American feminism is about superiority, not equality

[Yubel]

My guess is feminism's definition of equality means only equality for women but not for men which creates more inequality for men as their problems are never adressed. It actually makes sense for feminism to be only about getting rid of any sign that women are inferior to men in anyway. The word feminism already implies equal rights only when women are concerned.

 

[Punk Hazard]

My guess is feminism's definition of equality means only equality for women but not for men which creates more inequality for men as their problems are never adressed. It actually makes sense for feminism to be only about getting rid of any sign that women are inferior to men in anyway. The word feminism already implies equal rights only when women are concerned.

Out of curiosity, what would you say are men's problems?

Can you guess which of these two was charged with battery?

You must be registered for see links

He deserved it. The video showed him grabbing and pushing her back after she turned around due to him bumping into her. The video clearly shows him grabbing both of her stationary arms.

 

[Multiply]

Out of curiosity, what would you say are men's problems?


He deserved it. The video showed him grabbing and pushing her back after she turned around due to him bumping into her. The video clearly shows him grabbing both of her stationary arms.

While she was clearly at fault by initiating the fight, she was clearly drunk as shit. That little petty ass 'punch' she threw should not have been enough to cause him to unload on her. A 'punch' like that from a man wouldn't make me mad because it was literally a tap.

People seriously need to get off their high horses with this.

 

[slimreaper]

Out of curiosity, what would you say are men's problems?


He deserved it. The video showed him grabbing and pushing her back after she turned around due to him bumping into her. The video clearly shows him grabbing both of her stationary arms.

She raised her right hand to strike him ( he subdued it) so she hit him with her free left hand. Why wasn't she also charged with misdemeanor battery? And 95% of the worlds homeless are men. What are you the "feminist" doing to change that disparity?

 

[Punk Hazard]

She raised her right hand to strike him ( he subdued it) so she hit him with her free left hand. Why wasn't she also charged with misdemeanor battery? And 95% of the worlds homeless are men. What are you the "feminist" doing to change that disparity?

She's in a cramped space, which is what caused the altercation. Her hands were elevated prior to her yelling at him(her elbows were on the countertop).

You're reaching so hard with the homeless thing. The problem of homelessness has nothing to do with gender or feminism.

 

[slimreaper]

She's in a cramped space, which is what caused the altercation. Her hands were elevated prior to her yelling at him(her elbows were on the countertop).

You're reaching so hard with the homeless thing. The problem of homelessness has nothing to do with gender or feminism.

No she raised her right hand balled in an obvious strinking body position. And how is it not about gender when it's 95% one gender? Wouldn't you be acting if 95% of the world's homeless were female? Hypocrite.

 

[Multiply]

No she raised her right hand balled in an obvious strinking body position. And how is it not about gender when it's 95% one gender? Wouldn't you be acting if 95% of the world's homeless were female? Hypocrite.

Actually the number is 75%. It is an issue though.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No she raised her right hand balled in an obvious strinking body position. And how is it not about gender when it's 95% one gender? Wouldn't you be acting if 95% of the world's homeless were female? Hypocrite.

Nope. If you watch the video, from when the moment she turns her arm is in that position. As she stiffly moves her body to turn towards him, she edged her elbow across the countertop because it was already there. He then grabbed her arms and shoved her back, so she hit him. She initiated the verbal altercation, he initiated the physical, hence why he was charged with battery and not her.

If I did, it wouldn't be in the name of feminism, it'd be in the name of getting rid of homelessness. Correlation does not equal causation: simply because 95% of homeless people are men doesn't make it a gender issue, it's an economic one.

 

[Multiply]

Nope. If you watch the video, from when the moment she turns her arm is in that position. As she stiffly moves her body to turn towards him, she edged her elbow across the countertop because it was already there. He then grabbed her arms and shoved her back, so she hit him. She initiated the verbal altercation, he initiated the physical, hence why he was charged with battery and not her.

If I did, it wouldn't be in the name of feminism, it'd be in the name of getting rid of homelessness. Correlation does not equal causation: simply because 95% of homeless people are men doesn't make it a gender issue, it's an economic one.

Nah Riker, she definitely balled her fist.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Nah Riker, she definitely balled her fist.

And I understand how this can be seen as aggressive. But did she swing at him? Did she follow up on it? No. Simply balling your fist doesn't warrant someone putting their hands on you, especially since the positioning of her arm in that cramped space wouldn't have let her even swing at him in any serious, threatening or effective way. Someone balling their fist isn't even always a sign of someone's going to hit you, but a reflexive response to anger or annoyance or even to relieve a stressful or tense moment.

And this guy is a QB? You're telling me the only thing he could have done at the sight of a balled fist from someone who wasn't even physically imposing on you is to grab their arms, bend them and shove the person back? Nah, he initiated the physical altercation, which is why he caught the battery charge.

 

[slimreaper]

Nope. If you watch the video, from when the moment she turns her arm is in that position. As she stiffly moves her body to turn towards him, she edged her elbow across the countertop because it was already there. He then grabbed her arms and shoved her back, so she hit him. She initiated the verbal altercation, he initiated the physical, hence why he was charged with battery and not her.

If I did, it wouldn't be in the name of feminism, it'd be in the name of getting rid of homelessness. Correlation does not equal causation: simply because 95% of homeless people are men doesn't make it a gender issue, it's an economic one.

Her posturing can be interpreted as a threat and he took the necessary steps to prevent it. She instigated the assault on the other person his instigation was purely defensive. His hit however was in the name of self defense. And your hipocrisy is astounding. .. if it's actually a cause for egalitarianism(which you said was the same as femenism) that you wouldn't approach is as a feminist act. The high homelessness is due mostly to divorce laws btw

 

[Punk Hazard]

Her posturing can be interpreted as a threat and he took the necessary steps to prevent it. She instigated the assault on the other person his instigation was purely defensive. His hit however was in the name of self defense. And your hipocrisy is astounding. .. if it's actually a cause for egalitarianism(which you said was the same as femenism) that you wouldn't approach is as a feminist act. The high homelessness is due mostly to divorce laws btw

It's not a cause for feminism, so no, no hypocrisy here.

*popoints to above post* the fact of the matter is, she made a gesture that could be both seen as threatening and not threatening. He jumped the gun, started the physical altercation, and now he has to bite the bullet.

 

[Avani]

No she raised her right hand balled in an obvious strinking body position. And how is it not about gender when it's 95% one gender? Wouldn't you be acting if 95% of the world's homeless were female? Hypocrite.

Battery: physical contact with other person for which they have not consented.

Is someone is bumping in to you, they better have an excuse like not having an inch of place to move, tripping or that someone else pushed them etc. Something that indicates it was an accident and can give them a decent excuse.

He moved behind her, bumped in to her more than once and ignored her first time she yelled something at him- probably asking him to move away from what I gather in the footage. He didn't pay attention . Next time she turns around and can be seen trying to push him back along with that fist ( stupid part on her part, imo but that's not the point) threat in retaliation.

If he didn't touch her back and moved away he could try filing charges for assault/battery- threat of violence. That's if could explain why he was bumping in to her as against not provoking her. The moment he used actual physical force it was battery already- long before actual punches were thrown.

While she was clearly at fault by initiating the fight, she was clearly drunk as shit. That little petty ass 'punch' she threw should not have been enough to cause him to unload on her. A 'punch' like that from a man wouldn't make me mad because it was literally a tap.

People seriously need to get off their high horses with this.

Yep. They should. Because he touched her first by bumping in to her and was completely unapologetic about it and made no attempt to move back to give her some space when she protested first time around.

Legal charges are still technical. Being charged with something doesn't mean being convicted automatically. The case could be thrown out if there wasn't sufficient proof. Was he convicted? If so what was actual findings of that case? Did you follow the case details? Please share if so.

People should pay more attention to how law works and and same goes for the arguments given by OP in rape cases too.

" Intention" and "consent" play a very important role in our daily transactions on routine basis. In any case of conflict one has to establish these two. Not just rape cases. Consent received under dubious, fraudulent circumstances, under duress or threats , or relative incapacitation (whether physical or mental, direct or indirect) or one or both parties being legally incompetent to make that kind of contract ( e.g. minor, mentally deficient at the time of decision making) is not considered valid whether it's related to sexual assault or just buying toothpaste from the shop.

Quit acting as if it's some unheard of before criteria being used for these specific cases only. It applies to everyone the same way. Also, proving lack of consent can be just as difficult as proving presence of it.

You should appreciate that rape laws in your country include all kind of sexual assault regardless of their gender. Thus it applies to male victims too. Also, do you know that larger number of male victims are result of male on male rape and often minors? They are reported even less because the social stigma is more adverse for them in this case and many do not want to be labelled homosexuals or invite further mockery. Many end up confused about their own sexual identity as well. They are also even less likely to get proper medical help because of hiding such attacks. And they too have better chances of getting justice if such laws stand.

Pay attention to this bigger picture. If you want society to not be biased against men in these cases, start seeing these laws for what they are, instead of how, ignorant lot reacts to such crimes in case of male victims. Instead of arguing that consent or intention cannot be determined ask people to be more understanding in case of the male victims of the offense too. You are shifting the focus away from the real problems and challenges, not suggesting any constructive way to help or reform the system and accomplishing nothing.

 

[slimreaper]

It's not a cause for feminism, so no, no hypocrisy here.

*popoints to above post* the fact of the matter is, she made a gesture that could be both seen as threatening and not threatening. He jumped the gun, started the physical altercation, and now he has to bite the bullet.

How is it not a feminist issue? There is an issue of un-equal treatment of men by the law, leading to men's economic misfortune. It's your job as a "feminist" to fight for equal treatment of men and women by the law. His action up until the punch we're defensive you are making yourself look biased.

 

[Yubel]

Out of curiosity, what would you say are men's problems?

Unjust campus laws for rape and sexual misdemeanor, boys being twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than girls, boys being 70% of D and F students, being fives times more likely to end up in juvenile detention, average sentence for the same crime in similar circumstances being 51 months for men and 18 months for women, men being 40% of victims of domestic abuse and likely more since men are shamed in society for speaking up, then there is also the madatory arrest policy enacted by states thanks to the violence against women act which states a police officer must make an arrest if a woman alleges partner abuse even if it looks to be false. Also thanks to "predominant agressor" policies, men who call the police on the same matter are likely to be arrested themselves even if they were the true victim. Here comes the main dish(probably), 84% of child custody cases are won by women, 30% of child support payments by fathers are done for children who are not biologically their thanks to paternity fraud. In 3 states boys are forced to pay child support to their statutory rapists and two more are attempting to do the same. 92% of workplace deaths are men, 80% of suicide victims, men are 3 times more likely to be homicide victims, 62% of homeless are men and men are required for conscription where participation is directly tied to voting rights, women have no such demands. Any sane person can immediately see who got it worse and what problems are far more serious. Imagine if this was the reverse for women and if your reponse is any different then you're biased against men.

 

[slimreaper]

Battery: physical contact with other person for which they have not consented.

Is someone is bumping in to you, they better have an excuse like not having an inch of place to move, tripping or that someone else pushed them etc. Something that indicates it was an accident and can give them a decent excuse.

He moved behind her, bumped in to her more than once and ignored her first time she yelled something at him- probably asking him to move away from what I gather in the footage. He didn't pay attention . Next time she turns around and can be seen trying to push him back along with that fist ( stupid part on her part, imo but that's not the point) threat in retaliation.

If he didn't touch her back and moved away he could try filing charges for assault/battery- threat of violence. That's if could explain why he was bumping in to her as against not provoking her. The moment he used actual physical force it was battery already- long before actual punches were thrown.



Yep. They should. Because he touched her first by bumping in to her and was completely unapologetic about it and made no attempt to move back to give her some space when she protested first time around.

Legal charges are still technical. Being charged with something doesn't mean being convicted automatically. The case could be thrown out if there wasn't sufficient proof. Was he convicted? If so what was actual findings of that case? Did you follow the case details? Please share if so.

People should pay more attention to how law works and and same goes for the arguments given by OP in rape cases too.

" Intention" and "consent" play a very important role in our daily transactions on routine basis. In any case of conflict one has to establish these two. Not just rape cases. Consent received under dubious, fraudulent circumstances, under duress or threats , or relative incapacitation (whether physical or mental, direct or indirect) or one or both parties being legally incompetent to make that kind of contract ( e.g. minor, mentally deficient at the time of decision making) is not considered valid whether it's related to sexual assault or just buying toothpaste from the shop.

Quit acting as if it's some unheard of before criteria being used for these specific cases only. It applies to everyone the same way. Also, proving lack of consent can be just as difficult as proving presence of it.

You should appreciate that rape laws in your country include all kind of sexual assault regardless of their gender. Thus it applies to male victims too. Also, do you know that larger number of male victims are result of male on male rape and often minors? They are reported even less because the social stigma is more adverse for them in this case and many do not want to be labelled homosexuals or invite further mockery. Many end up confused about their own sexual identity as well. They are also even less likely to get proper medical help because of hiding such attacks. And they too have better chances of getting justice if such laws stand.

Pay attention to this bigger picture. If you want society to not be biased against men in these cases, start seeing these laws for what they are, instead of how, ignorant lot reacts to such crimes in case of male victims. Instead of arguing that consent or intention cannot be determined ask people to be more understanding in case of the male victims of the offense too. You are shifting the focus away from the real problems and challenges, not suggesting any constructive way to help or reform the system and accomplishing nothing.

Most of this is invalid because you are comparing public transactions with the intimacy of private ***. That is the hardest part of proving consent in rape cases, 99 percent of the time people aren't watching you ****

i just got off work, but ill elaborate later if need be

 

[Punk Hazard]

How is it not a feminist issue? There is an issue of un-equal treatment of men by the law, leading to men's economic misfortune. It's your job as a "feminist" to fight for equal treatment of men and women by the law.

Do you not understand what correlation does not equal causation mean? They aren't homeless on the basis of gender, so it's not an issue of feminism.

His action up until the punch we're defensive you are making yourself look biased.

And here's why you can't understand why you're wrong. You're looking at it as though the physical altercation begins at the punch. It began when he grabbed her, which was then proceeded by him shoving her. That makes his actions leading to the punch offensive, even if he thinks it was defensive.

Unjust campus laws for rape and sexual misdemeanor

Such as? And you are aware that many people, not just women, don't even see justice when they are raped? Rape on campus is a very big issue, but not exclusive to men.

boys being twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than girls

That's not a feminism issue or something you can fix with equality. ADHD and helping those with it isn't a gender issue, but a mental health one. I have a feeling I'm gonna be saying correlation doesn't equal causation a lot here.
boys being 70% of D and F students, being fives times more likely to end up in juvenile detention[/QUOTE]

Correlation=/=causation, not a feminist issue, but an educational and legal one.

average sentence for the same crime in similar circumstances being 51 months for men and 18 months for women

You probably have something here, this would be a feminist issue.

men being 40% of victims of domestic abuse and likely more since men are shamed in society for speaking up

I've actually seen feminists speak on this in favor of men being able to speak up.

Then there is also the madatory arrest policy enacted by states thanks to the violence against women act which states a police officer must make an arrest if a woman alleges partner abuse even if it looks to be false.

An arrest ensures investigation. This should apply to both genders.

Also thanks to "predominant agressor" policies, men who call the police on the same matter are likely to be arrested themselves even if they were the true victim.

Yeah that's also ****ed.

Here comes the main dish(probably), 84% of child custody cases are won by women

Correlation.

30% of child support payments by fathers are done for children who are not biologically their thanks to paternity fraud.

Legal issue, not a feminist one.

In 3 states boys are forced to pay child support to their statutory rapists and two more are attempting to do the same.

Should wait till they're 18 and have a job.

92% of workplace deaths are men, 80% of suicide victims, men are 3 times more likely to be homicide victims, 62% of homeless are men and men are required for conscription where participation is directly tied to voting rights

Once again, correlation.

women have no such demands. Any sane person can immediately see who got it worse and what problems are far more serious. Imagine if this was the reverse for women and if your reponse is any different then you're biased against men.

Only, like, three out of the fifteen things you listed were valid to your point. And no my answer wouldn't be any different.

 

[Avani]

Most of this is invalid because you are comparing public transactions with the intimacy of private ***. That is the hardest part of proving consent in rape cases, 99 percent of the time people aren't watching you ****

i just got off work, but ill elaborate later if need be

And that why the intention and consent that even more necessary and should be clear. Because it's too personal and intimate and in seclusion thus more riskier. The risks include lasting effects, mental, physical, and social and economical consequences. So one should be more responsible.

It's funny when someone uses the words like intimacy and privacy but at the same time looking for drunken *** with random people who are questioning themselves in the morning whether they should have let you in or not or wondering if you deliberately handed that that glass last night.

 

[SirCaedus]

I've actually seen feminists speak on this in favor of men being able to speak up.

Should wait till they're 18 and have a job.

1.One or two cases (relatively) speaking feminists that you have seen does not counter act his statement, but I do concur with your statement, I have seen some feminists speak on behalf of men in that regard.

2.Interesting, while I think you would apply the 18 and over rule to the inverse comparison, I don't think many other people would as we have a big and fraud cases of child support/custody battles that often times favors women.

Most of the other points you have stated are thus good arguments against Kagetora whom I feel is focused on the far right feminists that have come to stereotype every single feminist. But the average feminist in my opinion heart is in the right place, but they are misguided from personal experience (they raise some good points though).

 

[Yubel]

Do you not understand what correlation does not equal causation mean? They aren't homeless on the basis of gender, so it's not an issue of feminism.


And here's why you can't understand why you're wrong. You're looking at it as though the physical altercation begins at the punch. It began when he grabbed her, which was then proceeded by him shoving her. That makes his actions leading to the punch offensive, even if he thinks it was defensive.


Such as? And you are aware that many people, not just women, don't even see justice when they are raped? Rape on campus is a very big issue, but not exclusive to men.



That's not a feminism issue or something you can fix with equality. ADHD and helping those with it isn't a gender issue, but a mental health one. I have a feeling I'm gonna be saying correlation doesn't equal causation a lot here.
boys being 70% of D and F students, being fives times more likely to end up in juvenile detention

Correlation=/=causation, not a feminist issue, but an educational and legal one.


You probably have something here, this would be a feminist issue.


I've actually seen feminists speak on this in favor of men being able to speak up.


An arrest ensures investigation. This should apply to both genders.


Yeah that's also ****ed.


Correlation.



Legal issue, not a feminist one.


Should wait till they're 18 and have a job.



Once again, correlation.


Only, like, three out of the fifteen things you listed were valid to your point. And no my answer wouldn't be any different.

If you want equality then you would take those things into account and work on true equality between genders instead of complaining about a wage gap which has proven to be false.