Maybe People Should Not Look Up To YouTube Atheist

[Zazzy]

Adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women. After all, it's a human problem, as you said, so it'll be better addressed as tackling it as not the absurd "Man bad, women oppressed" mantra.

So I think you're saying that feminism has not been adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women? In which case I disagree. It's done a great deal with both. And although some feminists do take the "man bad, women oppressed" mantra, that doesn't make them them right, or indicative of feminism in general- it makes them loud. So I STILL don't know what you're arguing- it really seems that you're saying that because a few loud angry asshats say stupid shit, feminism is a bad or inadequate tool for improving the lot of women?

I'm sorry, but pointing out that people are prone to something is not an excuse for people engaging in that.

No. But it isn't specific to feminism, or women, and I don't see women generally crying about the responsibilities of being a citizen any more than men do.

And as I've said repeatedly (with you responding with constant straw men) is that I'm not talking about women specifically, but rather about the run of the mill feminist, which obviously can be men.

I can't construct straw men when I don't understand your point, and I don't understand your point because you aren't making it well.

And yes, many awesome feminists are men. Your point?

Given no example? Okay, are you lying. I brought up the 1940s tax evasion thing, but more importantly the situation in Afganistan with women's education and work, which thanks to Islamic law (defended and enthusiasticly accepted by men and women there alike) has some aspects of female priviledge and male responsibility, which make it detrimental for families if women do so.

When did you make this point to me? Do I need to sift back several pages or to another thread to find it? MFM, I don't read every post you make like it's the word of God. If you made this point to someone else, I missed it. Please don't accuse me of lying.

Okay, now you're being nonsensical and dishonest. Where did I say or imply I was belittling feminism? Go on. I specifically said I was taking to task the often simplistic everyday feminist who make simplistic and flawed arguments. No need for you to throw further straw men in there.

Bold really says it. Because THAT'S indicative of the feminists here, or anywhere. But of course, there's nothing condescending or belittling in your phrasing- it would be dishonest of me to think so.

So you haven't actually been following my posts then and decided to critique what you could easily have learned by going back a page?

Nope, haven't been specifically following your posts in a long thread with many respondents. Sorry.

As noted earlier, I was talking of an instance wherein women were in the workforce (because of WW2) and could vote, yet the laws were such (and no apparent feminist outcry against it) that men were still responsible legally for, say, tax evasion if the (working) woman failed to pay her taxes.

So women made these rules, right? If this was unfair, it was because women worked hard for this legislation to screw men, right? Because the feminist movement was so huge in the 40s, right?

I don't know anything about this, although it's interesting, so I'll look it up when I have time. It may be that this was unfair to men, what with all those women earning huge salaries at great jobs in the 40s.

That Taliban stuff was about Afganistan which as I noted earlier had certain aspects of female privilege backfire on women in a bad way, as I detailed a bit above.

Again, I am unsure as to what a few female privileges in an earlier, heavily sexist time have to do with feminists now crying double standard.

Please at least follow your own responses.

Jaysus. Whatever.

When I brought up what I hoped was only an extremist view held by some feminists that reports of rape should assume the legal guilt of the reported man until proven innocent, to which you hand-waivingly responded that people do that with all crimes. Hence my response that you made no sense there.

And again, you say SOME feminists (who?) think that we should assume rapists guilty until proven innocent (in complete disregard for the entire basis of our legal system). How does this reflect badly on ALL feminists, since you apparently know this a loud minority?
SOME men think women need to obey them. They're getting to be a minority. Because of some vocal asshats, are all men bad?

Maybe if you bothered to follow the conversation...

Because what you post is always so riveting. I'll get right on that.

So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.

If you're going to call this "mainstream feminism", you're going to have to provide significant evidence for that.

Do you really not realize I'm talking about in legal proceedings? I've said that constantly, so please at least read the posts in the thread.

I'm sure you've consistently and accurately remembered every post by every person in this thread... except... oh, wait. See your apology below. You didn't do this, either.

Not about trying them in court, I'm talking the (hopefully extremist) position that accused men should be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. It self-evidently makes sense to be wary of nonsense like that.

You have certainly not shown that this is a mainstream position.

I was actually wrong here, sorry 'bout that.

Yes, you were. You are also wrong in assuming that I should be on point with every post you've made in this thread. You certainly know that these threads get long and are tangled with many discussions, so your accusations of lying and dishonesty, when I doubt you've read every word every poster has made in this thread, and can accurately attribute all viewpoints, is clearly a problem. Since you clearly have as much trouble as I do with who said what in this thread, perhaps you should abandon that less than useful tactic.

That's because you repeatedly don't pay attention to context,

Untrue. I have repeatedly not remebered posts you made to someone else pages back.

and seemingly skip words that are necessary to understand what I'm saying.

Funny, since you skipped over whole parts of my last post that didn't fit with your argument.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me; I mind you calling me a liar, dishonest, and a poor reader, when none of these things are true.

Here's what your position honestly looks like to me:

Mainstream feminists think all accused rapists should be presumed guilty by everyone, including the court system. And this proves that feminists want equal rights but don't like the responsibilities of those rights. And stuff happened 70 years ago in the US, and other stuff happened in other countries, and all this a lso proves my point And you're a lying dumbass, Zazzy.

If this isn't what you're saying (and I hope it isn't), then take a breath and try to say it better.

*edited for effed up quote tags