Any anti-feminists? Any feminists?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And I never said it should be that way (referring to is-ought fallacy), but it just is.

You're defending your position by referring to the way things are in that post -- so yes, you are. If you need help looking that fallacy up, let me know.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, I wonder why non of those women cried like the woman who was raped by Bill Clinton. Not a single one.

Oh, hey, tu quoque. Can you explain to me again how Bill Clinton's behavior justifies Trump's behavior?

Just because a lot of women said it doesn't mean one of them has to be right.
"There're so many religions so one of them has to be right?"

Inapt comparison. Rapes happen. Gods don't. Trai moar.

Is it not a coincidence that just as the presidential debate starts leaning on his side these women come out to say this?
"Oh, of course not. This was just the best time to get the news out."

Of course timing is everything in politics. What does that say about the veracity of the reports?

That's right: nothing.

Hey, while we're on the subject, when's the last time you were raped? Because that's something that happens to women every goddamned day, and their right to equal treatment under the law seems often seems to get glossed over in processing their reports.

[ScienceAf]

1) Can women not vote? Can women not go outside without a man?

Yes, those are the only metrics of equality. What was I thinking?!

The words on paper are the framework of this government. That's why we had to change from the "Articles of Confederation" to the "Constitution".

Yes, and you know what those words on paper did for the Nisei in 1941? Not a goddamned thing. You know what those words did for black under Jim Crow? Not a goddamned thing. You're naive beyond belief if you think a written guarantee is a "right". I'll ignore your comment about the change from AoC to the Constitution, because it's not germane to the topic.

2) I said "Now it only does more harm". In America atleast.

Ah, I see. You have an arbitrary cut-off point. Pray tell, when in your mind did feminism become obsolete, and why?

1) Of course they are merits of equality. Women have equality, because of paper that the majority follows.
If it is not followed, the ones in power (The Gov't) will punish. Paper or words, the majority and the most powerful rules and we must follow their creed.

2) Well the majority didn't seem to agree with it, (Sorry, I don't know much about the Nisei, could you clarify?) and the change from the AoC to the Constitution just shows that if those words weren't altered to create a different framework for the government things would have gone differently.

3) Feminism became obsolete when women had gotten rights. If you think words on paper (decided by the majority and the powerful) don't have meaning, that apparently means women have less rights? No. It would mean they have different rights. So that would mean that men also have some problems to? Yeah. Stereotypes such as women don't lie about rape ("Take all accusations of rape against women by men to be true!") would be set into motion. Because certainly a lot of people see women as victims.

The majority doesn't see women as tools or sub-human. So if the words on paper don't have meaning. The thoughts of the majority certainly do.

[Homeless Nutter]

A women hasn't been president? Oh my, nor has a muslim, a non-binary, etc.

LOLOLOLOLOL....
You what, mate? Not so good at math, are we? Tell me - how many muslims are there in the US? And how long have they been there? The same about non-binary people. It's few percent and only recently. There are only ~12% African Americans and they've only had any political rights for less than a century - and there's a black president. Meanwhile there have been at least 50% of "free" women in the country, since its conception and still - a woman even running for president is a great event. What are the odds of that, if women are equal?

There are African and Middle Eastern countries that had female leaders decades ago. America needs to catch the f*ck up - even if it scares you.

Your appologetics are laughable. I'm guessing you're just parroting whatever you hear your daddy say. If so - your daddy is a dipsh*t.

Some women are dogs like how some men are bastards.

That's no way to talk about your mother, sonny...

And he mocks a handicapped guy, (jokes) and hilary lets a rapist get away.
Vote for policy rather than personality.

Nice try changing the subject. A c*nt is a c*nt. And his policies are retarded. You'll find out soon, because he's going to drop most of them.

[ScienceAf]

Oh, I wonder why non of those women cried like the woman who was raped by Bill Clinton. Not a single one.

Oh, hey, tu quoque. Can you explain to me again how Bill Clinton's behavior justifies Trump's behavior?

Just because a lot of women said it doesn't mean one of them has to be right.
"There're so many religions so one of them has to be right?"

Inapt comparison. Rapes happen. Gods don't. Trai moar.

Is it not a coincidence that just as the presidential debate starts leaning on his side these women come out to say this?
"Oh, of course not. This was just the best time to get the news out."

Of course timing is everything in politics. What does that say about the veracity of the reports?

That's right: nothing.

Hey, while we're on the subject, when's the last time you were raped? Because that's something that happens to women every goddamned day, and their right to equal treatment under the law seems often seems to get glossed over in processing their reports.

1) A comparison. Non of those women seemed to show signs of trauma or PTSD. And if not non of them still continue to fight for vengeance and justice.

2) But these are accusations of rapes rather than the "rape" (most likely none) that took place. Just how those are claims of god aren't really god. God never took place, it was nothing magical. Just deluded minds.

3) Just because I wasn't raped, does that make me pro-rape? Does that mean I can't sympathize?
And more men get raped than women yearly.
And is it our fault people rape? No. That's why we have the criminal justice system. Oh wait. That doesn't always work because there isn't always evidence.

So sadly there isn't really a way yet to prove rapes but you can't disapprove them either. But does that mean women don't have the right to a fair trial? Don't we try to bring justice to women? Are women considered to be liars? Or is it that society just doesn't let us question these allegations?

The timing might not mean anything but it also could mean something. I guess that's realism.

[ScienceAf]

A women hasn't been president? Oh my, nor has a muslim, a non-binary, etc.

LOLOLOLOLOL....
You what, mate? Not so good at math, are we? Tell me - how many muslims are there in the US? And how long have they been there? The same about non-binary people. It's few percent and only recently. There are only ~12% African Americans and they've only had any political rights for less than a century  - and there's a black president. Meanwhile there have been at least 50% of "free" women in the country, since its conception and still - a woman even running for president is a great event. What are the odds of that, if women are equal?

There are African and Middle Eastern countries that had female leaders decades ago. America needs to catch the f*ck up - even if it scares you.

Your appologetics are laughable. I'm guessing you're just parroting whatever you hear your daddy say. If so - your daddy is a dipsh*t.

Some women are dogs like how some men are bastards.

That's no way to talk about your mother, sonny...

And he mocks a handicapped guy, (jokes) and hilary lets a rapist get away.
Vote for policy rather than personality.

Nice try changing the subject. A c*nt is a c*nt. And his policies are retarded. You'll find out soon, because he's going to drop most of them.

1) Okay a women hasn't gotten elected. Why is that important? That just means no one woman has been qualified enough yet.

2) I also said some men are bastards.

3) Sure Trumps can be a bit of a cunt sometimes but policy is policy. And we don't now if he will drop out.
And elaborate on what polices of his are retarded.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1) Of course they are merits of equality. Women have equality, because of paper that the majority follows.
If it is not followed, the ones in power (The Gov't) will punish. Paper or words, the majority and the most powerful rules and we must follow their creed.

Hey, could you find me the spot in the Constitution where everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work?

You can't find it, because it's not in there. But is certainly one inequality that feminism helped to ameliorate -- although it still exists, particularly with regard to race.

2) Well the majority didn't seem to agree with it, (Sorry, I don't know much about the Nisei, could you clarify?) and the change from the AoC to the Constitution just shows that if those words weren't altered to create a different framework for the government things would have gone differently.

You seem to think I'm arguing that words are meaningless, I'm not. It's important to have rights enumerated legally. But that doesn't guarantee rights in practice.

I'm pretty sure, by the way, that the majority of Americans agreed with both Jim Crow and interning Japanese in the camps.

3) Feminism became obsolete when women had gotten rights. If you think words on paper (decided by the majority and the powerful) don't have meaning, that apparently means women have less rights? No. It would mean they have different rights.

Yeah, that's kinda the point, you know. Equal rights, not different. You're mounting a pretty incoherent argument here: feminism is obsolete because women have different rights than men. Equal rights means that all people share the same panoply of rights regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion or lack thereof, etc.

So that would mean that men also have some problems to? Yeah. Stereotypes such as women don't lie about rape ("Take all accusations of rape against women by men to be true!") would be set into motion. Because certainly a lot of people see women as victims.

Why are you introducing this into this conversation? It's entirely irrelevant.

The majority doesn't see women as tools or sub-human.

No one said the majority sees them any way at all.

So if the words on paper don't have meaning. The thoughts of the majority certainly do.

Leaving aside the fact that I didn't say "words on paper have no meaning", the fact is that if your good treatment is dependent upon majority opinion, that is not a right at all.

[ScienceAf]

What the f*ck do minorities have to do with feminism? 

You think it might be the fact that like women, they too are far too often on the receiving end of discrimination?

Just a thought.

There's a difference between minorities and oppression.

[Jesster]

Holy fuck. People like ScienceAf are why I'm a feminist. This thread is making my argument for me.

[LastPoet]

He claims to be 13. I am skeptical about that. Never the less what are these feminism "waves"? There's dumb shit right there.