Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Ok, so you disagree with an argument and that makes the person that said it on drugs. Is that the critical thinking you said they didn't teach me? (which, btw, is why I will be going to a private school next year instead of a public one)

If you say the sun rises in the west and the sky is green, then the "argument" is so flawed as to not be worth serious response. Ditto with comparing murders to school expulsions.

My comparisons are called figurative analogies. Instead of arguing against some of them, you just said two things are different, therefore the principle cannot be applied to both.

Does the Heisenburg uncertainty principle apply to a tennis ball? There's such a thing as scope. Butter is to powdered laundry detergent as an automobile is to... is nonsensical for the same reason. There's "different" and there's "so different as to be beyond any valid comparison."

You mentioned that expelling kids because of their race was a crime in itself. I agree. Murdering people because of their race should be a crime in itself, also. They are different subjects same principle. Harming someone because of their race is wrong.

Sigh. Let me see if I can explain this: Murder = wrong in all circumstances (i.e. there can be justifiable homicide, but murder, by definition is an unlawful, intentional killing.) Expelling kids from school = absurdly trivial in comparison to murder. That aside, expelling kids from school is a lawful policy decision, if done for reasons permitted under school rules and applicable law. The reason is relevant, because it alone determines whether the action is legal and proper, an unintentional misuse of an otherwise proper administrative authority (the principal thought the reason was acceptable under school policy, but it wasn't, OR a civil or criminal violation of civil rights law. Get the difference?

Pretty much what you said is: killing someone, no matter the intent, is equivalent and therefore should be punished equivalently. I disagree with that way of thinking. According to what you believe if I kill someone in self-defense it is the same as murder. My intent wasn't bad, it was to protect myself. But all the same, "killing people is equivalent, and should be punished equivalently."

[quote]
Apparently, you have some vocabulary issues. Murder does not mean "killing a human being" Homicide is the killing of a human being. Murder is a subset of homicide, in that it's unlawful, intentional homicide.

If you stick to what I said, instead of your totally misinterpreted version of what you think what I said meant, it's a lot easier:

Premeditated murder with torture for one reason, is as bad as premeditated murder with torture for another reason.

Self-defense is your addition to the analogy, not mine. To treat self defense the same way you treat murder is an absurdity.

I have no idea why I'm even arguing. We all know I'll lose. I don't even remember the last time I won an argument.

You need to get your vocabulary down precisely - especially in the sense of not assuming two words are synonymous when they're not, or not rewording what someone else says in your own thought process - if you do that, you end up debating with yourself, and you lose by definition, since you've left the other guy's argument behind. (and it might have been a truly crappy one, but you'd never know.) Precision in terminology is critical in a lot of fields, especially law.

Law libraries (at least good ones) all carry a huge series of books entitled "Words and Phrases" and different state versions like "California Words and Phrases". The California hardback one is around a hundred volume set, 1200 pages or so per book, and the entire series is just a collection of all the definitions that courts have applied to different words or phrases in when the meanings of those words have been disputed in court. Page after page of stuff like what has "adjacent" been determined to mean in different cases where the parties disagree on whether one thing is adjacent to another. Same thing with "murder" "homicide" or any other word where the meaning has been disputed in court.

Depending on your point of view, it's the most boring, or the most interesting, stuff you'll ever read. It's a little of both, because it gives you an idea of how much trouble you can get into when two people say the same thing but mean two different things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's making quite an assumption. You don't know me, yet you say I am biased against women. This is bs.

No more than you making assumptions against feminists.

If feminists want equality, why are they still around. There are few laws that give men the advantage.

Yes, and there are also few laws that give whites advantage over minorities, but you say later that they are in a worse situation. Why? No laws preventing them. Isn't that equal opportunity?

If you really believe the genders are 'equal', you have been smoking something.

As long as opportunities are the same, they don't need to make changes. There's no need for females to stop being homemakers and become senators, for there's nothing wrong with a homemaker.

The opportunities AREN'T the same! This tired, stupid argument that females don't need to stop being homemakers simply masks the true reality that women in the workforce that want to advance are frequently passed over by their male collegues. This has nothing to do with homemakers, but everything to do with the glass ceiling that in many companies does seem to exist. The opportunities are NOT the same because people like you continue to say they are and because of it no one wants to do anything to actually equalize the opportunities. No one wants to change the perception that an aggressive man is a good thing while an aggresive woman is a *****. No one wants to change the perception that men are better in this kind of jobs than women. This outdated and frankly bigoted thinking results in opportunities that are not equal.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Imran Siddiqui:
No more than you making assumptions against feminists.

When did I do that?

Yes, many times women might get passed up because a male of less skills got accepted. You cannot change the thinking of some people so fast. But, you must admit, much progress has been made. If the same situation happened 50 years ago, do you think they would have even looked at the woman? Times are changing. I really don't believe it'll be long before biases against women completely stop. Not too long ago, women were always the comic characters of movies, it was rare to talk about biases against women, and it was very rare for them not to be a homemaker.

Only a few years later, in movies women are almost always the strong, protagonist who beats up the bad guy (almost all movies have a female character who the guys ridicule and then she turns out to be way better then them). It is very common for the girls to beat up the guys (Alias, Dark Angel, etc., but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

I have to go I'll post more later.

[St Leo]

but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

XMen2.

[johncmcleod]

Ok, there's one example compared to millions of other movies where the whole point of the movie is the girl gets prejudiced against, etc.

Where I'm going is, we're making progress and getting close to absolute equality. Men are much less sexist than they use to be. It'll keep on going this way. We don't need feminists going around to complain of male domination. The only thing they're doing is separating the two into groups, which is not good.

You need to get your vocabulary down precisely - especially in the sense of not assuming two words are synonymous when they're not, or not rewording what someone else says in your own thought process - if you do that, you end up debating with yourself, and you lose by definition, since you've left the other guy's argument behind. (and it might have been a truly crappy one, but you'd never know.) Precision in terminology is critical in a lot of fields, especially law.

Yeah, I guess you're right about that. I changed 'murder' to killing people. But the whole point is the same. You believe that if you kill someone in self-defense it is not as bad as murder. They should not be punished the same. Why? Because the intent is different. They're both killing, but with a murder you're doing it just to kill them. The same is applicable to hate crimes. A hate crime is worse than regular murder. They should not be punished the same. Why? Because the intent is different.

Maybe I've gone off my rocker on this one.

[blackice]

The opportunities AREN'T the same! This tired, stupid argument that females don't need to stop being homemakers simply masks the true reality that women in the workforce that want to advance are frequently passed over by their male collegues.

Other than isolated incidents this tired old stupid arguement has no foundation in proof nor fact. If it does show some. The "Glass Ceiling" as it is refered to is a myth started by, guess who? Even studies show that the last 15% of the wage gap is accounded for if one factors in lost wage due to job absense. For the first year out of your field or trade you lose 5% after 3 years it jumps to 15%. Since most women choose to stay home to raise kids an average of three years, well you figure it out.

This has nothing to do with homemakers, but everything to do with the glass ceiling that in many companies does seem to exist.

Glass ceiling is an old arguement, most of the reasons for this inequity in gender has been researched posted and dismissed.

The opportunities are NOT the same because people like you continue to say they are and because of it no one wants to do anything to actually equalize the opportunities

That is a farce too, tell me how many millions and millions of our tax dollars are spent on this exact topic?

No one wants to change the perception that an aggressive man is a good thing while an aggresive woman is a *****.

Tell me what is wrong with an agressive man? Women's groups have been preaching this for years, so tell me who do you know that has a problem with a career oriented aggressive woman? I know no one. Now tell me who do you know that has a problem with a career oriented aggressive man, other than radical womans groups of course...

No one wants to change the perception that men are better in this kind of jobs than women.

So you have proof of this? You have proof that men and women are exactly the same in every detail? You have proof that in fact men and women are exactly the same in all areas of the workplace and beyond? If so then tell me why women are concidered better person's to raise kids? Better at finances, better at healthcare better sales people and nurturing? Why do men and women make such radical career and educational choices then? Let me guess men made them do it right?

Or is it your point to say women can do everything that men can but men can not do what women can? because it does not take much looking around to see these perceptions pushed and published by the media.

In fact doing very little reseach on the net, you will see all research and studies into this matter by men and women will show that in fact your assuption is completely wrong.

You have to be very neive and or not understand the sexes very well to not know we are different and excell differently in most all areas. An example of this would be all the wasted funding trying to get women into engineering fields. After many wasted millions on the pressure of the womens groups and alike. Concrete studies show not very many women are interested in that field. This list goes on and on so to use that example in a reseach paper as womens groups do simply shows fraudulent intent.

Supporters of gender-based preferences claim that the existence of wage gaps proves the existence of systemic discrimination against women. Without preferences, they reason, women will not be able to overcome the "glass ceiling" that prevents them from advancing in the male dominated business world. This argument is flawed for numerous reasons.

First, it does not take into consideration a number of variables that account for such discrepancies between men and women in the workforce. An analysis of census data and economic labor studies demonstrates that gaps do not reflect discrimination, but instead reflect different education fields and different career and family choices. When one compares women and men with the same level of education, field of education, and workforce experience, the gap virtually disappears.

To further this thread the question has to be asked why millions of tax payer dollars were pumped into special programs and courses for girls in school to make them equal to boys. As the paper these people dismiss and call hate critisizes. When in reality the published reports contrdict what the womens groups shoved down our throats for years.

Schools do not Shortchange Girls. Supporters of preferences also claim that primary and secondary education favors boys, and therefore girls experience gender discrimination as soon as they enter school. Much of this claim relies on a 1992 report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) entitled How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education. The report concluded that girls suffer from low self-esteem and lag behind boys in academic achievement, and it has served as justification for a multitude of government programs that secure millions of dollars to implement "gender equity programs" aiming to advance girls educationally.

Yet as Judith Kleinfeld, a psychology professor at the University of Alaska, reveals in the 1998 study The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception, "The facts are different. Girls excel in school. Girls get higher grades in every school subject, get higher class rank, get placed half as often in special education classes, score significantly higher on standardized tests of writing and reading achievement, enter college more often, and graduate more often with bachelor’s and master’s degrees."19 While girls do score lower than boys in advanced science and mathematics, the gap is much smaller than the gap between girls and boys in reading and writing.

Kleinfeld also expresses concern that this myth that schools shortchange girls diverts attention away from the real at-risk gender group: African-American boys. African-American boys score far below African-American girls on virtually every educational scale. Additionally, on average, they most often earn the lowest scores in the nation. As explained earlier, the best way to help students excel in school is through school choice.

Just one conclusion but they all say the same thing, womens groups promoted myths, the reality this paper they can hate is trying to bring attention to the real needy people, boys.. This is hate? I think not.

St Leo when was the last time you saw a man on T.V. that was actually competent? When was the last time you saw a woman beat up a man?

[Az]

Sigh, blackice is so very correct on many of the accounts.

This thread reminds of that Prodigy video. didn't we all think that the violent drunk bastard was a man? a damn magnificent video it was.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- the woman's image is still widely associated with sex. Sexist ads still are galore, and are way more sexist towards women than towards men (same for porn, in which women manage to be even more disgraced than men).

I am not sure what you mean by sexist ads, unless you mean ads that sells products by sex. Unfortunately, it is a firm belief of the advertising companies that sex sells. Even if that holds for products targetting men, you'd see a lot of them featuring women photographed in various sexually provocative ways, implying that a man will get lots of sex if he buys these products.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

To me, the most important equality is that of opportunity, not result.

But the stunning disparity in result seems to indicate a lack of the equality of oppertunity, wouldn't you say? Showing that perhaps there IS a glass ceiling in most businesses and that a lot of voters may not vote for a woman simply because she is one (at the subconscious level). This is the same reason that aggressive men are lauded, but aggressive women are called *****. It's all about a double standard that needs to be changed, and is being changed slowly... but feminism is needed to change it all the way.

What has been happening these days? Have you been possessed by an ancient Native American spirit Imran? This is so unlike you!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
What we must do is remove sexism from the interpersonal ( not only romantic!) relations

I don't quite understand this bit. For me, it is very important that my SO is a woman - and happily, she is YMMV

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
I never said that men and women would behave the same. This difference is well established, AFAIK. But the difference will smaller than it currently is.

I am not so sure. For example, men tend to be better spatially, but women tend to be better temporally. There are other similar important differences between the genders. For me, I can see that men and women being equal, but in a Yin-Yang way, not a "divide a circile stright down through the centre" way.

[Az]

I don't quite understand this bit. For me, it is very important that my SO is a woman - and happily, she is

Ahem, I probably should've put this differently. many Men and women still treat each other according to their gender in bussiness and non-romantic relationships. Romantic relationships are a matter of choice, and are completely different.

I am not so sure. For example, men tend to be better spatially, but women tend to be better temporally. There are other similar important differences between the genders. For me, I can see that men and women being equal, but in a Yin-Yang way, not a "divide a circile stright down through the centre" way.

Of course, of course, noone denies that there are noticeable differences. However, these differences are encreased and dramatized by society. Without this, in a perfect nurture, men and women would still be masculine and feminine, respectively, but would've both strong-willed, determined, and competitive, as well as friendly, compassionate, and caring. It's a known fact that these facts don't exclude each other.

[Lincoln]

Blackice is the man My brother is currently being jacked around by the "unbiased" system in California. But the tide may be changing to reflect true equality. We can only hope that the radical femenists have overplayed their hand to such a extent that their hypocrisy will be exposed for all to see. I know first hand of the plight of single mothers and I have tried where I could to help them when they were abandoned by some jerk. But teaching the sexes to hate each other is certainly not the answer. It is ironic that one hate group tells their opposition that they are guilty of a hate crime.

[Lincoln]

Anyway, I am off for the weekend. You all have fun with this thread while I am gone. And surely there are some comments from some of the women out there. Or does Mark still treat them like chattel in this man dominated forum? Too bad the govermnent puts up with this blatant discrimination!

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by johncmcleod It is very common for the girls to beat up the guys (Alias, Dark Angel, etc., but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

Coogan's Bluff (the other night).

[Gibsie]

It's ironic that people complain that the system is biased in favour of women when it comes to choosing who the kids get to live with after a split, given that the whole reason it's biased in favour of women is that they're seen as natural homemakers.

[Elok]

Originally posted by St Leo
Elok, how do you know that that's not the way a girl would have wanted to play with a Barbie doll?

A statistical sample of one has always been worthless.

That wasn't a statistic, it was a funny story. If I wanted a statistic I would choose something even remotely verifiable. The story only illustrates what should be common knowledge.
I "know," as much as I can, from my babysitting experience. Three girls, two boys. Even when they're playing army, the girls concentrate more on what kind of imaginary enemies they're fighting, whereas the boys try to think up imaginary weapons of handheld mass destruction. I.E., "this gun can kill seventeen thousand trolls with one shot." Charming game. I've never seen them play with barbie dolls so I don't know about that. Certainly the boys show much greater propensities for sadistic destructiveness. The younger one likes to see how many needles you can run through a living beetle before it gives up the ghost or falls apart. If you want to see how a gender acts, look at it in childhood at its least self-conscious.
To put it another way, how many girl scouts set bugs on fire when they're off at camp? How many delinquent teenage girls ever even try tipping cows or smashing mailboxes?
Or were you just joking?

[GePap]

The system is not biased against men. The feminist movement has removed the bias there was agaisnt girs, but that bias was never really academic (at elast in primary and secondary education), but dealt more with non-academic activities. That men are floundering in schools now is more the result of men failing to meet the requirements of the system. You have fathers ignore the education of their boys, or care more about how their boy does in the athetics field than with his academic requirements. Girsl are expected to achieve academically, and they do. Boys are not expected to achieve academically, and they don;t. Wow, what a freaking surprise!

[Imran Siddiqui]

When did I do that?

"Feminists hate men" argument. I think it's one of the first things you said.

The "Glass Ceiling" as it is refered to is a myth started by, guess who?

Fine, if it is a myth, then I'm sure you can point to a substantial minority of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies being women... oh wait... you CAN'T! And what about the anecdotal evidence of some people, such as Gibsie, who notices women can only go so high in the company but not higher.

If there was actual equality of oppertunity between the genders, they'd be a Hell of lot more female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. The fact that there isn't show me that we really don't have equality of oppertunity yet.

The whole 'women do not want to be CEOs' argument is laughable. They are just as dedicated and strong as any man is, yet they don't want to be CEOs? Yeah, right .

An analysis of census data and economic labor studies demonstrates that gaps do not reflect discrimination, but instead reflect different education fields and different career and family choices. When one compares women and men with the same level of education, field of education, and workforce experience, the gap virtually disappears.

Again, then where are the female CEOs? There more than a few women in business schools. Also look at the lack of law firm partners being women even though women have been substantially represented in law schools over the past couple decades. It is no secret that a woman is told to act 'more like a man' in order to achieve success.

so tell me who do you know that has a problem with a career oriented aggressive woman?

Hmmm... the millions of males that call them *****es? Look at what happened with Hillary Clinton. That's a prime example.

[johncmcleod]

"Feminists hate men" argument.

Sorry about that. When I said 'feminist' I was talking about the ones the thread was about, the ones who want to make masculinity a hate crime.

BTW, have you noticed that it is seen as great for a woman to do things that only men used to do, such as playing in leagues for men, doing things that require a lot of athleticism and strength (not that this is bad). But when was the last time you saw a guy encouraged to do a 'girlie' thing? If he does, he is completely ridiculed and has an increased chance of being murdered by someone because they think he's gay.

Where's MichaeltheGreat? If I actually beat him in that argument, then I'm going to party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry about that. When I said 'feminist' I was talking about the ones the thread was about, the ones who want to make masculinity a hate crime

Ah ok... nevermind then. That peeved me, because I know a few feminists and they don't hate men (or they like sex ).

BTW, have you noticed that it is seen as great for a woman to do things that only men used to do, such as playing in leagues for men, doing things that require a lot of athleticism and strength (not that this is bad). But when was the last time you saw a guy encouraged to do a 'girlie' thing? If he does, he is completely ridiculed and has an increased chance of being murdered by someone because they think he's gay.

That's because women are encouraged to be men in order to get ahead.

Btw, there are many men (especially higher up the corporate ladder) that get manicures .

[blackice]

women is that they're seen as natural homemakers.

Nothing like keeping stereotyping alive just to gain an edge in a particular way. This too is the irony of the femenist movement. They hate stereotyping unless of course it serves a need. Now I see you are suggesting it is men that keep this myth in place? Or are you just blaming them for doing something and protesting something that is unconstitutional, bias, harmful to kids and hate based? There used to be another poster here that said it was "whining" Be kinda of cool to sit him down with the female judge I had. i am sure she would have tuned him in as she did the feds rep. Maybe he will show up again to promote his complete lack of knowledge and bias again?

GePap love to see you prove that nonsense, every study out there says you are sleep walking, I may add from federal to independant.

The fact that there isn't show me that we really don't have equality

Pure nonsense, not many women choose that route for a career, most have started thier own business rather than work at your fortune 500. Stats show that to be true too. Last time I looked in the last 5 years or so women owned and started business accounts for 42 percent of all business start ups. A 118% percent increase, I guess you have your answer there, but I am sure you can show me true statistics of why in this age of competative business, why the heck would a man pick a less qualified man to do a job a more qualified woman could do better. I guess in his desire to promote bias he is willing to risk his career? i think your assumptions to be flawed, I think the stats prove your assumptions to be wrong.
More non sense and myth. Woman do not want the CEO job at another firm or corporation. It is very clear they want thier own firm and or corporation. I will also add women starting business succeed close to 80% more often then men started business on the first go round, yup we are carbon copies, or clones which is it you believe again?

It is no secret that a woman is told to act 'more like a man' in order to achieve success.

You mean to say men say this without a lawsuit attached? heck if women in this all girls group get thier way that would be a hate crime...

Give it a break, the realitty is woman's group have promoted this myth too. Show me the proof son, I am sure with a simple google search again we will find it is women's forums and websites reiterating this over and over again. Find me one male CEO that said this or a man is a better CEO.

Women are incouraged to give up a lot that is true so are men CEO jobs do not come without cost to your personal life choices. Setting down and having kids in the fast paced ever changing, long hours, long days CEO jobs offer is not very compatable. Men have made that sacrifice from the onset because of long standing rolls.

If this is what you mean what do you expect? A bread earner and career choice is just that. I know many men that do not know thier kids because of career choices. I know not as many women willing to give that up, but rest assured the one's I know that do, make more than me and are way higher up in the food chain than I care to be...Choice man it boils down to choices. That is statistically why more women have chosen the my business route, choices...

the millions of males that call them *****es?

Maybe, I know none here or otherwise, statistically I should have met one by now...Most men in senior postions I know biasly hire women in key positions, well simply because, sales for an example statistically women are better at it and produce more results. He is a question for you, it is no myth that many woman are office managers in businesses. Now women account for a huge percentage of new business start ups, owners as it be. Now or in the near future do you see these women hiring men as office managers? Stats aready indicate no not in our lifetime. Now is that because of bias, abilities, or choices in career?

I doubt your millions and I doubt you could back it up. More myth... You can go on all night all month for that matter tossing myths around I implore you to provide at least some proof to anything you have said so far and or in the future. So bring on the feminist web pages and preachers, I'm ready you?

[Dis]

I better not post my views here, they will be deemed sexist.

Let's just say I'm old fashioned

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I AM in touch with reality. You, OTOH, are not. How many feminists do you know? I know plenty, I dated one. They don't want to be better than men, they simply want more equal representation in Congress and in buisnesses. They think it is a shame that while 50% of the people are women, only 9 Senators are of that gender (~10% of that body). Instead of making generalizations about people you know nothing about, why don't you talk to a few feminists... and I don't mean NOW, I mean ordinary normal mainstream feminists.

And what percentage of the electorate do women comprise? More than 50% of electorate, and an even higher percentage of voters. Should we do away with democracy because people (including women) aren't making the politically correct decision? If they aren't going to vote for themselves why should I?

A lot of the problem in this thread lies in the definition of the word feminist. To some it means someone who supports equal rights for both genders. It used to mean this to most people, but it wasn't a particularly accurate term to say the least. Once a very firm majority of the population came around to this view (20 years ago) it became even more obsolete. Most people don't use that definition of the word anymore. To them feminists are exactly those annoying people you claim are unrepresentative. You are young and live in academia. Things will change for you when you step out of never never land and find out that not only are regular people fairly intelligent, but they tend to make a great deal more sense than many academics, as they cannot afford to be mere theoriticians.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Oh, you misguided fool.

Women's groups are a great place to meet some incredible women who are straight or bi. They're intelligent, they're beautiful, they're great conversationalists, they're independent, They're amazing.

You don't know what you are missing.

Talk about misguided, you are like an Iraqi SCUD. I disagree completely, but that's cool. At least we aren't going to be getting in one another's way as we go about wooing women.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DaShi
We prefer to be called myn, not men.

Gender Judo, I love it! All your monikers are belong to us!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Women are in a rough situation and have not achieved equality with men. When female CEOs in the Fortune 500 and represenatation in Congress is about 30%, then maybe I'll say they have achieved somewhat of equality (though not full). Now? Yeah, right.

So you are saying that you would rather earn the money than spend it? Because whatever the percentage of money women make, they spend something like 65% of all the money spent. Our society spends 2 dollars on women for every 1 dollar spent on men in health care. But since these mens groups are a canard no one ever seems to hear about things like that.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But the stunning disparity in result seems to indicate a lack of the equality of oppertunity, wouldn't you say? Showing that perhaps there IS a glass ceiling in most businesses and that a lot of voters may not vote for a woman simply because she is one (at the subconscious level). This is the same reason that aggressive men are lauded, but aggressive women are called *****. It's all about a double standard that needs to be changed, and is being changed slowly... but feminism is needed to change it all the way.

Yea, cause lord knows that women are exactly like men, and will strive for exactly the same goals. Wherever there is a difference between people, there must be discrimination.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Elok
A couple of random thoughts:
A. Why do men want to have sex with twins anyway? Maybe other guys are different, but I only have one organ, and having to satisfy two women for no personal gain sounds like hell to me. With one woman and two men it might actually make sense, provided they were into weird orifices.

I think you are supposed to watch them have sex with each other and masturbate. At least that's what seems to be implied in porn. I don't get it either.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Wrong because you're making massive generalisation. The women who expect men to open the door or give up their seats do not understand the concept of equality.

Oh they understand it, they just reject it.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The idea that men take care of physical labour for females is absolutely ****ing hilarious. Do you really believe that women do no physical labour. Do you believe that women never clean the house, cook meals, etc.

Come on, that's just ridiculous.

No, we're talking about the fact that 97% of people killed in workplace accidents are men. This is one of the reasons that men make more money then women as a group. They do the vast majority of the most dangerous work.