Derec
Contributor
Well at least you admit you do not care about gender equality but instead demand female supremacy.When you show me a pregnant man as the result of rape I'll reexamine my view.
If only all feminazis were that honest.
Well at least you admit you do not care about gender equality but instead demand female supremacy.When you show me a pregnant man as the result of rape I'll reexamine my view.
it's not blatantly sexist, it's simply recognizing physical reality - just because you can't see it because of your ideological blinders doesn't mean it doesn't exist.And you agree with that blatantly sexist view?
Judge concluded rape was gender specific so male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.
No, no. He concluded that "rapist" was not gender specific - it could apply to a man or woman (see Lena Dunham). Hence, being called a rapist was not gender-based discrimination, like being called a slut.
Judge concluded rape was gender specific so male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.
No, no. He concluded that "rapist" was not gender specific - it could apply to a man or woman (see Lena Dunham). Hence, being called a rapist was not gender-based discrimination, like being called a slut.
So it's ok for men to rape women ifHowever I'll let my point that rape is something that to be actable needs physical consequences like, say, pregnancy.
So it's ok for men to rape women ifHowever I'll let my point that rape is something that to be actable needs physical consequences like, say, pregnancy.
a) he uses a condom
b) either is infertile
c) woman used birth control
d) woman is post-menopausal?
Did I understand you correctly?
nature is sexist!!!11!What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.
Nature might be sexist but laws should not be. Every individual deserves equal treatment under law. Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.nature is sexist!!!11What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.
but justice should reasonably account for inherent biological differences that no amount of equivocating on the part of you male SJWs can negate.Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.
The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.
Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?
Shameful. Just shameful.
Yes, please explain in more depth. Maybe give an example.
What are you babbling about now?The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.
Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?
Shameful. Just shameful.
So it's ok for men to rape women if
a) he uses a condom
b) either is infertile
c) woman used birth control
d) woman is post-menopausal?
Did I understand you correctly?
Nope. Condoms nor birth control aren't a guarantees, nor is an infertility diagnosis, or being supposed post-menopausal. There are exceptions to every one of your get out of crime proposals. When you find a pregnant male please come back with another of your interesting but flawed lists.
What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.
Your first post revered to "many". At that juncture, there had been exactly 5 different posters, including Derec. In your reply, you give only one example. Since one is not normally considered many, are you including yourself in the membership of the pathetic left that apparently can't read simple English or are you going to continue to babble?Some members of the pathetic left are so pathetic that they apparently can't even read simple English...
And the offspring would probably look something like this.This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.
How is unequal treatment before the law justified in this case by biological differences?but justice should reasonably account for inherent biological differences that no amount of equivocating on the part of you male SJWs can negate.Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.
Your misuse of the English language is duly noted. But since you do claim that man are oppressed and women get special treatment, you really do fit your definition of SJW.P.S.: I object to your misuse of the term SJW here. One of the hallmarks of SJWs is that they reject treating people as individuals but rather treat them as ciphers for different groups, which they neatly divide into "oppressors" and "oppressed". Thus, SJW much better fits you, fromderinside and laughing dog.
So a rape should only be prosecuted if the woman gets pregnant. Got you.Nope. Condoms nor birth control aren't a guarantees, nor is an infertility diagnosis, or being supposed post-menopausal. There are exceptions to every one of your get out of crime proposals. When you find a pregnant male please come back with another of your interesting but flawed lists.
What is it about the 14th amendment that you (and others, including the feminist judge) find so hard to comprehend?What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.
I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.Your misuse of the English language is duly noted. But since you do claim that man are oppressed and women get special treatment, you really do fit your definition of SJW.
Assuming your analysis is valid, that does not mean you are not a SJW. It simply means you are a different sort of SJW.I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.
Men and women have different genitals. How does that justify treating them unequally before the law?it's not blatantly sexist, it's simply recognizing physical reality - just because you can't see it because of your ideological blinders doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That statistic is based on a bogus study by the radical feminist Ms. magazine. It lacks any merit.you can argue the point if you want, but absent any major dissent the generally accepted statistical fact is that roughly 1 in 4 women on college campuses have some kind of sexual misconduct done towards them.
If it were true young women would be safer in Somalia than on US college campuses. The statistic is clearly bogus.if you buy that as being roughly accurate that represents a large enough proportion to constitute a clear risk to any random given woman to have an incident of sexual misconduct done to them.
And this application of Title IX involves unequal treatment under the law, which should in itself fall under Title IX if the application wasn't horribly biased against men.that statistically speaking any given random woman has a fairly high risk of sexual misconduct makes it a decidedly female-centric problem, enough so that it's been argued the situation falls under title IX.
I don't know. But statistics should not matter. If female Asian albinos are far less likely to be murdered than the national average (for example) that does not mean that murders against somebody who happens to be a female Asian albino should be given low priority by law enforcement. What matters is that an individual has been murdered, not how many other people who share some of her characteristics have been murdered lately.is there a study showing the statistics of men being falsely accused of rape? or of men being raped?
What does that matter regarding an actual case of a male being falsely accused of rape?are the statistics high enough that any given random man at any given random college has a high chance of being raped or false accused of rape?
Nope. I am merely arguing for treatment of every student as an individual. That used to be a core liberal principle. Alas, it has been long abandoned for the kind of identity politics you practice.because unless you can show the above to be true, you're pulling smoke and manufactured rage out of your ass.
Assuming your analysis is valid, that does not mean you are not a SJW. It simply means you are a different sort of SJW.I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.