[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm currently trying to find a video I stumbled across last week; which has been picking my ass. Perhaps you can confirm it's validity...

What? you can't?

	The contents went as such. Women have the right to vote, based solely on the ownership of a cunt.

And yours is based on having a dick?

	Men however, have to sign a draft card to earn the right to vote. Compounded with the issue of prison stripping a man of the right to vote, but not his draft obligations;

So fucking what? What is the likelihood of the draft coming back?

	yet women in prison still retain their right to vote. This smacks of special rights. Remember the number of men currently in prison; and women are the voting majority now.

The draft is a Federal issue. Voter rights, including convicted felons, is a State issue.

	And in a time of economic stress, what is To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ?

What the fuck does that have to do with ERA??

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What? you can't? And yours is based on having a dick? So fucking what? What is the likelihood of of the draft coming back? The draft is a Federal issue, voter rights, including convicted felons, is a State issue. What the fuck does that have to do with ERA??

Right, thank you.

[Cooper]

Totally missed the point didn't you?

[Shadizar]

A brush off is hardly a point.

[Cooper]

This is a point....

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm currently trying to find a video I stumbled across last week; which has been picking my ass. Perhaps you can confirm it's validity...

What? you can't?

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The contents went as such. Women have the right to vote, based solely on the ownership of a cunt.

And yours is based on having a dick?

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men however, have to sign a draft card to earn the right to vote. Compounded with the issue of prison stripping a man of the right to vote, but not his draft obligations;

So fucking what? What is the likelihood of the draft coming back?

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	yet women in prison still retain their right to vote. This smacks of special rights. Remember the number of men currently in prison; and women are the voting majority now.

The draft is a Federal issue. Voter rights, including convicted felons, is a State issue.

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And in a time of economic stress, what is this?

What the fuck does that have to do with ERA??



This is a brush off....

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right, thank you.

[plotthickens]

Originally Posted by BoringTuna To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder about your English comprehension skills. I never imputed (implied) that, not even slightly. What I implied was that there isn't statistically significant, empirical data that can support or refute the claim that feminists want more than equality (ie, dominance). You then misunderstood it and provided statistics that could support or refute a different argument, but not the one I was actually making. Call it gaslighting if you wish - if I said it to a man you'd see it for the accusation of general logical incompetence that it is, and not the chauvinist melodrama you're intent on characterising it as. There's no real coherency here. I have thrice accused you of giving emotive responses because, rather than lay out relevant details or a cogent argument, you stoop to characterisation and dodging. The fact you have a vagina doesn't make these assessments 'gaslighting'. So, again, where's your empirical data that shows that feminists do not in general want dominance rather than equality? Care to admit that anecdotal/logical discourse is the only sort that really exists and that your point about anecdotes was weak? Edit: the only sort of discourse that really exists on this question.

Sweetie, this is a fun thread. It's where bitter posters tried to equate feminism to religion. Patently ridiculous, like everything else unsupportable they've been handwaving about. The feminists showed up and made fun of them. You want to get serious, go to any of the ninety-nine hundred other feminist threads that are currently raging. If you can't tell that all my egging-on was sarcasm then you really need to go somewhere the line between serious posting and mockery is more defined.

Keep calling my posts here emotional, lacking in whatever, blah blah blah. You're right. That was the point. You may want to try to understand the conversation before jumping into the middle in the future.

[catzmeow]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm currently trying to find a video I stumbled across last week; which has been picking my ass. Perhaps you can confirm it's validity... The contents went as such. Women have the right to vote, based solely on the ownership of a cunt. Men however, have to sign a draft card to earn the right to vote. Compounded with the issue of prison stripping a man of the right to vote, but not his draft obligations; yet women in prison still retain their right to vote. This smacks of special rights. Remember the number of men currently in prison; and women are the voting majority now. And in a time of economic stress, what is To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ?

Two thoughts.

First, most feminists, including me, think women should also be required to register for the draft. Those who don't tend to believe the draft should be eliminated entirely.

Second, your points aren't even accurate. Female felons also lose the right to vote (it isn't gender specified).

It would be nice if you could start fact-checking your paradigms.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What? you can't?

Perhaps asking a legitimate question with the hopes of a serious answer was the wrong method. I asked because it currently doesn't directly affect this Canadian on several levels. I was hoping that someone who hasn't yet earned my disdain and has a military background might happen to know and give me a straight answer, or at least point me in the right direction. I shall not make that mistake again.

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And yours is based on having a dick?

Knee-jerk answer that avoids the points that followed. I expect this from Zibber.

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So fucking what? What is the likelihood of the draft coming back?

Whether the draft is enacted again or not is besides the point; it exists.

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The draft is a Federal issue. Voter rights, including convicted felons, is a State issue.

Voting rights is a constitutional issue. While the individual states may be able to take the right to vote on the state level, the right to vote on a federal level should be
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What the fuck does that have to do with ERA??

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[BoringTuna]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First, most feminists, including me, think women should also be required to register for the draft.

Thank you. Always refreshing to meet the 1/100.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by BoringTuna To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank you. Always refreshing to meet the 1/100.

2/100 but thanks for assuming.

[BoringTuna]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sweetie, this is a fun thread. It's where bitter posters tried to equate feminism to religion. Patently ridiculous, like everything else unsupportable they've been handwaving about.

Sure, and I would've argued with them too. But I wasn't one. Why respond as if I were?

	The feminists showed up and made fun of them. You want to get serious, go to any of the ninety-nine hundred other feminist threads that are currently raging. If you can't tell that all my egging-on was sarcasm then you really need to go somewhere the line between serious posting and mockery is more defined.

I don't believe for a second that you didn't take the discussions with myself and zsych seriously (unless those stats were sarcastic?):

	You imputed I do not have any grasp of "empirical, statistically signifcant data". I prove that I do have a grasp of it and have previously used such here on INTJf to back up my stance on feminism.

	You have (thrice) accused me of emotional responses instead of logical, which is frankly on the road to gaslighting if not straight out attempts at manipulation.

	This has been excellently theorized to be the result of mothers carrying a couple extra quarts of blood in their systems to nourish the child, resulting in less problems from the narrowing of blood-carrying tissues. Again: always been true, excepting maternal mortality, and is not the result of feminism.

Wow, what lacerating sarcasm!

	Keep calling my posts here emotional, lacking in whatever, blah blah blah. You're right. That was the point. You may want to try to understand the conversation before jumping into the middle in the future.

It wasn't the point, but you know that. At least you tried.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. Feminists are people committed to equality. If the person isn't committed to equality, she/he isn't a feminist. I would call such people female-supremacists or something along those lines.

I sympathise. I personally believe that women are entitled to just as good treatment as men, which is why I call myself an Equalist.

Nevertheless, it's a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

If you want to exclude female supremacists from the title of Feminsts, then you' better start requiring membership cards for Feminists, and vet them before they get to become a member of Feminism.

However, if you do that, then from what I've observed, you're going to only have a tiny minority who support Feminism, as most people only support that which helps their personal interests, and equality both helps and hurts women who want themselves to have as much as possible. In that case, you would not have anywhere near enough people to fight the case for equality. Hence, why early feminists were not that picky about who joined the movement. Another case of "the ends justify the means", aka "let's just get what we want, whatever it takes to get the job done, and worry about the consequences later".

If you really want gender equality, then stop calling yourself a Feminist, and start calling yourself an Equalist, or, if you prefer to be more accurate, a Gender Equalist, and get your friends to do so too. The nature of the word makes it clear to everyone what you want to occur, and thus removes any ambiguity that female supremacists can take advantage of, and that male chauvinists masquerading as Feminists could take advantage of as well, which is precisely why I choose to call myself such a term.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I sympathise. I personally believe that women are entitled to just as good treatment as men, which is why I call myself an Equalist.—snip--.

You always mention “from what I have observed” in one of its incarnations when you try to ram your opinion down people’s throats. It might very well be that you have observed a few things in your life, but why do you state that as if you had a position of authority? So you look around in your circle of acquaintances and see your ideas and prejudices confirmed. Well, duh, of course you do since you select data from the sources whose ideational system is akin to yours.

What makes you assume that your definition of feminism is the only valid one? Feminism is a multifaceted, multivalent system of thought that has multiple local/cultural/ social definitions.
Which makes me ask where is your membership card that gives you membership in the “I am Judge and Jury Club” of the western hemisphere? Or do you want to be same globally? Who is going to vet you?

Just in case it has escaped your notice, mere gender EQUALITY is not the goal of feminism—we all know that equality cannot be achieved –we have always been for egalitarianism in real life and equality before the law. That means in places where women have equal rights under the law, they are now fighting for egalitarian status in matters of actually being treated as such. Hence, feminism in one of its incarnations may be concerned with equality, but the rest of our agenda is all about egalitarianism and has been for decades.

And you acting like you just discovered that for and by yourself is more than disingenuous. But thanks for attacking female supremacists. They are such a menace to society, because … ? Next time the world wide feminist movement gets together to decide on an uniform agenda, we will definitely invite you to give us specific instructions as to what is allowed and what isn’t.

BTW looking at the history of various feminist groups/movements I do take exception to your condescending, and patently false assertion.

	… you're going to only have a tiny minority who support Feminism, as most people only support that which helps their personal interests, and equality both helps and hurts women who want themselves to have as much as possible.

The treatment all of the early feminists had to suffer and endure makes your statement just another ignorant and untrue assertion. If you want more current information about the ever so selfish feminists who want to get whatever they can for themselves you should really look at
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
maybe you get a bit better understanding of who feminists are outside of your cozy little circle of acquaintances.

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The treatment all of the early feminists had to suffer and endure makes your statement just another ignorant and untrue assertion. If you want more current information about the ever so selfish feminists who want to get whatever they can for themselves you should really look at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. maybe you get a bit better understanding of who feminists are outside of your cozy little circle of acquaintances.

So your best argument is to bring up the women who achieved their ends; and then cite a third world country? That's called misdirection, a religious tactic.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So your best argument is to bring up the women who achieved their ends; and then cite a third world country? That's called misdirection, a religious tactic.

No, you got that wrong. I merely pointed out that the simplistic approach employed is just that. Simplistic and argued from false authority.

And why is it a problem to widen the scope a bit? Is feminism limited to one particular area now?

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, you got that wrong. I merely pointed out that the simplistic approach employed is just that. Simplistic and argued from false authority. And why is it a problem to widen the scope a bit? Is feminism limited to one particular area now?

What authority?

And if you feel the need to widen your scope, go ahead. But stop taking your anger out on the men at your side; go THERE, and teach THEM.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What authority? And if you feel the need to widen your scope, go ahead. But stop taking your anger out on the men at your side; go THERE, and teach THEM.

What authority? I was referring to scorpi’s argument from authority, which he clearly does not possess.

And why do you project your anger at feminists onto me?

I am not angry with men, why would I be and what gives you that impression? Is it because I question a male who claims to be an authority on feminism as per his definition just because he knows a few women who he talks to?
Or do you just naturally assume that any woman who opens her mouth and disagrees with you is angry? Disillusioned much?

BTW why do you assume I don’t just do that, teach, I mean? of course i don't know what your definition of THEM is, but i have a rather wide scope of students...

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What authority? I was referring to scorpi’s argument from authority, which he clearly does not possess. And why do you project your anger at feminists onto me? I am not angry with men, why would I be and what gives you that impression? Is it because I question a male who claims to be an authority on feminism as per his definition just because he knows a few women who he talks to? Or do you just naturally assume that any woman who opens her mouth and disagrees with you is angry? Disillusioned much? BTW why do you assume I don’t just do that, teach, I mean? of course i don't know what your definition of THEM is, but i have a rather wide scope of students...

What argument from authority?

I'm afraid your inability to distinguish between HERE and THERE is a key issue. If you wish to teach that third world women are equal, then go THERE and teach THOSE third world men and women about gender equality. The necessity that I MUST spell this out for you, is a serious hitch between the sexes HERE. If your problem with gender equality is in other countries, quit enabling the unnecessary unwarranted and intolerable legal oppression of men HERE. Men HERE can only pass laws to female advantage HERE, not THERE.

The only way for men HERE to change laws THERE, is if we conquer them and demand their unconditional surrender. However, this presents a problem; "if women ruled the world, there would be no war", if you want us to demand THEM to be equal, you're gonna have to go to war first.

[Simurgh]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What argument from authority? I'm afraid your inability to distinguish between HERE and THERE is a key issue. If you wish to teach that third world women are equal, then go THERE and teach THOSE third world men and women about gender equality. The necessity that I MUST spell this out for you, is a serious hitch between the sexes HERE. If your problem with gender equality is in other countries, quit enabling the unnecessary unwarranted and intolerable legal oppression of men HERE. Men HERE can only pass laws to female advantage HERE, not THERE. The only way for men HERE to change laws THERE, is if we conquer them and demand their unconditional surrender. However, this presents a problem; "if women ruled the world, there would be no war", if you want us to demand THEM to be equal, you're gonna have to go to war first.

Selective understanding seems to be your thing. Where does all that stuff come from? Either you read a whole lot more into anything that is actually posted or you just cannot respond to what is actually in front of you because you have nothing constructive to contribute.

Never did I state that I need to go anywhere to teach 3rd world women anything. Globalization allows them to learn that everywhere—at least those who can access the net, can be reached by grassroots organizations, come to the west for education or work, and all those in places where they have their own feminist outreach groups.

In my case it is the students I have from across the globe—benefit of working in a big university. Besides, at what point did I say anything about demanding them to be equal as you ever so quaintly put it? You stating that going to war over equality is the answer just show that you are getting a bit too emotional over that whole thing again. I never said nor do I think that men ought to go to war over something like ‘equality’, whatever that might mean to you.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Never did I state that I need to go anywhere to teach 3rd world women anything.

Of course you didn't, that would require something called "work". By posting a link to a non-western third world country, you imply that it's men's responsibility to "fix it". It is NOT our problem to fix, until it is MADE our problem; are you
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
it our problem?

Try to stay on point. Feminism (as defined by the dictionary) in the western world is largely obsolete. Feminism (as defined as female superiority) is what's causing most of the damage to society; men are second class citizens, many men are sitting in prison on trumped up charges, children are raised by single mothers/state, and women are nigh untouchable. Don't point to third worlds as an excuse to close your eyes to the problems HERE. If you wish to ignore the HERE, and pomp up the THERE; then go THERE.

[Simurgh]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of course you didn't, that would require something called "work". By posting a link to a non-western third world country, you imply that it's men's responsibility to "fix it". It is NOT our problem to fix, until it is MADE our problem; are you To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. it our problem? Try to stay on point. Feminism (as defined by the dictionary) in the western world is largely obsolete. Feminism (as defined as female superiority) is what's causing most of the damage to society; men are second class citizens, many men are sitting in prison on trumped up charges, children are raised by single mothers/state, and women are nigh untouchable. Don't point to third worlds as an excuse to close your eyes to the problems HERE. If you wish to ignore the HERE, and pomp up the THERE; then go THERE.

Oh get over yourself. There was no implied message in regards to the link I posted. How do you get from that link to the assumption that I want you, orany western men in general to fix it?. I merely wanted to illustrate with the most expedient link—since it’s rather self-explanatory as to what is going on and why feminism is still a needed socio-political movement. Go back and look at the context and read what I actually stated.

And what damage feminism does in your world is mostly dependent on how you define your world. I am sure it is traumatic to have male privilege questioned and curbed, but I doubt that feminism has had all that much of an impact on your life. Maybe a woman or two treated you badly and now you are all ticked off, but that has more to do with you and them than with feminism so stop making such wild claims about what I state. Again, you read way too much into everything and your anger is getting in the way of rational thought.

And I don’t have to go anywhere to see the relevance of feminism in the 1st world. It might surprise you but I actually live in the western hemisphere and experience gender politics daily. One more time, since this seems so difficult to understand; I posted the link to point out that women in other countries have their own feminist agendas and movements and they are quite content with our non-interference.

I know I and others have stated this repeatedly, feminism is culturally bounded and it is hubris on your part to assume THEY over THERE need US over HERE to fix anything for them. They have proven capable, and again, hence the link to illustrate that.

Oh, I meet quite a lot of those poor male victims who are on trumped up charges in prison. Yeah, poor innocent little boys. Strange, how proud they are when they tell me all about the crimes they are innocent off. I especially liked the one who shot his girlfriend’s face off because his drunk brother tried to rape her and he took this as an insult on his manliness. Not what his brother did, hey that’s his bro. No, that she did not do anything after he had knocked her unconscious and started to rape her—something he could not finish as he was either too drunk or too high or both.

And sure, let’s go and whine about how women are guilty of raising their children when the fathers have decided to run out on them. Damn feminists, what are they thinking allowing those harridans to get state assistance. Why don’t they just hunt those guys down and force them to contribute to their children’s upbringing? Not just money, but time and effort too. Yeah, poor men, suffering so from all those burdens of male privilege.

So what is it? First you state that feminism in the 1st world is obsolete and we should pack it in since we are redundant, and then you want us to fix the problems here, which you say don’t exist. Oh, can I meet the men who are second class citizens? Or are you strictly talking about racist agendas and the blatant discrimination against people of color—that includes women too, BTW.

[Shadizar]

... sociopolitical movement...