and you would argue about anything. You're a fuckface.
-
How is making martial rape illegal akin to giving privileges to "womyn"?
Call me a fuckface all you want, but try to not like a retard about this. :facepalm2:
-
How is making martial rape illegal akin to giving privileges to "womyn"?
Call me a fuckface all you want, but try to not like a retard about this. :facepalm2:
Its not acceptable and anyone with a brain knows it, asshole. Making an issue out of this is an excuse to bully men, and i'm SICK OF IT. And sure, i'll "try to not like a retard" you fucking retard.
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html)
I have to take action here. Soaf, what are you trying to prove? Muh privlig? Whats your problem, dude?
I was proving to Les that rape within marrriage was VERY recently not seen as a crime in England.
What are *you* trying to prove?
-
Is rape acceptable? No.
Is there any exceptions in law for it? No.
What about common law exceptions for a husband raping a wife? There is actually none A judge ruled on this imaginary rule one time and this was challenge in another court case about 200 years later and it was found it was not actually an exception and that it was a fiction. The judge of the time got it wrong. Why? Who knows. Maybe he was an arsehole.
So here is a better question. If it is illegal now to rape women. If there is no law to saying that there is an exception to rape if she is your wife, then why do you need a law to clarify that raping wives is against the law if there s already a law against raping women?
-
blah blah blah
Les, I have shown you how that "common law exemption" has been used by men who've raped their wife before and got away with it
I think that is surely enough.
You're just playing with technicalities to try and defend your position because you have no other way to
-
Martial rape is never usually taken as seriously, hence the clarification.
-
How is making martial rape illegal akin to giving privileges to "womyn"?
Call me a fuckface all you want, but try to not like a retard about this. :facepalm2:
Its not acceptable and anyone with a brain knows it, asshole. Making an issue out of this is an excuse to bully men, and i'm SICK OF IT. And sure, i'll "try to not like a retard" you fucking retard.
Rage, you do realise you are arguing WITH men over this? I hardly think either me or schleed are looking for excuses to bully men. And as schleed has already said - this is not about giving privileges to anyone. I can't believe you quoted a link to an article about changing the law to recognise marital rape and tried to claim it was about petty privileges
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html)
I have to take action here. Soaf, what are you trying to prove? Muh privlig? Whats your problem, dude?
I was proving to Les that rape within marrriage was VERY recently not seen as a crime in England.
What are *you* trying to prove?
No but you said it was legal, not that it was not legal and despite not being legal one dickhead judge ruled against what was law. Again dickhead judges make very bad calls all the time. A judge not doing his job does not equate to it being legal to rape your wife, does it Adam? Doesn't even make it acceptable.
You have said this a number of times that it was legal to rape your wife. Were you telling the truth or were you misrepresenting the facts a little?
You are also in quoting Common Law exception going to not agree with me that there was no such thing and it is not a fiction right? (I mean the article you sent me to support the position stated it was a fiction) Is that a technicality or not?
-
Marital rape, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. It can be equally, if not more, emotionally and physically damaging than rape by a stranger.
Once widely condoned or ignored by law, spousal rape is now repudiated by international conventions and increasingly criminalized. Still, in many countries, spousal rape either remains legal, or is illegal but widely tolerated, with the laws against it being rarely enforced. Traditional views on marriage which dictate that a woman must be (sexually) submissive to her husband continue to be common in many parts of the world.
In 2006, it was estimated that marital rape could be prosecuted in at least 104 countries (in four of these countries, marital rape could be prosecuted only when the spouses were judicially separated),[1] and since 2006 several other countries have outlawed spousal rape. In many countries it is not clear if marital rape may or may not be prosecuted under ordinary rape laws. Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s.
In some countries, the lack of criminalization of marital rape, coupled with the legal or social acceptance of child marriage, leads to severe forms of child sexual abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape)
-
Rape in marriage was criminalised as recently as 1982 in Scotland and 1991 in England. Before these dates a woman had no legal protection from rape by her husband.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php)
There are still several countries in 2013 who have not criminalised marital rape
In 1997, UNICEF reported that marital rape was explicitly criminalized in only 17 States
Regardless of actual technicalities re "common law", exemptions, legislation etc, the fact is that marital rape WAS NOT prosecuted
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
So we should ignore all instances of REAL sexism, just becuase some extreme feminists accuse men of sexism unjustly?
-
How is making martial rape illegal akin to giving privileges to "womyn"?
Call me a fuckface all you want, but try to not like a retard about this. :facepalm2:
Its not acceptable and anyone with a brain knows it, asshole. Making an issue out of this is an excuse to bully men, and i'm SICK OF IT. And sure, i'll "try to not like a retard" you fucking retard.
Rage, you do realise you are arguing WITH men over this? I hardly think either me or schleed are looking for excuses to bully men. And as schleed has already said - this is not about giving privileges to anyone. I can't believe you quoted a link to an article about changing the law to recognise marital rape and tried to claim it was about petty privileges
It IS! Oh my god, dude! What the fuck is wrong with you people? Nobody who does not belong in prison thinks its okay to rape women(or men)! Nobody in their right fucking mind thinks its okay to walk into a daycare and skullfuck a bunch of babies! Nobody with a scrap of human decency thinks its okay to shoot everyone in a gas station!
The fuck is wrong with you? I propose we pass a law, making it illegal to cum on a turtles face. That's animal cruelty, and really nasty. ALL IN FAVOR? I mean seriously dude, wake up and smell the fucking AGENDA.
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
So we should ignore all instances of REAL sexism, just becuase some extreme feminists accuse men of sexism unjustly?
No, but those assholes get dealt with man. Why do you feel the need to build a fucking army every time some bitch queefs? Jesus Christ.
-
Les this was hardly an isolated example of one asshole judge, was it?
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
That's a whole web of strawmans right there.
Just because I believe martial rape should be made illegal, does not mean I'm brainwashed by some liberal agenda.
If you want a belter of a strawman, I can say you're advocating martial rape.
-
Legislating common fucking sense, promotes and enables BIGGER GOVERNMENT. BIGGER GOVERNMENT = LESS FREEDOM. LESS FREEDOM LEADS TO FACISM, NOT THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA YOU ENVISION. PLEASE, UNFUCK YOURSELF.
-
Rage, rape isn't just the violent stranger-jumps-out-of-a-bush-and-rapes-someone type rape. And, believe me, there are a LOT of dodgy views surrounding rape where the victim knows her rapists etc. Look at the kind of things people say about women who dress sluttily or were drunk at the time. Marital rape is still one of those where attitudes are actually pretty bad. Improving yes, but it's not as simple as you make out with your "everyone who isn't in prison is against rape"
And regarding your second comment, I wasn't aware that I did. In fact I think this is the first argument I've had about sexism on here. And that, only after Les made some pretty strange comments about women in Iraq and then bumped up an old post of mine from about two years ago to disagree with me about traditional marriage. I got the feeling it was an issue, so made a callout, which is continuing.
What is your problem with this?
-
Not everyone has common sense, Rage. You're putting too much faith in humanity.
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
That's a whole web of strawmans right there.
Just because I believe martial rape should be made illegal, does not mean I'm brainwashed by some liberal agenda.
If you want a belter of a strawman, I can say you're advocating martial rape.
Just because I believe martial rape should be made illegal
It does. It means you're in favor of more laws, bigger government, and being a fucking overgrown baby who can't think for himself. Unwitting mouthpiece of the liberal agenda. You are a fucking idiot.
-
Legislating common fucking sense, promotes and enables BIGGER GOVERNMENT. BIGGER GOVERNMENT = LESS FREEDOM. LESS FREEDOM LEADS TO FACISM, NOT THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA YOU ENVISION. PLEASE, UNFUCK YOURSELF.
Oh ok, I get what this is about the. It's about your obsession. For god's sake. Can we please have a discussion like grown ups, without bringing Obama-fascist-communist-nazi-comspiracy theorist shit into it.
-
It should have been. There were laws in place for it. Was it legal to rape as you suggested or were judges just not prosecuting.
I know that there are many situations today where people have laws to protect them BUT if they are trying to take on the Police, or the Government or some rich Business they are similarly ignored. It does not mean that the company or the police acted lawfully in what they got away with.
Similarly in things such as false accusations against men, it has been very hard for men to prove a negative. "I did not rape her" statements can only go so far.
Of course such false statements are damaging not only to men but against actual victims of rape if or when they are found out to be false.
It does not mean that there is laws against making false rape claims. It just means that they are rarely prosecuted and that men faced with such accusations face an uphill battle against credibility
-
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
-
Not everyone has common sense, Rage. You're putting too much faith in humanity.
Nobody is born with common sense, Schleed. You're putting too much faith in a "system", and not enough in hard work and a lot of mistakes.
-
Yet you're saying people should basically rely on common sense, which is MUCH worse since as you said:
Nobody is born with common sense
-
Legislating common fucking sense, promotes and enables BIGGER GOVERNMENT. BIGGER GOVERNMENT = LESS FREEDOM. LESS FREEDOM LEADS TO FACISM, NOT THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA YOU ENVISION. PLEASE, UNFUCK YOURSELF.
Oh ok, I get what this is about the. It's about your obsession. For god's sake. Can we please have a discussion like grown ups, without bringing Obama-fascist-communist-nazi-comspiracy theorist shit into it.
Its not a conspiracy theory, its truth. When did I mention Obama, communism, Nazi Germany, or any "theories" at all. Spoiler: I didn't. You have it in your head that i'm biased, but you're projecting, soaf.
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
Basic laws are enough. Don't kill anyone, don't take things that don't belong to you, etc. By your logic, THIS is our future, Soaf.
(http://www.bluemousemonkey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wall-e-human.jpg)
I will oppose a fucking safety net so detailed that nobody has to think about anything until the day I die. Please, stop being so stupid.
-
Its not a conspiracy theory, its truth. When did I mention Obama, communism, Nazi Germany, or any "theories" at all. Spoiler: I didn't. You have it in your head that i'm biased, but you're projecting, soaf.
NEARLY ALL THE BLOODY TIME?
:LMAO:
-
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
I do not know "logically" how you assessed this from what I said.
What I will say is that if laws are not adhered to and judges then refuse or ignore the laws then it is not that the illegal activities are legal and it is not that there should be more laws. (ie set off fireworks is illegal BUT also setting off firework are illegal in your living room is illegal, murder is illegal BUT it is ALSO illegal to murder someone with a knife). I submit that if rape is illegal, then raping your wife is illegal and rape covers raping your wife. Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
If judges refuse to adhere to the laws they should be replaced by judges that do.
-
Yet you're saying people should basically rely on common sense, which is MUCH worse since as you said:
Nobody is born with common sense
Because they have to learn it, you hopeless piece of garbage. By making a system that details any mistake they could ever make, fucked up thing they could ever pull, or anything they could ever even think of.. it becomes less necessary to think or gain life experience. This is a step towards a "cattle" class of people.
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/339/299/d28.png)
-
Its not a conspiracy theory, its truth. When did I mention Obama, communism, Nazi Germany, or any "theories" at all. Spoiler: I didn't. You have it in your head that i'm biased, but you're projecting, soaf.
NEARLY ALL THE BLOODY TIME?
:LMAO:
Just now, in this thread? No I didn't. Those are problems, yes. But they are obviously problems a fucking retard like you could never understand, even if you were in the immediate vicinity of them.
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
-
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
I do not know "logically" how you assessed this from what I said.
What I will say is that if laws are not adhered to and judges then refuse or ignore the laws then it is not that the illegal activities are legal and it is not that there should be more laws. (ie set off fireworks is illegal BUT also setting off firework are illegal in your living room is illegal, murder is illegal BUT it is ALSO illegal to murder someone with a knife). I submit that if rape is illegal, then raping your wife is illegal and rape covers raping your wife. Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
If judges refuse to adhere to the laws they should be replaced by judges that do.
There were a lot of people posting at once and I hadn't quoted. That "by your logic" post was aimed at Rage.
Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
::)
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
I just have COMMON SENSE enough to see such a thing.
-
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
I do not know "logically" how you assessed this from what I said.
What I will say is that if laws are not adhered to and judges then refuse or ignore the laws then it is not that the illegal activities are legal and it is not that there should be more laws. (ie set off fireworks is illegal BUT also setting off firework are illegal in your living room is illegal, murder is illegal BUT it is ALSO illegal to murder someone with a knife). I submit that if rape is illegal, then raping your wife is illegal and rape covers raping your wife. Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
If judges refuse to adhere to the laws they should be replaced by judges that do.
There were a lot of people posting at once and I hadn't quoted. That "by your logic" post was aimed at Rage.
Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
::)
Your feelings seem more important than reality. ::)
-
By your logic, we should be done with ALL laws then. Are you an anarchist?
I do not know "logically" how you assessed this from what I said.
What I will say is that if laws are not adhered to and judges then refuse or ignore the laws then it is not that the illegal activities are legal and it is not that there should be more laws. (ie set off fireworks is illegal BUT also setting off firework are illegal in your living room is illegal, murder is illegal BUT it is ALSO illegal to murder someone with a knife). I submit that if rape is illegal, then raping your wife is illegal and rape covers raping your wife. Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
If judges refuse to adhere to the laws they should be replaced by judges that do.
There were a lot of people posting at once and I hadn't quoted. That "by your logic" post was aimed at Rage.
Feminists pushing this law just strikes me as silly.
::)
No. I not calling you a Feminist. The reason for a push to make it bot only illegal to rape women but also illegal to rape wives at the same time is Feminist in nature. It begs the question, why?
-
You want to feel good about yourself, solve some problems? You want to do something besides try to dictate how your fellow man should fucking think?
Heres a few REAL problems. Just making suggestions here.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/1005110_10151545241565267_608609311_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/580634_219803568166027_809768216_n.jpg)
Can't stand anything besides supporting your precious women? Okay I got some of those too.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIqay0hiL0qA0Whrax33zBU_zKaVdLFqr1_qPSygGtiZE9qSPq)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwJb4CRG5lisf8aL2zEhiWv615mwE2b7cmQQ1dryQxnFhUN3bg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhOen5pL8EWjD2C86VFZJkx-gBTbuJxNzdra6EJ69Gpc_mEgNpA)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW4ebCOZvZGhaMXO2JTlP8OZwKqLVJlQDfMQ2FJIyG5jhZyPeC)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVXzblNO8w4oNs0qXVBSiWjSjUA9mFx9MaQVCWJFfexdyKiOR_)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpWrlK2__cfXSHa5cG3i-mqlxw2XpZUZUqYtOYSFvy4LP9ZvYvAw)
Wake your spoiled asses up. You want to talk about "privelige"? Sure. Lets have a fucking conversation about that. ;)
-
You want to feel good about yourself, solve some problems? You want to do something besides try to dictate how your fellow man should fucking think?
Heres a few REAL problems. Just making suggestions here.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/1005110_10151545241565267_608609311_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/580634_219803568166027_809768216_n.jpg)
Can't stand anything besides supporting your precious women? Okay I got some of those too.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIqay0hiL0qA0Whrax33zBU_zKaVdLFqr1_qPSygGtiZE9qSPq)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwJb4CRG5lisf8aL2zEhiWv615mwE2b7cmQQ1dryQxnFhUN3bg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhOen5pL8EWjD2C86VFZJkx-gBTbuJxNzdra6EJ69Gpc_mEgNpA)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW4ebCOZvZGhaMXO2JTlP8OZwKqLVJlQDfMQ2FJIyG5jhZyPeC)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVXzblNO8w4oNs0qXVBSiWjSjUA9mFx9MaQVCWJFfexdyKiOR_)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpWrlK2__cfXSHa5cG3i-mqlxw2XpZUZUqYtOYSFvy4LP9ZvYvAw)
Wake your spoiled asses up. You want to talk about "privelige"? Sure. Lets have a fucking conversation about that. ;)
What the fuck Dude. I really used to like you, until you went all paranoid and crazy.
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
I just have COMMON SENSE enough to see such a thing.
I seriously doubt that.
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
I just have COMMON SENSE enough to see such a thing.
I seriously doubt that.
A dumbass like you would.
-
Rage, you are being a fucking idiot here - you do realise this whole argument is in part ABOUT the type of women you've posted above? ie the callout started after Les claimed women weren't oppressed in Iraq etc.
We're not talking about little petty things here. We're talking about rape and violence.
And Les, the reason why they fought for this is because of the exemption. Whatever technicalities you want to argue, that exemption WAS used in court.
Making it explicitly illegal to rape your wife prevents that happening now.
We no longer have to have ridiculous court battles over this. As if a rape case isn't traumatic enough for the victim. Now they don't have to - on top of that - sit thru endless arguments over whether it is technically ok for a husband to rape his wife.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/rvr.htm (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/rvr.htm)
-
Also, I hate to digress but... what is with everyone who disagrees on this topic posting pictures of dead animals? Not the best way to get your point across :zoinks:
-
You want to feel good about yourself, solve some problems? You want to do something besides try to dictate how your fellow man should fucking think?
Heres a few REAL problems. Just making suggestions here.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/1005110_10151545241565267_608609311_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/580634_219803568166027_809768216_n.jpg)
Can't stand anything besides supporting your precious women? Okay I got some of those too.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIqay0hiL0qA0Whrax33zBU_zKaVdLFqr1_qPSygGtiZE9qSPq)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwJb4CRG5lisf8aL2zEhiWv615mwE2b7cmQQ1dryQxnFhUN3bg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhOen5pL8EWjD2C86VFZJkx-gBTbuJxNzdra6EJ69Gpc_mEgNpA)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW4ebCOZvZGhaMXO2JTlP8OZwKqLVJlQDfMQ2FJIyG5jhZyPeC)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVXzblNO8w4oNs0qXVBSiWjSjUA9mFx9MaQVCWJFfexdyKiOR_)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpWrlK2__cfXSHa5cG3i-mqlxw2XpZUZUqYtOYSFvy4LP9ZvYvAw)
Wake your spoiled asses up. You want to talk about "privelige"? Sure. Lets have a fucking conversation about that. ;)
What the fuck Dude. I really used to like you, until you went all paranoid and crazy.
Explain. I am condemning this attitude of campaigning for the legislation of common sense, campaigning for everyone to pay for birth control(then saying its none of anyones business), constantly casting those who disagree as "priveliged" or "oppressors" by providing some examples of real problems.
Problems outside the safe bubble of the priveliged liberal scum. I was pointing out that why Feminists and the like campaign to increase the number of the already ridiculously long list of priveliges they have, elsewhere there is no such luck. Elsewhere there is REAL suffering, REAL violence, REAL rape culture. If you people cared, you would be trying to stop that instead of trying to make everything perfect for yourselves.
-
Also, I hate to digress but... what is with everyone who disagrees on this topic posting pictures of dead animals? Not the best way to get your point across :zoinks:
Until you look past the sociopathic blinders and see what those people are doing to the animals, then understand the point i'm trying to make. That's a fucking PROBLEM.
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
I just have COMMON SENSE enough to see such a thing.
I seriously doubt that.
A dumbass like you would.
Rigggght.
-
Rage, you're contradicting yourself here.
Surely torturing cats and women is wrong by common sense?
Surely it would be a common sense law to see "do not stone women to death"?
And for the last time, I have been arguing AGAINST THIS KIND OF TREATMENT OF WOMEN during this whole debate.
If "don't rape women" is a common sense law, isn't "don't stone themto death" also pretty common sense?
-
Of course a manchild like you would never realize the value of some hard knocks. Dumbass.
Really? Are you psychic?
I just have COMMON SENSE enough to see such a thing.
I seriously doubt that.
A dumbass like you would.
Rigggght.
I can make endless cryptic statements too.
-
You're quite partial to strawman arguments, at least.
-
Also, I hate to digress but... what is with everyone who disagrees on this topic posting pictures of dead animals? Not the best way to get your point across :zoinks:
Until you look past the sociopathic blinders and see what those people are doing to the animals, then understand the point i'm trying to make. That's a fucking PROBLEM.
I saw what they are doing. I think it's fucking disgusting.
How am I a sociopath? I think you'll probably agree that I love cats as much as you do, rage. I despise people who do things like that.
-
Rage, you're contradicting yourself here.
Surely torturing cats and women is wrong by common sense?
Surely it would be a common sense law to see "do not stone women to death"?
And for the last time, I have been arguing AGAINST THIS KIND OF TREATMENT OF WOMEN during this whole debate.
If "don't rape women" is a common sense law, isn't "don't stone themto death" also pretty common sense?
My point was, why spend time on something which would be taken care of by the police anyway, when actual cruelty and evil exists elsewhere? My point is, you live in a first world country, as such people know raping is wrong. Stop being so stubborn and just admit that you want to dictate what people think, and how they should live.
-
Also, I hate to digress but... what is with everyone who disagrees on this topic posting pictures of dead animals? Not the best way to get your point across :zoinks:
Until you look past the sociopathic blinders and see what those people are doing to the animals, then understand the point i'm trying to make. That's a fucking PROBLEM.
I saw what they are doing. I think it's fucking disgusting.
How am I a sociopath? I think you'll probably agree that I love cats as much as you do, rage. I despise people who do things like that.
Good, then help me fight it.
-
You're quite partial to strawman arguments, at least.
I could say the same about you. In fact, most of your "arguments" consist of childlike insults(ONLY), one liners, and trying to appear as clever as possible. You're a fag.
-
Projecting much?
-
Rage, you're contradicting yourself here.
Surely torturing cats and women is wrong by common sense?
Surely it would be a common sense law to see "do not stone women to death"?
And for the last time, I have been arguing AGAINST THIS KIND OF TREATMENT OF WOMEN during this whole debate.
If "don't rape women" is a common sense law, isn't "don't stone themto death" also pretty common sense?
My point was, why spend time on something which would be taken care of by the police anyway, when actual cruelty and evil exists elsewhere? My point is, you live in a first world country, as such people know raping is wrong. Stop being so stubborn and just admit that you want to dictate what people think, and how they should live.
We're not talking about NOW though, are we? The whole thing about marital rape was from over 20 years ago, and we're only still discussing it becuase Les going on and on like a dog with a bone.
What *I* was initially arguing about what women in Iraq etc (there you go - just what you said we should be focusing on) and the historical definition of marriage. So shoot me for that last one. I've spent years studying history and it's one of my main interests. So I will discuss it if it comes up.
If you want to know who to blame for this debate getting stuck in the mud, try Les. Not me. My main issue (and bodie's too) was women being persecuted in the middle east.
-
Projecting much?
No. At times I have to give essays in an attempt to make one understand my point of view, only to be rewarded with a fucking fart song.
Yes, dude. You're a fag. Plain and simple.
-
That story with Linda, the Swedish girl, is actually true. And the media covered it up. Only the Nazis told the truth :facepalm2:
Våldtäktsoffer utsatt för utpressning och hot av massmedia (http://www.info14.com/2005-12-02-valdtaktsoffer_utsatt_for_utpressning_och_hot_av_massmedia.html)
It says: "Rape victim exposed to blackmailing and threats from the massmedia" and that is in principle also true :thumbdn:
-
Well. Alright then Soaf. All else aside:
My main issue (and bodie's too) was women being persecuted in the middle east.
I am behind that 100%. They are being persecuted there. They're having their faces burned off, clits removed, etc. Its even worse in some parts of Africa. Hell, kids get their hands cut off for behaving badly in Africa. No lie.
I am extremely passionate about this, and it seriously pisses me off when I see anything even resembling third wave first world feminism with things like that going on. All I can thing is "HOW DARE YOU, YOU SPOILED SNOT?"
Perhaps you can understand.
-
That story with Linda, the Swedish girl, is actually true. And the media covered it up. Only the Nazis told the truth :facepalm2:
Våldtäktsoffer utsatt för utpressning och hot av massmedia (http://www.info14.com/2005-12-02-valdtaktsoffer_utsatt_for_utpressning_och_hot_av_massmedia.html)
It says: "Rape victim exposed to blackmailing and threats from the massmedia" and that is in principle also true :thumbdn:
Agreed. Lamestream media is about as honest useful as a piss stream.
-
Yet you reference stuff from Fox News?
-
Yet you reference stuff from Fox News?
The rare credible bits, yes. Dude, you might as well just admit that you're homosex, and you want to suck my cock. Go ahead.
-
What constitutes the "credible bits"? Your cognitive bias?
-
What constitutes the "credible bits"? Your cognitive bias?
No, because I can find things related to it in legislation I've been following, the GALE opposing viewpoints in context database, or (yep here it comes) COMMON SENSE.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfAI-lokaUiQqyR9GH_J-Ts_U1CjP8cGjKO42Hmr4BcZCcs6le)
-
I believe in whatever fits with my views.
Fixed it for you.
I find it funny that you tell people to not listen to the "lamestream" media, yet you follow it yourself for those you know... "credible bits".
-
I believe in whatever fits with my views.
Fixed it for you.
I find it funny that you tell people to not listen to the "lamestream" media, yet you follow it yourself for those you know... "credible bits".
You're just desperate, dude. I just told you that I only find small parts of it which fit things that I've found on government and academic sites. Keep trying, maybe you'll hit something. Someday.
(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1311609905142.jpg)
-
Or pointing out your obvious contradictions.
*cues another post on how I'm a faggot, alone with some irrelevant photo*
-
Or pointing out your obvious contradictions.
*cues another post on how I'm a faggot, alone with some irrelevant photo*
Back up those claims. I challenge you, son. Nut up, or shut the fuck up.
-
I already did, ie. telling people to not listen to the mainstream media, yet you use it yourself.
go suk a dick fagget
(http://nerdygaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cross-eyes-or-Strabismus-images.search-yahoo..jpg)
-
I already did, ie. telling people to not listen to the mainstream media, yet you use it yourself.
go suk a dick fagget
(http://nerdygaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cross-eyes-or-Strabismus-images.search-yahoo..jpg)
telling people to not listen to the mainstream media
No you didn't. Again, you are wrong because you're too stupid to read. I didn't tell people not to listen to or use the mainstream media. I complained about its lack of valid reporting.
(http://www.thetshirtgame.com/hookedonphonics.gif)
Looking for an argument with someone just because you don't like them usually ends in a loss for you, asshole. By the way, you're a faggot. ;)
-
One more stab, just for spite.
Feminist makes Compelling Case for Feminism (LOL) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gB0XweIE5s#ws)
-
The inequality of equality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVaHRc7GLTw#ws)
-
I don't think this is a specifically feminist issue. Rape is wrong, no matter what viewpoint you have.
And sorry, I don't subscribe to a lot of what is considered "feminism" myself. There is sexism against women, but I speculate the issue is far more complicated than "patriarchy". I would consider myself "anti-sexist" or "gender egalitarianist" if you want a mouthy description.
However, a lot of feminists you see on those examples are rather extreme. The ones I know happily support issues regarding sexism towards men too.
-
Feminism, in its simplest form is about equality. So any normal feminist would be against sexism whether it's directed towards men OR women. Of coiurse you get asshole feminists who are very anti-men and see everything as sexist. But those are extremists.
Also, while I see your point about there being much worse stuff going on elsewhere (and I feel very strongly about that - particularly sexual minorities and children's rights, ie child marriage and FGM), I don't think that is ever reason to not both fighting the smaller problems in your own country
For example I often see people saying to gay people "don't complain - they'd kill you in Jamaica" or whatever. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for gay people to be able to get married, just becuase there's much worse issues for gay people elsewhere in the world
And the same goes for sexism. Sure, women in the UK and the US generally don't experience shit anyway NEAR as bad as women in other countries, but it would be lazy and inexcusable to settle for "almost equal but not quite" just because it's even less unequal elsewhere.
Legally, of course, women are generally equal in the West now. But there's still some social attitudes that, yes, need changing. You can complain that that means I'm trying to force my views on others. But I don't care really. I think racist and homophobic attitudes need changing as well. That's just how it is. You (not you personally) have the right to hold sexist or racist views. But I will fight for society to move away from those views.
-
:agreed:
-
Feminism, in its simplest form is about equality. So any normal feminist would be against sexism whether it's directed towards men OR women. Of coiurse you get asshole feminists who are very anti-men and see everything as sexist. But those are extremists.
Also, while I see your point about there being much worse stuff going on elsewhere (and I feel very strongly about that - particularly sexual minorities and children's rights, ie child marriage and FGM), I don't think that is ever reason to not both fighting the smaller problems in your own country
For example I often see people saying to gay people "don't complain - they'd kill you in Jamaica" or whatever. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for gay people to be able to get married, just becuase there's much worse issues for gay people elsewhere in the world
And the same goes for sexism. Sure, women in the UK and the US generally don't experience shit anyway NEAR as bad as women in other countries, but it would be lazy and inexcusable to settle for "almost equal but not quite" just because it's even less unequal elsewhere.
Legally, of course, women are generally equal in the West now. But there's still some social attitudes that, yes, need changing. You can complain that that means I'm trying to force my views on others. But I don't care really. I think racist and homophobic attitudes need changing as well. That's just how it is. You (not you personally) have the right to hold sexist or racist views. But I will fight for society to move away from those views.
Exactly how I feel, but said better than I could have :2thumbsup:
-
How is making martial rape illegal akin to giving privileges to "womyn"?
Call me a fuckface all you want, but try to not like a retard about this. :facepalm2:
Its not acceptable and anyone with a brain knows it, asshole. Making an issue out of this is an excuse to bully men, and i'm SICK OF IT. And sure, i'll "try to not like a retard" you fucking retard.
It's redefining rape legally that makes it possible to press charges in clear cases of rape, that were not seen as rape before.
There were countries where only penetration with a penis was seen as rape. So, a boy who got raped with a broken bottle could press charges for assault, but, not for rape.
Redefining definitions, and making them more logical is not only done for women. Men are raped too, and men can be raped by women.
-
Not everyone has common sense, Rage. You're putting too much faith in humanity.
:indeed:
That was what I was about to post.
-
But you are acting a retard. :zoinks:
How does it bully men? It's not adding privileges, it's making something as horrible as rape in marriage illegal. To me, that actually seems fair.
Its contributing to the turd wave feminism brainwashing. The liberal agenda, and a brave new world of stupidity. Fuck off, shithead.
That's a whole web of strawmans right there.
Just because I believe martial rape should be made illegal, does not mean I'm brainwashed by some liberal agenda.
If you want a belter of a strawman, I can say you're advocating martial rape.
Just because I believe martial rape should be made illegal
It does. It means you're in favor of more laws, bigger government, and being a fucking overgrown baby who can't think for himself. Unwitting mouthpiece of the liberal agenda. You are a fucking idiot.
It will make the laws easier if you don't define rape anymore as something done against the virtue of someone. And if you take the details of unwanted penetration by a penis away from the definition of rape. The history of rape legislation is not as simple as it can be. So, redefining and finetuning can make laws on rape to be less than they are now. Less appeals on getting away with some open ends. It could make the system work cleaner and smaller.
-
Rage, you're contradicting yourself here.
Surely torturing cats and women is wrong by common sense?
Surely it would be a common sense law to see "do not stone women to death"?
And for the last time, I have been arguing AGAINST THIS KIND OF TREATMENT OF WOMEN during this whole debate.
If "don't rape women" is a common sense law, isn't "don't stone themto death" also pretty common sense?
My point was, why spend time on something which would be taken care of by the police anyway, when actual cruelty and evil exists elsewhere? My point is, you live in a first world country, as such people know raping is wrong. Stop being so stubborn and just admit that you want to dictate what people think, and how they should live.
We're not talking about NOW though, are we? The whole thing about marital rape was from over 20 years ago, and we're only still discussing it becuase Les going on and on like a dog with a bone.
What *I* was initially arguing about what women in Iraq etc (there you go - just what you said we should be focusing on) and the historical definition of marriage. So shoot me for that last one. I've spent years studying history and it's one of my main interests. So I will discuss it if it comes up.
If you want to know who to blame for this debate getting stuck in the mud, try Les. Not me. My main issue (and bodie's too) was women being persecuted in the middle east.
In Bulgaria rape within marriage is not a crime.
If the rapist manages to marry the victim before trial, there will be no penalty. This is also true is the victim is under 14 years of age.
Oh, this is what I could find on rape of women, by men, gay marriage is not done in Bulgaria yet.
-
In Sweden before 1965 you could only report a rape to the cops within 6 months after you had been raped. Rape within the marriage was legal.
-
In the Netherlands legislation on rape within marriage was changed in 1991. Before that, not the rapist, but the raped spouse was the problem, because of not willing to fulfill marital duties.
In 1991 the legislation on rape also was made gender neutral.
-
The legal side of rape is still an issue even today.
Men as victims of rape, non-penetrative rape, non-violent rape, rape within relationships and attempted rape of transgender people* - all are socially and legally subject seen as a grey area by many people. Or even as "not proper rape" at all.
It's not as simple as it should be. Of course, rape is rape, regardless of who does it and to whom. But that's not how people see it, and that's not always how the law sees it. So its still something that needs addressing. The legal aspect of marital rape was one of those.
*(eg the recent case in Sweden I think it was? - thrown out because the rapist hadn't realised his victim was transgender until he ripped her clothes off and then changed his mind... so got away with it initially)
-
This is pretty long and I don't expect you all to read it all (I haven't read the entire thing), but here's some info on marital rape on the uk BEFORE THE 1991 CHANGE OF LAW that Les has such a problem with.
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/kate_painter/wiferape.pdf (http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/kate_painter/wiferape.pdf)
-
The legal side of rape is still an issue even today.
Men as victims of rape, non-penetrative rape, non-violent rape, rape within relationships and attempted rape of transgender people* - all are socially and legally subject seen as a grey area by many people. Or even as "not proper rape" at all.
It's not as simple as it should be. Of course, rape is rape, regardless of who does it and to whom. But that's not how people see it, and that's not always how the law sees it. So its still something that needs addressing. The legal aspect of marital rape was one of those.
*(eg the recent case in Sweden I think it was? - thrown out because the rapist hadn't realised his victim was transgender until he ripped her clothes off and then changed his mind... so got away with it initially)
I remember that case. Checked it now. He got 1.5 year in the court of appeals.
-
Feminism, in its simplest form is about equality. So any normal feminist would be against sexism whether it's directed towards men OR women. Of coiurse you get asshole feminists who are very anti-men and see everything as sexist. But those are extremists.
Also, while I see your point about there being much worse stuff going on elsewhere (and I feel very strongly about that - particularly sexual minorities and children's rights, ie child marriage and FGM), I don't think that is ever reason to not both fighting the smaller problems in your own country
For example I often see people saying to gay people "don't complain - they'd kill you in Jamaica" or whatever. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for gay people to be able to get married, just becuase there's much worse issues for gay people elsewhere in the world
And the same goes for sexism. Sure, women in the UK and the US generally don't experience shit anyway NEAR as bad as women in other countries, but it would be lazy and inexcusable to settle for "almost equal but not quite" just because it's even less unequal elsewhere.
Legally, of course, women are generally equal in the West now. But there's still some social attitudes that, yes, need changing. You can complain that that means I'm trying to force my views on others. But I don't care really. I think racist and homophobic attitudes need changing as well. That's just how it is. You (not you personally) have the right to hold sexist or racist views. But I will fight for society to move away from those views.
Most of what you write here is sensible and nothing to be argued against BUT Feminism is not about equality. It is about promoting women.Nothing more or less
-
No. It's about sex equality. The fact that that effectively means promoting equality for WOMEN, simply reflects the fact that it's the women who have been suffering from inequalities.
It's not about pushing women above men. Just like gay pride is not about gay being better than straight.
Feminism is only "about promoting women" in that it's clearly the women who've been in need of equality. Promoting men would have been kind of silly. It is not about "promoting" them ABOVE men. It is about equality, whether you like it or not
-
The term "feminism" came about because it started at a time when women had huge inequalities. Made sense really.
Personally I think the word is getting a bit out of date nowadays, especially since feminism applies for general gender equality. It's what catches some people off and make them think its "female orientated", when for the large part it really isn't.
Don't tell that to the extremists, though. Then again, feminists can't even agree with each other half the time.
-
Lets step into the family law courts and see how "equal" things are for males and then you can tell me that it is or was about equality
-
I don't know any feminists. My husband told me to keep away from them, they are bad. I don't fill my head with worries like that, not when I have to select a pretty dress to wear for when he comes home. I am so thinking 'pink'
-
Feminism, in its simplest form is about equality. So any normal feminist would be against sexism whether it's directed towards men OR women. Of coiurse you get asshole feminists who are very anti-men and see everything as sexist. But those are extremists.
Also, while I see your point about there being much worse stuff going on elsewhere (and I feel very strongly about that - particularly sexual minorities and children's rights, ie child marriage and FGM), I don't think that is ever reason to not both fighting the smaller problems in your own country
For example I often see people saying to gay people "don't complain - they'd kill you in Jamaica" or whatever. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for gay people to be able to get married, just becuase there's much worse issues for gay people elsewhere in the world
And the same goes for sexism. Sure, women in the UK and the US generally don't experience shit anyway NEAR as bad as women in other countries, but it would be lazy and inexcusable to settle for "almost equal but not quite" just because it's even less unequal elsewhere.
Legally, of course, women are generally equal in the West now. But there's still some social attitudes that, yes, need changing. You can complain that that means I'm trying to force my views on others. But I don't care really. I think racist and homophobic attitudes need changing as well. That's just how it is. You (not you personally) have the right to hold sexist or racist views. But I will fight for society to move away from those views.
I don't think that is ever reason to not both fighting the smaller problems in your own country
I do. I REALLY, REALLY do. In fact what is normally considered fighting "smaller examples" here in America is actually trying to establish a matriarchy, and make women better than men. They do not want equality here, dude. There is a VERY well established feminist organization here, with its tentacles in corporations, politics, and most universities. You don't get it.
No. It's about sex equality. The fact that that effectively means promoting equality for WOMEN, simply reflects the fact that it's the women who have been suffering from inequalities.
It's not about pushing women above men. Just like gay pride is not about gay being better than straight.
Feminism is only "about promoting women" in that it's clearly the women who've been in need of equality. Promoting men would have been kind of silly. It is not about "promoting" them ABOVE men. It is about equality, whether you like it or not
Personally I think the word is getting a bit out of date nowadays, especially since feminism applies for general gender equality. It's what catches some people off and make them think its "female orientated", when for the large part it really isn't
Wrong! Check out what American Feminists have to say about men in the Feminist movement. This isn't just some asshole's opinion. This is the consensus of leaders of their community. Some of them MALE!
Female feminists argue that men cannot be feminists simply because they are not women, cannot understand women's issues, and are collectively members of the class of oppressors against women. They claim that men are granted inherent privileges that prevent them from identifying with feminist struggles and thus make it impossible for them to identify with feminists.[26]
One idea supporting men's inclusion as 'feminists' is that excluding men from the feminist movement labels it as solely a female task, which could be argued to be sexist in itself. They[who?] assert that until men share equal responsibility for struggling to end sexism against women, the feminist movement will reflect the very sexist contradiction it wishes to eradicate.[23] The term 'profeminist' occupies the middle ground in this semantic debate, because it offers a degree of closeness to feminism without using the term itself. Also, the prefix 'pro' characterizes the term as more proactive and positive. There has been some debate regarding the use of the hyphen (identifying as a 'pro-feminist' as opposed to a profeminist) claiming that it distances the term too much from feminism proper.[22]
In other words, yeah we'll include you.. you bald ape. But you can't be called the same thing as us. That would debase our movement with penis. EQUALITY FOR ALL YAY
Most of what you write here is sensible and nothing to be argued against BUT Feminism is not about equality. It is about promoting women.Nothing more or less
Al is right, guys. You may not like him, but he's right. Feminism was ONCE about equality for all. Now its about PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT for "womyn", and putting all the penis persons in cages. You are reading this, and thinking "Oh geez here he goes again, he always likes to make things so extreme!" No, I tell you the truth without dousing it in sugar.
Lemme tell it like this. I'm talking about the actual Feminist "movement". I'm not talking about the few folks who want to make sure all girls AND guys get a fair shake. Individually. Without the massive political/education devouring industry "feminism" has become. Many of the people i'm talking about learn this shit from school. They wind up getting duped into taking a stupid gender studies class, and being the young impressionable dorks they are, buy into it. Many even get "feminist" careers. I'll provide some examples of these brainwashing assholes.
In this video, notice the eager young woman asking about "chivalrous" behavior and "how to react to it" of this ACCOMPLISHED GENDER STUDIES FEMINIST PROFESSOR.
Chivalry and Feminists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=medVCq8eWPk#)
And notice she goes into a non-committal spiel without actually explaining anything, but it sounds so fucking intelligent and sensitive. She still drops hints that men are inherently bad, implying that men are sending the message that they will "physically overpower you" when they open doors for women, and even mentions male children she's worked with. She markedly brings up children, trying to play to the instinct to protect them, and then brings up her book "THE WAR ON BOYS", and talks about brainwashing them too but leaves out the details.
She concludes by confirming that shes "not as bad as the extreme feminists" and talks about their merciless sensitivity workshops. Yeah I can tell she studied psychology.
HEY! TEACHER! LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!
I don't think you guys understand this "movement" aspect of it. I believe I spoke with Bodie about this once because she knew about it already. She tried to join the "movement" apparently. This isn't a quote, can't remember exactly what she said, but she said something like "They're all money hungry <bunch of insults>".
The term "feminism" came about because it started at a time when women had huge inequalities. Made sense really.
Exactly. It once stood for elevating women and combatting the privileges men had. And it actually helped, since that actually was how things worked then. IT isn't now. Feminists now STILL stand for that, even though rights are pretty much equal. Nothing on the average is really stopping a woman from being a corporation CEO, or an astronaut, or what the fuck ever. No, the issues they attack are EQUAL PAY(although if they didn't quit mid career to raise children this would be a non-issue), or PAY FOR MY CASUAL SEX BUT ALSO STAY OUT OF MY WOMB(talking about paying for birth control, they can shut the fuck up, i'm not going to. I agree their fucking habits are none of my business.)
Feminists want special treatment, and even more privilege than they already have. Al is right about that.
I have not even mentioned the RACIST elements to the current feminist movement, aside from their hyperagressive sexism towards men. They also believe wholeheartedly in white guilt, and have a very special place reserved in hell, just for white males.
-
The worst thing is they have conned people into thinking that if they say "I am a Feminist because I believe in equality for both men and women" that they are Feminists and supporting Feminist's noble struggle.
They aren't, they are just giving the movement a credibility it does not deserve.
It is also interesting so many things like the skewed figures they base domestic violence on and how they use this to drive public imagery.
Violence against women campaigns never actually touch on the violence against men for some reason? :P
The pay gap is a big one
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1#1-men-are-far-more-likely-to-choose-careers-that-are-more-dangerous-so-they-naturally-pay-more-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1#1-men-are-far-more-likely-to-choose-careers-that-are-more-dangerous-so-they-naturally-pay-more-1)
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/girls-more-forgiving-boys-unlearn-education-report-finds-20120727-22ymu.html (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/girls-more-forgiving-boys-unlearn-education-report-finds-20120727-22ymu.html)
Notice too the "they may never earn as much"
It is all bullshit.
-
They earn just as much if they are willing to take the same jobs that men do and are career oriented, instead of family oriented.
-
I figured this would be related to this thread. :)
How Liberals Argue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU#)
-
In Europe we don't call people like her "liberals", though, even if some of them claim to be. We call them "politically correct", "pro-islamists" etc.
-
In Europe we don't call people like her "liberals", though, even if some of them claim to be. We call them "politically correct", "pro-islamists" etc.
We've more or less been cowed out of calling them liberals on the whole too. Now they're mostly called "progressives". Yeah, because their brilliant ideas are soooooo progressive. (progressive into facism and SHIT)
-
Once again, I feel this is apt to post in regards to Rage:
(http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/600x/40438031.jpg)
-
This is for Rage. Obama is going to visit Sweden. And - Swedish physician reports Obama for warcrimes (http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/aug-9-doctor-reports-obama-police-war-crimes-1962078/)
No that anything will happen, though.
-
Once again, I feel this is apt to post in regards to Rage:
(http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/600x/40438031.jpg)
Fuck you, bitch. You're even worse than schleed, coming up in my kitchen with your weak ass, "feelings" and schoolyard pokes.
You got a problem? Say something besides a single picture, or say something with a little substance. I thought you were supposed to be educated. You want to defend the liberal facists, or conservative pillowbiters? You want to defend Feminism, in all its CORPORATE glory? Make a callout. Come at me, sis.
-
This is for Rage. Obama is going to visit Sweden. And - Swedish physician reports Obama for warcrimes (http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/aug-9-doctor-reports-obama-police-war-crimes-1962078/)
No that anything will happen, though.
Its the thought that counts. I know I've got brothers across the pond, and that means something to me.
-
Once again, I feel this is apt to post in regards to Rage:
(http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/600x/40438031.jpg)
A lot of what Rage says is absolutely and brutally true.
What it is not is socially accepted, PC or supported in general studies (because they are things that people do not wish to investigate or support and when they do, it is dismissed reframed, downplayed and misquoted