Is Feminism Today Equivalent To The KKK of The Past???

Don't hold your breath on that.

 

As a man who is a feminist I have to ask, do you get to have your own opinions, or are the only opinions you get the opinions of a woman who is a feminist???

 

You don't have to ask. I'm guessing it works like this. He learns how he feels about some stuff involving the different treatment boys, men, girls and women get. He finds out that a group of people share most of those views and he learns they are often called feminists. He listens to them some more. Listens to another group of folks see things very differently, and decides which group most often verbalize and work for changes he'd like to see. He adopts the name as reflecting a lot of his opinions. At least that's the way it works with me.

Folks do not throw away a right or a capacity to think independently when they self-label their opinions, beliefs and values. I do it all the time.

 

In general I would agree with you .. however from the numerous threads and comments in this sub-forum it is plain to see that by far the most prolific posters are ones who have decided that a radical minority encompass everything that is feminism and when confronted by that fact they evade.

For me using generalization to paint with a very wide brush is not only disingenuous it is dishonest.

 

I understand completely. One of the risks I suppose I accept when I self adopt labels like 'democrat' or 'liberal' is that some fools will decide to try to turn the label into a straitjacket that must restrict me or constrain my capacity to think. I am not a Democrat because Democrats told me how to be one. I am one because coincidently their views often coincide with mine and I don't mind if most people see the pattern exists. That is because most people are smart and not foolish enough to presume too much . I don't know if I am a feminist because I haven't thought enough about the patterns in my views and compared. I am not afraid of the word and these posters sure don't scare me off!

 

It is plain to see that those who whine about the most prolific posters are the ones who are guilty of doing the exact same thing they claim the other posters do. So therefore, their complaint has no substance nor credibility and therefore invalid.

Those who complain the most should lead by example to gain any sort of credibility. The only thing they are trying to do is to correct and control how another eprson expressed their beliefs and opinions and/or trying to punish them in order to get them to shut up.

until then they are to be summarily dismissed.

 

Better to question the motives of individual feminists. Some might well be of such a mind, but I wouldn't paint all feminists with that brush automatically.

And at least they aren't lynching or otherwise terrorising men. Poor comparison in this regard.

 

Of coerce. What a strange question.

 

I don't self adopt any labels, it tends to be thrust upon me by others who have no other means of defending their position.

 

It is plain to see that those who spend their time in generalization have no real intent on discussing any issue and when it is pointed out to them they cry like babies, insisting they are the victims of some illusionary slight, and then projecting their own failings onto others.

Ergo these people have no real relevance or creditability, they are more intent on hearing their own voice while sticking their fingers in their ears when ever anyone else speaks. They are so blinded by their agenda that no other person can disagree and if they do then they are the ones who are in the wrong.

Never mind, I hope they continue to do exactly as they are it just highlights there own stupidity and complete lack of creditability to any with even the slightest knowledge of the subject matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Be careful by saying this you leave yourself open to being turned upon BTW I agree with you.

 

Lee Harvey Oswald is speculated to of assisinated John F Kennedy.

 

The titanic is speculated to have been sunk by an iceberg.

 

The countless feminists physically and sexually assaulting men peacefully and passively protecting their church while many more feminists cheer them on and none of them being arrested for physical and sexual assault is a pretty good sample size from which to draw a conclusion that feminism is a polititically correct supremacist hate movement.

Of course there are always exceptions. For example, there was even a Nazi who saved Jews, Oscar Schindler, a Nazi who saved thousands of Jews. However, Nazi's generally did not save Jews, unfortunately, and claiming Nazis saved jews is as ridiculous as claiming feminists are about equality.

 

Hyperbole and exaggeration is not an expression of conviction, let alone truth. It is an expression of desperation. Cool the overblown and insane rhetoric and your points gain some traction. You'd be better just discussing the underreported and underappreciated problem of violence and sexual assault against men. Then connect some dots with some insensitive, dismissive or counterproductive quotes from local or national figures who may or may not be 'feminists', as reflective of a climate of ignorance and indifference. If specific feminists have some splainin to do, force them to do it along with anyone else.

 

Strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman.

 

Still does not equate to your outright lie of all feminists being radical and for the record the indecent you are referring to should have been dealt with differently, and those women found to have been breaking any laws should have been arrested, charged and if found guilty paid the price.

BTW care to actually post the number of radical feminists involved in this please, the number that actually attacked those men because from the video footage I have seen (from catholic sites no less) you can count the number of women involved in this on your fingers, if you think that is sufficient enough number to construe "a pretty good sample size from which to draw a conclusion" then have to say you have a very low requirement rate in order to "draw a conclusion".

To put it simpler for you, out of a crowd of thousands you think that around 10 is "a pretty good sample size from which to draw a conclusion" .. sorry but that is simply a joke.

 

No. U.

Your claim is just not true.

But that is for the conspiracy section and to discuss it here is to derail the thread.

 

Can you be more specific? Perhaps quote the claim I made that you dispute?

 

Your claim of Oswald being the shooter is mere speculation.

 

How is that a, "strawman," I'm refuting your argument. I'm not creating an argument then refuting my own argument. I'm refuting your argument that it's not true because it's speculation. There are many things that are speculation. Like it's speculation that the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg but it's not 100% certain that it was an iceberg, therefore; it's speculation, but if not an iceberg, then what was it???

 

Cthulhu rising from Ry'leh.

 

Please post quote of me saying the above.

 

Its a strawman because it shifts the focus away from your initial claim.

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Whoops, my apologies, I got the signals crossed from ryobi in post number 153.

 

Only someone who is a supremacist and hateful would justify the sexual and physical assault of peaceful people, just as the KKK is so supremacist and hateful it justifies the assault of African Americans...

Disgusting!!!