Deranged feminists sue to gain admission to fraternities that sexually assaulted them

[Toni]

A woman in a happy loving marriage would NEVER say such a thing.

No? Cite?
I mean, prove it.
My wife has that t-shirt. You're saying that proves she's neither happy nor loving?
Huh. 32 years together, she's been unhappy since summer 2001.
Oh, wait. I bought her tgat to replace the one she wore out. That jeans since before the twins were born...

Damn. Yeah, really need you to back up this claim, halfie.

Keith, it is very contradictory to say that statement and then have a husband.

Imagine me wearing a shirt that says, "A man doesn't need video games to pass the time!" And then you point out, "But, you have every single video game system ever released!"

Can't you see how I'd be a hypocrite?

Do you understand the difference between ‘need’ and ‘want,’ or ‘love,’ or ‘like’ or ‘enjoy.’

 

[Arctish]

No, she does not do that. She does pre-emptively discuss other people who make the argument for not hating men.

Here's the beginning of the article:

Why can’t we hate men?

It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.

Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.

But, of course, the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men — from transnational feminists who decry such glib universalism to U.S. women of color who demand an intersectional perspective — are mostly on the mark. These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies. Growing movements to challenge a masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary. Please continue.

"These critics rightly insist..."

She agrees with the people who say we shouldn't hate men and that the problem isn't biologically based in male bodies, it's institutional power being used abusively.

She then goes on to talk about that power and why, in her opinion, a glib #NotAllMen isn't good enough.

No, she does not do that. She says, in her last paragraph, that if men want to be not hated for causing "millennia of woe", then they need to perform acts of penance such as voting for feminist women only, not running for office, and 'don't be in charge of anything'.

I already said I don't agree with all of her proposals.

I don't think we need men to step down, I think we need men to stop attacking and holding back women when they step up. Which, interestingly enough, brings us back to the OP and women who want to join fraternities so they, too, can reap the benefits of membership in those old and powerful institutions.

Anyway, I asked you to link to an article you've read, written by a Feminist author, so everyone can see the "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex" you're talking about. Are there any?

I linked to the Quillette article that links to some articles.

But, even though this link is taken from the article I already linked, I'll reproduce the link here:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/09/suzanne-moore-why-i-was-wrong-about-men

That's an interesting article with a very interesting opening paragraph:

Men. You can’t live with them. You can’t shoot them. Well, you can, but this is the New Statesman. And modern feminism spends most of its life not just bending over backwards, but in the doggy position, saying how much it likes men. “I’m a feminist but . . . I love men.” Obviously I’m being a bit binary here, and when I write “men”, I mean women, blokes, anyone fluid enough basically to be in charge.

Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". It sounds more like hating entrenched institutional power being used abusively, just like in the Walters article.

 

[Metaphor]

No.

These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies.

This is no way is evidence that she doesn't hate men. In the article she says women are justified in hating men. And analyzing male power as 'institutional' as a methodology and tactic does not mean she doesn't hate men.

Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". But at least it was closer to the mark than the Walters article.

I concede that if your definition of men includes some women, she doesn't technically hate only men, just men and some other people she thinks are honorary men (male-adjacent?)

I guess, add 'incoherent argument' to the list of charges then.

 

[Arctish]

No.

These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies.

This is no way is evidence that she doesn't hate men. In the article she says women are justified in hating men. And analyzing male power as 'institutional' as a methodology and tactic does not mean she doesn't hate men.

Did you read the article? I mean recently. I ask because the rest of the article was about institutional power and how to ensure that women wield more of it. She even invited men to join with women working on that - not something you'd do if you hated them.

Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". But at least it was closer to the mark than the Walters article.

I concede that if your definition of men includes some women, she doesn't technically hate only men, just men and some other people she thinks are honorary men (male-adjacent?)

I guess, add 'incoherent argument' to the list of charges then.

I edited the end of my post to read: Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". It sounds more like hating entrenched institutional power being used abusively, just like in the Walters article."

She is clearly talking about institutional power, not "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

 

[Metaphor]

Did you read the article? I mean recently. I ask because the rest of the article was about institutional power and how to ensure that women wield more of it. She even invited men to join with women working on that - not something you'd do if you hated them.

Yes, she explains specifically how men should contribute to that - vote only for feminist women, don't run for office and "don't be in charge of anything."

Now, in a way, I agree with some of her suggestions. Any man who would cravenly acquiesce to feminist demands that he 'not be in charge of anything' should probably not be in charge of anything.

I edited the end of my post to read: Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". It sounds more like hating entrenched institutional power being used abusively, just like in the Walters article.

She is clearly talking about institutional power, not "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

No, she is clearly talking about men. She does not exclude from her article 'men who acquiesce to feminist demands'. She says YesAllMen and other disambiguating things several times.

In fact, I don't know how much clearer she could have made it.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind

 

[Arctish]

Did you read the article? I mean recently. I ask because the rest of the article was about institutional power and how to ensure that women wield more of it. She even invited men to join with women working on that - not something you'd do if you hated them.

Yes, she explains specifically how men should contribute to that - vote only for feminist women, don't run for office and "don't be in charge of anything."

Now, in a way, I agree with some of her suggestions. Any man who would cravenly acquiesce to feminist demands that he 'not be in charge of anything' should probably not be in charge of anything.

So, not an example of "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

I edited the end of my post to read: Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". It sounds more like hating entrenched institutional power being used abusively, just like in the Walters article.

She is clearly talking about institutional power, not "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

No, she is clearly talking about men. She does not exclude from her article 'men who acquiesce to feminist demands'. She says YesAllMen and other disambiguating things several times.

In fact, I don't know how much clearer she could have made it.

Neither do I. I mean, she spelled it out:

Obviously I’m being a bit binary here, and when I write “men”, I mean women, blokes, anyone fluid enough basically to be in charge.

That's pretty clear.

Are there any other articles written by Feminists that you've read?

Got anything by Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, etc.?

 

[Metaphor]

So, not an example of "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

Yes, it is an example of that. She hates men. All men, based on their sex.

She also hates 'honorary' men, based not on their sex but on the aping of masculinity she perceives in them.

Are there any other articles written by Feminists that you've read?

Got anything by Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, etc.?

Naomi Wolf, lol. Naomi Wolf doesn't hate men. The woman was a Rhodes Scholar who somehow can't do basic research (see Outrages), but she doesn't hate men.

But if you are asking: do I have additional mainstream articles where feminists openly admit to hating men, no. People do not routinely state their bigotry like that (at least with their names next to it), but their bigotry is betrayed by their arguments. But if Twitter snark counts, then yes, there is much more material. But as has been recently demonstrated on this board, Twitter posts are not even discussed unless there is definitive proof that it wasn't a false-flag hoax originating with the alt-right and the Illuminati.

 

[Toni]

Did you read the article? I mean recently. I ask because the rest of the article was about institutional power and how to ensure that women wield more of it. She even invited men to join with women working on that - not something you'd do if you hated them.

Yes, she explains specifically how men should contribute to that - vote only for feminist women, don't run for office and "don't be in charge of anything."

Now, in a way, I agree with some of her suggestions. Any man who would cravenly acquiesce to feminist demands that he 'not be in charge of anything' should probably not be in charge of anything.

I edited the end of my post to read: Not exactly "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex". It sounds more like hating entrenched institutional power being used abusively, just like in the Walters article.

She is clearly talking about institutional power, not "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

No, she is clearly talking about men. She does not exclude from her article 'men who acquiesce to feminist demands'. She says YesAllMen and other disambiguating things several times.

In fact, I don't know how much clearer she could have made it.

I think you are correct: no matter how clear her words, your bias and your preconceptions prevent you from understanding what she is actually saying.

It is entirely possible to have good reason to hate someone—and yet, not hate them or even wish them
harm.

 

[Arctish]

So, not an example of "hatred for classes of people based only on their sex".

Yes, it is an example of that. She hates men. All men, based on their sex.

No, she does not.

That's your brain at work again, taking an extreme interpretation of her words and running with it. I would not be surprised if in a few years you claimed she suggested hunting men for sport.

She wrote more than that one opinion piece. If you think you can find expmples of her expressing hatred for men, go for it. Read a book or an article she wrote. Then quote it.

She also hates 'honorary' men, based not on their sex but on the aping of masculinity she perceives in them.

Are there any other articles written by Feminists that you've read?

Got anything by Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, etc.?

Naomi Wolf, lol. Naomi Wolf doesn't hate men. The woman was a Rhodes Scholar who somehow can't do basic research (see Outrages), but she doesn't hate men.

But if you are asking: do I have additional mainstream articles where feminists openly admit to hating men, no. People do not routinely state their bigotry like that (at least with their names next to it), but their bigotry is betrayed by their arguments. But if Twitter snark counts, then yes, there is much more material. But as has been recently demonstrated on this board, Twitter posts are not even discussed unless there is definitive proof that it wasn't a false-flag hoax originating with the alt-right and the Illuminati.

So that's a no.

 

[Toni]

No. I didn't say they had to be women-only. It's the women in the lawsuit who think that the boozy culture contributed to their assaults, and they think less alcohol would improve the situation.

Did you actually read the lawsuit? Based on your posts, I would guess the answer is no.

Who gave the men a pass? Where did I say sexually assaulting people was right or acceptable?

Failing to acknowledge or condemn criminal behavior is not different than making such criminal behavior acceptable. Where did you condemn or acknowledge sexual assault?

I don't think they do want to attend a party with alcohol. They think alcohol is the problem.

Clearly, you haven't read the article you linked nor the link to the actual law suit.

They want the State to force fraternities to accept women, so that women can (nag? influence?) the fraternity bros into using less alcohol.

Clearly you haven't read the article you posted nor the link to the law suit the women brought.

But why do parties have to be a particular thing? Are women entitled to go to parties with men and alcohol?

Why would they not be, unless the parties were specifically for members only and the members were all men?

You may think that, but forcing single-sex organisations to admit women won't give women equal career opportunities. What it may do is shift that privilege to some women who join fraternities, while women who remain in sororities will remain (apparently) networkless. But I doubt it will do even that much. If, as feminists believe, men conspire to keep women out of the most lucrative labour market positions, they'll go ahead and do it anyway, only they will be additionally resentful now.

More resentful? This issue is entirely based upon the fact that these boys--because they clearly are not adult males based upon their behavior--resent not being allowed to do whatever they like whenever they like to whoever they like and resent the entire notion of women as equals. That's the purpose of these organizations: to create and maintain an in group and an out group. One of the qualifications for membership in the in group is being male.

 

[Metaphor]

Did you actually read the lawsuit? Based on your posts, I would guess the answer is no.

Yes, and I posted excerpts from it when Gun Nut asserted that I'd made claims that I never made.

Failing to acknowledge or condemn criminal behavior is not different than making such criminal behavior acceptable. Where did you condemn or acknowledge sexual assault?

First, your first sentence above is ludicrous and I'm not going to talk any more about it.

Second, your second sentence--are we living in the same universe?

The thread title ends with the words 'that sexually assaulted them'.

Not only did I acknowledge the sexual assaults, it was in my thread title, a thread title I was criticized for and a thread title where Gun Nut thought I had said 'rape'.

The lawsuit and the article says the girls were groped. I used the term 'sexual assault' because that's what groping is.

Clearly, you haven't read the article you linked nor the link to the actual law suit.

It's in the lawsuit.

Read the lawsuit.

Why would they not be, unless the parties were specifically for members only and the members were all men?

I don't know how parties work in your house, but when I host one, the only people who are entitled to come are the people I invite.

Nobody is entitled, absent invitation, to go to other people's parties. And even then, an invitation can be withdrawn.

No means no, Toni.

More resentful? This issue is entirely based upon the fact that these boys--because they clearly are not adult males based upon their behavior--resent not being allowed to do whatever they like whenever they like to whoever they like and resent the entire notion of women as equals. That's the purpose of these organizations: to create and maintain an in group and an out group. One of the qualifications for membership in the in group is being male.

Yes. Every culture in the world has segregated people by the sexes.

You want to force men to live with women they don't want to live with.

You need help.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Democrats are racists.

this is your response to pointing out the frequency of your own identity politics posting.

You saw all those things Bloomberg said about blacks and his stop and frisk policy. He's a racist man and a Democrat

so, wait, if one racist claims to be a democrat, they are all racists?
That's
2) identity politics
3) kind of a problem for anyone who votes for the President the KKK supports
4) identity politics

[Zipr got #1]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Name one.

Better yet, link to it so everyone can see the hatred for classes of people based only on their sex you allege is in there.

https://quillette.com/2018/08/15/why-its-not-ok-to-hate-men/

Yep, all men are bad and all Trump supporters are Nazis.

This is how Trump wins. He doesn't divide us the way the Democrats do.

If you're black, you better stick with your own kind and vote Democrat.

If you're LGBTQ, you better stick with your own kind and vote Democrat.

Identity politics is cancer and the Dems love it. Republicans hate it.

Andrew Yang was the only candidate who refused to take shots at Trump. He wanted to focus on policies. Result? He's out of the race.

If you're white nationalist you better stick with your own kind and vote Republican.

If you're Christian fundie you better stick with your own kind and vote Republican.

Identity politics is the Republican modus operanda.