~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Buba_Blazz
[–]Dembara 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
*I talked to feminists on /r/AskFeminists and multiple people there openly supported discriminating in the favor of women.
I was banned from that subreddit for some unclear reason.
[–]n_surf 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I have just been banned from /r/AskFeminists because my comment was the top comment and I wasn't a feminist or providing a feminist point of view.
It was a thread about Pewdiepie and wage gaps. Everybody was dodging the question (what do you think of pdp's exposition on the wage gaps?") and everybody was disregarding his point of view because apparently he is not entitled to an opinion. I merely asked for them to actually refute his point. Got upvoted then banned.
Pretty sure it's because the mod looked at my history and just wants to censor me. Way to go! Is that how you make Feminism more attractive?
[–]SilverGryphon 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They most likely do look at your history and censor you. The same thing happened to me on ask women.
[–]TheSummerain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Found out I am banned to.
No loss
[–]rokstola 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Join the party, I was banned a few months ago, too.
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
This is like a white/black supremacist supporting equal rights.
[–]LoicyT -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No it isn't. You can believe in equal rights while still thinking some groups are better than others.
I think tall people tend to be superior at basketball. It doesn't mean I think tall people deserve double votes.
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Come up with a better a analogy then I'll tell you how you're wrong
[–]LoicyT -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Men are superior to women at barbell pressing.
I do not believe better barbell pressers deserve more rights or voting power.
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We're not talking about physical strength we are talking about human rights.
[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Womenism (feminsim) is about women! Who could have guessed?
The funny thing is that the life quality of women is clearly better than that of men (at least in the wealthy countries). And people tend to know this. And yet most people think that equality is about more benefits and privileges to women! How stupid can people be?!
[–]Triskerai 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women live longer and have arguably more control over their lives and have less expected of them by society. Oh, but they need more stuff and more preference.
[–]Vidar34 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's almost as if feminism is a supremacist movement...
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
At least that is an honest feminist.
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We must prefer women to treat them equally?
[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've not seen Feminism spelt with an "a" before.
[–]theothermod[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The title of your post does not say anything about its subject. This forces people to click and read before they can decide whether they are interested.
If everyone did this, the subreddit would become unusable.
So please don't do it. Take the time to describe your link, and save the time of hundreds of other people.
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
Feminism has nothing to do with achieving equality. That is a goal limitation imposed by good sense. Feminism is the advocacy campaign system by which activists pursue the acquisition of women's rights.
It's also not sexist to respect one gender more than another. Sexism is the belief that one gender is superior, not more deserving of respect.
[–]8unn3h 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link
Sexism is the belief that one gender is superior, not more deserving of respect.
According to a bunch of dictionaries (and common use of the word IME), "sexism" means "discrimination on the basis of gender or sex". In other words, you are sexist if you treat people differently because of their gender. So, according to this definition, it's definitely sexist to respect one gender more than another. And feminism is very clearly a sexist movement as it treats men and women differently.
If you have a minute, do look up the definition of sexism yourself because it's hilarious. Practically every dictionary gives special mention to women, which would be sexism by the definition itself. Perfect summation summary of gender politics.
[–]mrmensplights 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is what sexism and racism should mean in 'every day' parlance. "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex/race". The injection of new definitions from very specific ideological and pseudo-intellectual domains into everyday speech hasn't been useful to anyone.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
The tweet chain says nothing about respecting women more because they're women.
Additionally, I am not familiar with discrimination that doesn't come with a belief of superiority or inferiority somewhere.
If you have a minute, do look up the definition of sexism yourself because it's hilarious. Practically every dictionary gives special mention to women, which would be sexism by the definition itself.
Most definitions mention women, by using the phrase "particularly against women". Historically, it is factual to describe sexism as being in one direction. Even if that particularity is now in question, it was true when the definitions were published. As with all things, the definition will adapt and evolve as the world around the word changes.
Perfect summation of gender politics.
This isn't a trial.
[–]Pandamonius84 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
The first post clearly says that "if you respect women more than men your not a feminist." Now we are missing a few posts before that led up to the 1st post, but we can assume that Oscar is saying that if you like, prefer, respect women more than men than you can't call yourself a feminist since feminism is define as "advocating for the advance of women's rights in order to achieve equality among the sexes" (Google search of feminism).
N is only using the 1st half of the Google definition of feminism while saying that advocating for preferences of women is more important because it's a means to an end (Machievelli) to achieve equality, but doesn't explicitly say that.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
You haven't asserted through any of this that respecting women more than men is sexism unless you explicitly respect them more because they're women. It's just as easy to presume that, as a feminist, "N" respects women more because women comprise the larger and more visible demographic of fellow feminists.
It's a desire to assume bad faith in feminists that has men in North America playing this weird game online. Aping feminists is just turning y'all into meninists - and remember that meninists were intended to be an annoying parody of feminists. Don't become an annoying parody of an annoying social movement.
[–]Pandamonius84 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
First off you just answered your 1st question in your 1st paragraph. N didn't bring up any information for why women deserve more respect for men. So yes we have to presume that N is sexist for preferring women to men because she makes no attempt to counter the argument, only to double down on the "means to an end" in her second post. And we can validate that assumption with her 1st post because she mentions nothing about achieving equality among the sexes which is what feminism says it wants to achieve.
Second off I can't speak for all men but we aren't playing a weird game online when it comes to feminism. We are pointing out that feminism has become a post-modern word where different person's define the term differently. So how can a movement that defines itself for achieving equality amongst the sexes when a good portion of "feminist" care more for the struggles of women than the struggles of men. I'm not going to use the word hypocrisy to define feminism, but the feminist movement of today is inconsistent with applying their ideology into practice. Your making an assumption that every men online who is critical of feminism part of some women-hating, red-pill radical. Well if that is what you believe than please go to the red-pill subreddit to confirm your biases. Here at MensRights we want to talk about issues that men face and have the world recognize our problems. Yes we have our fair share of the anti-feminist posters here, but that's how the internet works. There isn't anything stopping a red-piller from posting anti-feminist posts just like there is nothing stopping a feminist identifier from trolling or attacking the sub. When a movement becomes large enough it's hard to keep the radical sides to quiet down and not drawn bad attention to movements. But if your going to confirm your own bias that men online are anti-women just than please there a better subs that you can use to validate your beliefs.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
First off you just answered your 1st question in your 1st paragraph. N didn't bring up any information for why women deserve more respect for men. So yes we have to presume that N is sexist for preferring women to men because she makes no attempt to counter the argument, only to double down on the "means to an end" in her second post.
That's not how that works. Remember, rational people use the principles of "innocent until proven guilty". I refuse to assume she is sexist until she demonstrates that or it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's also not her responsibility to squeeze in every possible caveat you could throw at her into 140 characters. You're looking at a small chunk of an exchange that occurred. We do not know how it was precipitated or what information was transmitted above and below the boundaries of the screenshot.
Second off I can't speak for all men but we aren't playing a weird game online when it comes to feminism.
Building arguments from narratives instead of data, misusing surveys and studies to suit the established narrative, employing bullying and abuse tactics to shame and silence dissenting views, misdirecting critics with false "talking points" intended to inflame an issue that no one is talking about... all this and more is packed into the Feminist Political Playbook and you guys have it open, following it page for page. Problem is, it won't work for you guys, because you're trying to use it on the people who wrote the book.
We are pointing out that feminism has become a post-modern word where different person's define the term differently. So how can a movement that defines itself for achieving equality amongst the sexes when a good portion of "feminist" care more for the struggles of women than the struggles of men.
After how many years of insisting that women aren't doing anything to help and that you don't want feminists to help because they poison everything they touch, now you're getting pissed that they don't care about you more than they care about themselves? And that's sexist? Following their goals of advancing women's rights is sexist because they're not busting their chops to make life easier for you too...? Are your legs broken or something? You can't go out and campaign and protest and lobby, start change.org petitions? You want to "sexism-guilt" the feminists, the people you trust the least with anything in the universe, into taking care of your rights concerns?
Am I just reading this fucked up or has my brain simply started to boil?
Your making an assumption that every men online who is critical of feminism part of some women-hating, red-pill radical.
If I had that assumption in my head, I wouldn't even fucking be here. You've crafted that assumption on your own, which tells me a bit about how you see me.
Here at MensRights we want to talk about issues that men face and have the world recognize our problems.
Issues like how an Australian woman is on the brink of collapse thanks to the harassment efforts of the MRM? Why? Because she tweeted something mean. Funny, I recall that happening before, where a group of people ganged up on individuals who had something to say that wasn't agreed with. But the aggressors were feminists.
Maybe you mean issues like Kevin Bacon being called "not fuckable" by a producer back in the 1980s? Proof that women are all dogs, this single quote from a woman 30 years ago in Hollywood relayed by an aging former movie star.
Or could you be referring to the ever-important issue of whether men or women are physically stronger? That sounds like it needs discussing, right away!
I'm not saying MensRights never discusses men's issues. I'm saying look at the front page and ask yourself whether this subreddit wants the world to hear all this, or if you're all just trying to scream into a pillowcase and pretend like nothing is wrong IRL. You wouldn't be the first group to do it.
When a movement becomes large enough it's hard to keep the radical sides to quiet down and not drawn bad attention to movements.
So why does MRM want feminists to take responsibility for the radfems and TERFs and ideological regressives of their "group", when feminism is larger than MRM by leaps and bounds? Surely you are seeing the disconnect in logic here. I'm placing my expectations on MRM because of how the movement places expectations on other groups. If Muslims have to own up to the shit that their fringe population does, and Feminists have to own up to their crazies, then so does MRM. That, or none of y'all do, and three-quarters of the time spent over the last 8 years fighting with feminists has been a titanic waste of your time.
But if your going to confirm your own bias that men online are anti-women just than please there a better subs that you can use to validate your beliefs.
My current bias is that every man I've spoken to on this sub who disagrees with me, behaves as though I think all men are anti-woman. That and I'm pretty sure that nothing I say will change your mind on that. You've proven somewhat stubborn thusfar, despite my appeals to reason and logic.
[–]Lostboulevard 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
After how many years of insisting that women aren't doing anything to help and that you don't want feminists to help because they poison everything they touch, now you're getting pissed that they don't care about you more than they care about themselves?
Pretty sure most MRA's would be thrilled if feminists stopped their hate campaigns and sought actual equality.
Issues like how an Australian woman is on the brink of collapse thanks to the harassment efforts of the MRM? Why? Because she tweeted something mean.
My heart bleeds lol. She's a hardcore misandrist who spreads hate against men and boys. When a Klansman runs around spewing hate about Jews and Blacks you can forgive me for not breaking down into tears if he suffers a little blowback. I doubt she's really concerned anyway. Just typical feminist damselling by someone who refuses to take responsibility for their appalling behavior. I certainly HOPE that CPS will keep an eye on her.
So why does MRM want feminists to take responsibility for the radfems and TERFs and ideological regressives of their "group", when feminism is larger than MRM by leaps and bounds?
I think most of us would be satisfied if feminists challenged their leaders (the ones who lobby/affect policy and laws). MRA's have nothing to apologize for. You don't see them eg advocating genocide against the opposite sex or passing laws that reverse due process rights or deny women access to their children.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Your idea of "actual equality" and theirs don't match, and both of you have an idiotic picture of it, to be honest. So I doubt that's gonna happen. Just being real about it.
My heart bleeds lol. She's a hardcore misandrist who spreads hate against men and boys.
And that is your excuse for supporting people being gigantic pieces of shit to her. No rising above the hate, no showing the world that your maturity and self-control are pillars worthy of supporting a community. Nope, gloves off, retainer out, and fuckin' rumble, huh? Play her dirty game by her dirty rules and let her mass up a rousing following to buy her next book, all because you think that you getting a sense of satisfaction at telling her what a cunt she is, counts as a win. And that's good enough for you.
See, I don't really care about her feelings. I'm not terribly invested in her, as a result of me not knowing who she was yesterday. But I can see the bigger picture, and you're literally giving her free money every time an MRA or angry conservative sends a vicious tweet or a death threat or whatever is driving his erection at the time.
I certainly HOPE that CPS will keep an eye on her.
CPS doesn't keep track of people's political agendas unless they actually pose a physical risk to the child through neglect or abuse. If she keeps a clean house, keeps a clean son, doesn't beat him, or neglect his essential requirements, child services really can't do much, regardless of how much you wish you could take her baby away and drive her that one last step to suicide. I know you really want to hear that you trolled a feminist to death, but you may be just having a pleasant dream that such thing is a strong possibility. A remote one, perhaps. But I wouldn't put my money on it happening.
I think most of us would be satisfied if feminists challenged their leaders (the ones who lobby/affect policy and laws).
Which ones? Which policies are you trying to reverse or stop?
MRA's have nothing to apologize for.
What about A Voice For Men's Edmonton chapter who operated on the philosophy that women who don't back down should be subjected to scare tactics and frightened into submission, describing it as "a form of human rights activism"? You're cool with that?
How about Eliott Rodgers? You think that his hateful shooting rampage against the women that rejected him had nothing to do with any messages perceived by him from the men's rights movement?
If not that, then what about the multiplying reports of online threats and harassment, stalking, doxxing, physically attacking, and in at least one known instance, a university student being murdered by her own housemate (a man)? Nothing?
You don't see them eg advocating genocide against the opposite sex
I don't see any visible group of feminists doing that either. I've seen two or three manifestos from feminists that called for either the eradication of, or extreme limitation in the population of, men.
Unless you're talking about #KillAllMen, which I should remind you, has thusfar resulted in 0 deaths in men, and 1 death in women. Get the bodybags ready, that's like a minigenocide! I'm sure the genociding will start soon. Maybe it's like a fireworks display and it just kinda gets going on its own.
No, I'm not taking this seriously. This is a stupid remark to a stupid remark about stupid remarks that stupid feminists make on Twitter, the feminist party central. At this point, even I've grown weary of hearing about #KillAllMen, and I don't get sick of anything easily (just look how I'm still talking to you despite reading your comments making me want to eat off my own face).
[–]Lostboulevard 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Your idea of "actual equality" and theirs don't match
You can say that again!
And that is your excuse for supporting people being gigantic pieces of shit to her.
You'll have to offer an example. And I never claimed I supported people giving her a taste of her own medicine. Just that I don't give a shit about a piece of human filth receiving some comeuppance.
you're literally giving her free money
I can see your point here. But I'd prefer pushback to silence in the face of hate speech, even if some of it's uncouth.
CPS doesn't keep track of people's political agendas unless they actually pose a physical risk to the child through neglect or abuse.
Let's just say if an avowed white supremacist who relished in the idea of killing blacks adopted a black child I would be concerned. She is probably already abusing the boy to get back at the "patriarchy".
I know you really want to hear that you trolled a feminist to death
I don't engage in trolling and have never communicated with Ms. Ford. I'd much rather she seek professional help than take her own life.
There are frankly too many to list. But to cite two examples: NOW's opposition to shared parenting. And Canada's forthcoming law that will make all men rapists (affirmative consent) and guilty until proven innocent (restrictions on using emails and texts as exculpatory evidence). I could cite dozens of laws and policies but since you're a regular here you're probably just playing dumb.
You'll have to elaborate. I don't know what you're talking about.
How about Eliott Rodgers?
Elliot Rodgers had ZERO connection to the men's rights movement. That story was made up by some asshole on Daily Kos. Feminists, being the disgusting liars they are, made up the link.
If not that, then what about the multiplying reports of online threats and harassment, stalking, doxxing, physically attacking
Again you'll have to offer a specific example with evidence. "Harassment" has a VERY broad definition in the minds of feminists. Criticize Anita Sarkeesian? HARASSMENT.
I've seen two or three manifestos from feminists that called for either the eradication of, or extreme limitation in the population of, men.
Indeed. Including the founder of the first gender studies class, Sally Miller Gearhart. She coined the phrase "The Future is Female", currently being spouted by the likes of Hillary Clinton. There is nothing remotely comparable on the MRM side.
Unless you're talking about #KillAllMen, which I should remind you, has thusfar resulted in 0 deaths in men
They would if they could, I don't doubt for a second. Although as you say, they don't want complete extermination. They would need some men to do all the dirty and dangerous work.
How many men have committed suicide due to feminist laws pertaining to things like custody? Quite a few I reckon.
A Voice For Men's Edmonton chapter who operated on the philosophy that women who don't back down should be subjected to scare tactics
Can you help me out by showing me which AVFME members said this and when? Haven't followed that group in a while. Their website is shit for tablet viewing.
[–]8unn3h 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Fair enough. That part about gender politics was tongue-in-cheek, but I really don't know enough about them to make a judgement. I mostly think it's baffling that they're even a thing. And sorry if I offended, it wasn't my intention.
Anyway, tbh, the tweets didn't really pick my attention, but your comment did: you gave a definition of feminism, one of sexism, and stated that "It's also not sexist to respect one gender more than another." I just wanted to say I disagree with that, because my definition of sexism is diffferent.
I am not familiar with discrimination that doesn't come with a belief of superiority or inferiority somewhere.
Dress codes come to mind, for example. Businesses require male and female employees to dress differently, but there's no superiority as far as I can tell. Even if you interpret "discrimination" specifically as "treating someone worse" (rather than just "treat differently"), we can look specifically at hairstyles in dress codes: men often can't have long hair, but women have no such restriction. It's particularly obvious in the military.
Historically, it is factual to describe sexism as being in one direction. Even if that particularity is now in question, it was true when the definitions were published.
By my definition of sexism it might not be so factual. Men were treated differently (and worse) in many ways, we just don't realize it. Conscription seems like a glaring example: it clearly fits the definition, but in my experience most people, including the men who went through it, don't think of it as sexism or discrimination at all. I think many MRAs would like to change this perception. Also, I don't think saying "particularly against women" really adds anything to the definition. That is, it would still work perfectly if we got rid of that part. It's just a reflection of our bias IMO.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I was actually pointing out that a summation is the closing statement made in a court room. The more accurate word you were seeking was summary. The only thing you offended was my incurable grammarnazism.
I just wanted to say I disagree with that, because my definition of sexism is diffferent.
Oh, I agree with the textbook definition of the word. I wasn't directly quoting from the dictionary when I referred to it. And we do agree that sexism is discrimination. But discrimination, in my view, the way it is used to define sexism, doesn't work unless one party believes itself to be the better half of the equation.
Dress codes come to mind, for example. Businesses require male and female employees to dress differently, but there's no superiority as far as I can tell.
Dress codes only seem to discriminate when no one challenges them. An entire class of boys in a UK school chose to beat the summer heat by wearing skirts instead of slacks as part of the uniform. In addition, a story was actually posted here to MensRights about a young man (straight, cisgender) who wore some au naturel makeup as part of his daily routine that was asked to remove it at his workplace. He astutely pointed out that no dress code forbids him to wear makeup, and that his female co-workers wear make up with more invasive and vibrant colours. The story ended with the young man being allowed to resume his day as normal.
we can look specifically at hairstyles in dress codes: men often can't have long hair, but women have no such restriction.
In instances where I can think of long hair being an issue (such as food service or manufacturing), men are not required to cut it short, but are required to keep it neat, and where applicable, under a hairnet - which is a policy that applies to women as well.
It's particularly obvious in the military.
It's particularly obvious among general infantry and front-line personnel, especially because women in the United States military could not, until last year, serve alongside the men in combat. Now, with women officially among the ranks of the general infantry, it may become a sticking point as to whether women in combat roles require short hair. At this time, that difference in standard has not been challenged by anyone in the army. They might not care.
Men were treated differently (and worse) in many ways, we just don't realize it. Conscription seems like a glaring example: it clearly fits the definition, but in my experience most people, including the men who went through it, don't think of it as sexism or discrimination at all.
Conscription is not a sexism issue. Men were not disadvantaged over women in conscription, because the need for conscription was not "because men" and the lack of women conscripted isn't "because women" (women were conscripted, working in the US armed forces as field nurses, messengers, supply transport drivers, and clerks). It's because of the policies of the US Government regarding the roles women were allowed to take in the military that was discriminatory - which adversely affected the American population both during, and after the Second World War.
If you direct your ire at the wrong target, you accomplish nothing. And, the goal should be to abolish conscription. Preaching about it will just convince the government not to let it go.
I don't think saying "particularly against women" really adds anything to the definition.
You can say that about most of the -isms. Racism isn't just White against Black. Heterophobia is not a bullshit reversal. Sexism goes both ways. Adding specifics about "particularly" and "especially" doesn't make a definition more complete. However, the fact of its existence is not factually incorrect.
[–]Lostboulevard 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Conscription is not a sexism issue.
You feminists are un-fucking-believable. You think men sitting comfortably on the subway is "sexism against women" but men and boys being forced to kill and die to protect women is also...sexism against women. I don't know how your head just doesn't literally explode from the cognitive dissonance.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I knew someone was gunna call me a feminist eventually. Someone always does! When the clever insults run inevitably dry, and it becomes clear that challenging my intelligence isn't going to do you much good, you run right to the comfort zone of "FEMINIST! FEMINAZIIIIII!"
We're in familiar territory now.
You think men sitting comfortably on the subway is "sexism against women"
I don't, personally. As long as your legs aren't taking up all the fucking seats, and you're wearing pants, I don't care how you sit.
but men and boys being forced to kill and die to protect women is also...sexism against women.
I think conscription is an archaic dinosaur of a policy that creates a class of obedient, yet bitter slaves. Forcing someone to join the military is a travesty of human rights. Any person who desires to enter military service should do so of their own accord. Full stop. I have no gender politics in this matter.
I don't know how your head just doesn't literally explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Probably because it's protected by a barrier of "you argue like a little bitch".
[–]Lostboulevard 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think conscription is an archaic dinosaur of a policy that creates a class of obedient, yet bitter slaves.
Doesn't change the fact that men were oppressed by this policy due to their sex throughout history. Still are in some countries. Emma Goldman (one of the few historical feminists I can stomach) and other socialists challenged the law during WWI on the basis that it violated the 13th's amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. Sadly the challenge failed.
Females have always been the privileged sex.
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
As long as your legs aren't taking up all the fucking seats, and you're wearing pants, I don't care how you sit.
We can't wear shorts?
Any person who desires to enter military service should do so of their own accord. Full stop. I have no gender politics in this matter.
The politics are that it is largely restricted to men.
Has there ever been a women-only conscriotion, for comparison?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Shorts are pants. They are short pants.
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This blows my mind.
Does this mean spats are also pants?
[–]8unn3h 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
OH, so that's what you meant! Sorry, it went completely over my head, probably because I'm not a native speaker. Thank you for the correction though, I actually appreciate grammar nazism as it helps me improve!
I'm not quite convinced by some of the things you said, but overall I think we want the same things: we're happy that the schoolboys can wear shorts (or skirts) now, that the guy can wear makeup (why is painting your face supposed to be feminine anyway?), we want conscription to end. That's good enough for me, so unless you're interested in my nitpicks, I'll just leave it at that. Also because I'm too tired to argue, tbh!
Hey, I'll take any cordial agreement I can get! This is about as pleasant as any convo I'm in right now is going to end. Thanks for sharing your mind!
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
women were conscripted, working in the US armed forces as field nurses, messengers, supply transport drivers, and clerks
What years were women conscripted? Teach us.
President Roosevelt issued the call for women conscripts to become nurses due to a shortage in January of 1945 that lasted through until the end of the war in August.
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Interesting. What was pu ishment for refusal?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I do not know. I would imagine if there were any women who refused to be drafted, they would have been dealt with in the same way as a man who refused to serve. It's hard to refuse a call to action directly from The President.
[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Question: How, then, do you respect women more as a general rule without doing it solely because they have a vagina?
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Sexism is the discrimination based on gender. Preferring one gender more than another is sexism.
We should maybe discern between passive sexism (me thinking girls are prettier) and active sexism (guys believing girls are less likely to be bad people and taking their side by default)
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Sexual attraction is sexism?
Trolls gotta troll
It is. Not trolling. If you are not perfectly bisexual that is sexist. Those with hetero or homo preferences are sexist.
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
What would make one gender more deserving of respect?
You respect non-superior traits? Confusing.
I don't respect traits. Traits do nothing on their own. I respect people.
People are composed of traits. You respect their components.
You do not respect the trait of someone thinking chocolate is tasty. You do respect the trait of knowing how to bake a chocolate soufflé.
Thinking chocolate is tasty is not a trait; that is an opinion. And yes, you can respect a person rather than the little pieces of their skill set or physicality. The reason is that a person is not a neatly organized collection of clearly labeled pieces, like a chunk labelled "Guitar Player" and another chunk labelled "Pastry Chef".
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Dembara 27 points28 points29 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]n_surf 16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SilverGryphon 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheSummerain 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rokstola 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 12 points13 points14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FirstDimensionFilms 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Triskerai 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vidar34 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]theothermod[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–]8unn3h 10 points11 points12 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]mrmensplights 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pandamonius84 3 points4 points5 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pandamonius84 5 points6 points7 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 4 points5 points6 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 3 points4 points5 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]8unn3h 2 points3 points4 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]8unn3h 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bakedpotato486 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link