Is this serious?

esantipapa · 2013-02-15T19:39:41+00:00

Further, by referring to "our" wives et al, the President appears to be talking to The Men of America about Their Women, rather than talking to men AND women.

Apparently women do not have wives, mothers, or daughters.

rightsbot · 2013-02-15T18:32:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Demonspawn · 2013-02-15T18:43:24+00:00

You accidentally a link.

EvilsSufferable · 2013-02-15T19:23:56+00:00

No, OP, what do you think?

This is the same system people used to get the US Gov to build a Death Star. Has anything ever come from this petition website they have? All they have to do is give a response, not actually act. The front page:

STEP 3: If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.

Which means as much as selling sand in the Sahara. This website is like one of those baby toys with the lights you push and a sound comes out, but for politically-illiterate adults to feel good from the comfort of their computer chair. Its like those polls that Fox News has that ask what you think, and even though they're a idiot they give an AGREE or DISAGREE when they should be giving an I DON'T KNOW. Plus, a response to this will be something along these lines:

The United States shares your concern about [WOMEN] for the [" rhetorical frame that defines women by their relationships to other people] that occurred during [THE PRESIDENT'S] recent [his 2013 State of the Union address] and is committed to working with the [WOMEN] and the international community to implement a just and equitable reconciliation process for all [WOMEN].

...and Americans would be proud someone actually listened to them! I think it is odd how one of the tags is "Human Rights" as though "Nondescript Women" should be used in place of relationship or something. As though all women are single, childless, and have no families. Dumbing down speech to suit fleeting and arbitrary rules for political ideologies and movements without any solid basis is stupidity, plain and simple. I'm for inclusive language, but this is far from a time to have it. He was referring to...get this: Wives. Mothers. And daughters. I'm sure the single, childless, family-less women who heard that were very upset to know the SotU can't be 37 hours long so as the include all groups, thinks, movements, ideologies, niches,, colors, shapes, and shiny objects for the Americans to watch and hear but not actually understand. But this is a non-issue. It is however the first step toward Newspeak.

2013-02-15T19:42:21+00:00

"I object to your statement that we should only focus on victims of discrimination and violence that are women. No, no, not because it completely ignores men, but because of the way you said that we should only focus on women."

Title	Is this serious?
Author	SomeDumbGuy25
Upvotes	1
Comments	6
Date	February 15, 2013 6:31 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/18lcll/is-this-serious/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-this-serious.1606345 https://theredarchive.com/post/1606345

Comments