RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law

RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

xssve -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/26/2012 6:46:20 PM)
Uh, the one outside my door.

tweakabelle -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/26/2012 7:49:05 PM)
quote: SilverBoat Those women who take their rights seriously, even to the point of calling themselves "feminists" would serve their cause better by acknowledging that some of their number behave with sometimes counter-productive aggression, and policing their own camp instead of ranting when a derisive term is applied from outside. That would disarm the rightwingnutz use of the "feminazi" term. SilverBoat, thanks for your suggestions. Your advice sounds sensible at first glance. However there are a number of problems with it. The major problem is that your main suggestion has been tried, and proved unsuccessful. Many feminists gave up completely on the radical extremists when these women formed alliances with the religious right during the anti-porn campaigns of the 80s and early 90s. Separating from the more extreme separatists hasn't had any visible impact on the idiots who use terms like feminazi to abuse women and feminists. It is a measure of the ignorance of the people who use this term that even their insults are a couple of decades out of date. Previously in this thread, many women (and some men) have pointed out that using such terms says a lot more about the person who uses them, rather than the object of their bile. So it seems pretty pointless asking women or feminists to change to solve this problem. When hate is the issue, change has to take place in the minds and hearts of the haters. It wouldn't matter in the slightest how many changes women make, how feminists adapt or even if we all bend over backwards for these morons, they're stuck in their hate and for the most part don't want to change - many of them are in fact motivated at least in part by their fears and terror of change. So while your suggestions appear to make sense at one level, implementing them has failed in the past and is unlikely to produce a happier result if tried again.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 12:15:59 AM)
I don't need to define the word. I'll let the gals do it for me ... quote: ORIGINAL Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.. In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent. See? All of you women are weak, fawning, and indecisive/unable to care for yourselves, according to the feminazis quote: ORIGINAL From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going too Far," 1974. I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire. quote: ORIGINAL Sheila Jeffrys When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression. You see? Even when those mean bastards (men) are nice enough to give you an orgasm, they're just doing it to oppress you. I promise, I will never oppress another woman, ever again (and I'll wait until she grabs my todger. No more kissing and hugging and massaging and holding hands). quote: ORIGINAL Andrea Dworkin Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies. Contempt for women's bodies? Really? Has anyone but me noticed that there's a distinct nullification of a woman's *right to be* heterosexual in quite a few of these quotes? Does this seem like it borders on a complete 180 degree turn from what we heard from anti-gay idiots (Anite Bryant) in the 60s and 70s? If it was wrong then, what makes it right, now? quote: ORIGINAL Hodee Edwards, ‘Rape defines Sex’ Sex is the cross on which women are crucified ... Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape. Is it possible to rape the universe? Oh! She means that there is *no instance* of sex that isn't rape (Bad news for the lesbians, I guess, too) quote: ORIGINAL Hillary Clinton, First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador, El Salvador on Nov. 17, 1998 Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Yeah, I'm sure the husbands, fathers, and sons thought it was "springtime in Paris" quote: ORIGINAL "A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985 MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning. Male behavior = abnormal. Right. I got it. quote: ORIGINAL Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, pp. 259-61.. Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home. quote: ORIGINAL Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michigan Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who's taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do. Obviously because men are heartless, emotionless creatures. We have no ability to feel the same things that women do. We are inferior in many (if not all) aspects. quote: ORIGINAL Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D. Tex.) I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it. See? Barb agrees! (and she was given awards and shit) quote: ORIGINAL Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58.. Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman. We go from "potential" to "inevitable" in the same sentence. I'm not feeling the love, here. quote: ORIGINAL Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991. Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. See? Anyone that doesn't see sex as rape is desensitized to it. quote: ORIGINAL Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.. Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience. This, I will admit, is mainly a problem because of my personal views. I think the only adequate punishment for rape is death. That said; I can't think of the benefits to someone falsely accused. No more mortgage payments? No more having to listen to feminazi propaganda, maybe? If we're really stretching for a positive, I guess. quote: ORIGINAL Roxanne Dunbar in "Female Liberation" How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare. Another one that's multi-layered for me as it seems to suggest welfare as a way of life (or, at least, a career). quote: ORIGINAL Linda Gordon, "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all. Yes! Destroy (for everyone) that with which you don't personally agree! Impose your will on the masses. Sounds to me like just a new oppressor. I guess it's okay, though, if this one has breasts and a second "X" chromosome. The Who said it: "Meet the new boss ... The same as the old boss" quote: ORIGINAL Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men. I would, as a human, be thoroughly excoriated if I had put my name to that quote (There's that pesky "Y" chromosome thing, again). quote: ORIGINAL Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996) Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down. Not just the "leaders" of the feminazis but, ordinary, every day, two-armed, two-legged women. The disease is spreading. For the next one, I could find absolutely no proof but, if it is true, it's nice to see that the new liberators will keep racial hatred alive and well. quote: ORIGINAL Melbourne City (Fla.) Councilwoman Pat Poole announced her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King I wonder if he really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots. Honestly, if you can't see some parallels between some of these statements and some of the nazi propaganda, you're fooling yourself. If you think sweeping generalizations, demonizing males based solely upon the fact that they *are* males doesn't happen on these very threads with regularity, you either can't read or your comprehension skills need work. I think I've made a pretty good case for the definition of the word. Nowhere in any of this is the word "abortion" and when I used the word, it was with this "feeling" (I know. Men don't have feelings but I'm at a loss for words, right now) in mind; the purposeful demonization of a group of people. And you women wonder why men may be scared to let you get a leg up? These people don't seem to be the epitome of equality. I would like you try an experiment (if you don't see a problem with this) go back to the top and read these but imagine the speakers are all male and change the genders (you know what I mean). See if that is as acceptable as the original read. Peace and comfort, Michael

Aswad -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 4:17:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle In this instance, I can't even begin to take what you have posted above seriously. It seems you took it a lot more seriously than I did in writing it. I'm not trying to be offensive. Consider that if something seems offensive, it's likely that something got lost in the process of communicating it. And we can probably arrive at a mutually agreeable conclusion if that's kept in mind. We do have major differences of opinion, but probably not on the points you've raised. There are some key points that you've misunderstood in my post, mostly pertaining to the context of the postings. Let's see if I can address that adequately. quote: You know as well as I do that feminism is not about " banning the right to stay at home, up to calling for the extermination of 3 billion men as a means to fashion a utopia, an ends justifying said means." Hence, not calling it feminism. This was pointed, of course. But as I said, environments differ. See, the real feminists won here. What we are left with around these parts, are a few people who remember feminism- some of whom indeed do the useful work of polishing the results- and a lot of people who have taken gender feminism to the extreme. I don't regard Westbro as Christians, and I indulge in terms like "bible thumpers", "fundies" and so forth in describing them. In the same manner, I don't file radical/extreme gender feminism of the brand I meet here under feminism, and indulge in other derogatory terms for those. Among them "feminazi", which is without any intended connotation of relation to the nazis. It strikes me as odd, see. A suburb of here was levelled by the Nazis. The USA never had a Nazi boot on its soil. Yet we're fine with joking about it, and using "nazi" as an adjective, or as one part of a compound word, while you're making a very big deal about what around these parts passes for everyday speech (the use of strongly connoted terms to construct weakly connoted derivates). Or perhaps compound formation is where I fail to see what the fuss is all about. It's something I constantly forget. Or, rather, doubted, as I didn't consider the difference between what's a conscious process, and what's a linguistic process. Germanic compounding is not productive in English among native speakers, according to what I've read. To me, the word "feminazi" registers the same way any compound does in my native language. To you, it appears to register as a fixed word. One that has associations with the one that coined it. Since coining such compounds is as natural to me as sticking on the s-genitive is to you, it doesn't occur to me to consider who coined it, any more than it would occur to you to ponder whether others have inflected "baker" into "baker's" before you, and what they stood for. As such, the offense isn't as visible to me. I had never seen the origin of the word on your end, so I had no association to its origins. And, as noted, when we compound, a lot of the original meanings of each of the word will be lost. Some examples of words that don't have extreme meanings, and probably nothing close to the meaning you'd assume: terrorparty, rapeflirt, buttercrisis, pornshock. I'm not implying that anyone is a nazi or comparable to one, nor calling anyone a nazi. Sidebar 1: Ars, my better half, recalls the term having been used (and abused by some) for a long time up here. Sidebar 2: To preempt any association with Limbaugh, let me point out that he's the one that applauded the recent massacre here. A man that applauds the pointless, premeditated and systematic killing of teen kids, while the death toll is mounting, is not likely to have my approval in anything. Not that the rest of his views are any better. quote: To my knowledge, no woman posting here has ever uttered such gibberish. The closest would probably be when someone said (to much applause) that organized crime and mass murder was an acceptable price to force others to pay in order to change attitudes about alcohol. That kind of seems rather 'over the line' to me. quote: So why is the term "feminazi" being used here on CM? That's not one single question. That's one question for each instance. Unless you're questioning why the word exists here, in which case it's a nonsensical question (we use plenty of terms here, particularly in P&R, to describe people, movements, actions and so forth; some of which are less than flattering terms). quote: Are you suggesting this is what feminism is about? Whose feminism? [;)] quote: Feminism is a political and social agenda for positive change that aims for gender equality and freedom. But that wouldn't be change. That would be conserving the status quo. Here, anyway. quote: It's simplest most widespread definition is that feminism is about womens' rights to choose. I'm more an "all beings' rights to choose" kind of guy. [:D] quote: To focus on the minuscule number of cases where false allegations of rape have been made by vindictive women, while failing to even mention the millions of actual rapes and associated violence ranging up to murder that occur annually doesn't merely exhibit a lack of "balance and perspective" it exhibits a complete absence of "balance and perspective". I didn't focus on it. I focused on how to interpret the statements of one author, so as to not misattribute a reprehensible attitude. I have mentioned millions of actual rapes and associated violence ranging well beyond murder, not just on this thread, but elsewhere. In the very post you replied to, I referenced some of the most horrendous events of the sort in human history, veritable Gynocausts. If as you say you appreciate my usual posting, it should not be necessary for me to reiterate in every post on the subject my familiarity with the scope and scale of what has been (and is) done to women, nor to reiterate my intimate familiarity with the effects of attacks on women throughout the spectrum of such attacks from my friends, family and household. It is somehow taken for granted that all women have this familiarity, and the referenced balance and insight, yet easily forgotten that I have held some of the survivors of these things in my hands as they weep, struggled with the inability to take away their pain and the guilt at the failure to protect them, and sat quivering with rage by myself later, tears wept in the cold night not to disturb the one resting inside. Before dismissing the validity of the perspective that comes from such experiences, I would urge you to consider whether my gender figures into that dismissal. As I said, I was discussing one woman's statements, trying to get a handle on what she said. quote: The implication - that feminism is somehow connected to or responsible for these indefensible acts by a few dozen (perhaps!) women - is too absurd to merit consideration. Seems you might see the value of having a term other than feminism for "that which is not feminism". Incidentally, if it's a few dozen, they all live near me, according to the verdicts rendered. Note that to get such a verdict, you must first sue for a verdict of innocence, where the burden of proof is reversed (i.e. proof of innocence beyond any reasonable doubt), on your own money, without any possibility of being awarded the cost of the trial compensated. Then you can file the suit, and the DA then has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a false accusation was intentionally and knowingly made, with the usual appeals being possible. And while the law prioritizes such suits once filed (to ensure the credibility in other cases is not tarnished), the police strongly discourage actually filing them (for the same reason; if nobody hears it, credibility isn't impacted). About a dozen have been convicted of this in my area, in the past few years. There's half a million citizens in my area. So: almost all charges filed are genuine, and credibility isn't in question, IMO. But let's not pretend it never happens. Which has nothing to do with being a woman or not. It has to do with being human. One of those fine reasons for having courts. Once men gain equality with regard to rape, they will file charges, too. And almost all of those will be genuine. And a small fraction will be false. Not a big deal. But not something to defend, as I'm sure you'll agree. Regardless of gender. quote: If that implication isn't the point of bringing up this red herring, then the entire issue is irrelevant to the OP. Hardly. It questions the statements of someone nominated by K as an example of the term. quote: Using the material you, and one or two others, have posted to try to fashion a stick to beat feminism makes for a very limp flaccid stick. Lift your game please. Very subtle. [:D] It's not my masculinity that posts here. It's my rationality. And it's as infallible as my other flaccid stick: not very. Does make it prone to swinging back a bit when slapped, though. I'm not into CBT, yanno. Don't mind much. It just doesn't do anything for me, whether verbal or physical. It takes more than this to get a rise out of me. You want it up? Then you lift it. [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 4:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl More likely about them being both. Does that help? Assuming I read it correctly, then yes. Thank you. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 4:43:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Since he coined the phrase, its typically that person's to define. Can I coin a homonym and define that homonym as having the sense I've suggested earlier? Health, al-Aswad.

kalikshama -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 5:11:14 AM)
quote: Honestly, if you can't see some parallels between some of these statements and some of the nazi propaganda, you're fooling yourself. I guess I'm not up on my Nazi propaganda. Examples of parallels please? quote: If you think sweeping generalizations, demonizing males based solely upon the fact that they are males doesn't happen on these very threads with regularity, you either can't read or your comprehension skills need work. Your demonizing males is my advocating responsibility/sharing personal experience - I fail to see how these statements are that of a feminazi: quote: I don't think they would. They don't mind the risk for us, but they do not want to take it themselves. (guessing from being with men who don't want any/any more children but did not want to get "snipped" which is a one time deal and has no long term effects vs the pill.) quote: Women couldn't "trap" men if they were more discriminating about who/where/what they did with their thingies.

xssve -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 5:34:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Since he coined the phrase, its typically that person's to define. Can I coin a homonym and define that homonym as having the sense I've suggested earlier? Health, al-Aswad. Again, it's not a word Ive ever used or ever will use, it's employment typically signifies a Limbaughtomy, and accompanied by the usual garbled load of ignorant bullshit that Limbaugh passes off as "logic". I do occasionally use the word "psychobitches". As slang, it's usage is dependent on context, regardless of how it was used originally, it is often slung at any feminist acting high handedly, but it does have more impersonal connotations, i.e., it's essentially a plural, "feminazi's", and it implicates the entire philosophy of feminism, or at least, large swaths thereof, i.e., even when applied personally in the singular, it implies membership in a group, the "feminazi party", and the implicit assumption is that the individual is part of a grander nut crushing conspiracy.

xssve -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 5:51:43 AM)
quote: quote: Using the material you, and one or two others, have posted to try to fashion a stick to beat feminism makes for a very limp flaccid stick. Lift your game please. Very subtle. It's not my masculinity that posts here. It's my rationality. And it's as infallible as my other flaccid stick: not very. Does make it prone to swinging back a bit when slapped, though. I'm not into CBT, yanno. Don't mind much. It just doesn't do anything for me, whether verbal or physical. It takes more than this to get a rise out of me. You want it up? Then you lift it. Yes, it doesn't help ones credibility when the coup de gras of last resort is always to insult a mans penis in some fashion - I really don't get this, if I wish to be taken seriously I don't try to win the argument by saying, "and your flaccid cunt smell like a dead fish, so there!" - in fact I don't think I've ever seen a guy try to win an argument that way (it violates "the woman is always right" rule of getting any), but I've seen chicks do it time and again, it's like, "when all else fails, tell him he has a tiny dick", it's fucking childish, and to me it simply means you've run out of any more rational argument, nothing left for your opponent to do other than prove to you once and for all that his penis is nether small nor flaccid, kind of a self fulfilling prophecy there. It may be this is what comes from failing to respect your opponent, neither one has any standards to live up to, it just turns into a race to the bottom.

SoftBonds -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 7:18:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't need to define the word. I'll let the gals do it for me ... quote: ORIGINAL "A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985 MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning. Male behavior = abnormal. Right. I got it. Michael Just so you know, the quote I saved was made by Alan Alda (Hawkeye from Mash). Yes, a guy wrote it. It was from a tongue in cheek article. He was a feminist, don't get me wrong, but his words were taken out of context. Like most of the feminist quotes in these lists are (except the ones by Andrea Dworkin, she really was that nuts)...

tazzygirl -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 10:06:37 AM)
Satyr hides those he cannot debate, kalika. [;)] Tweak... see if you can get Satyr to back up his bullshit. quote: Note that to get such a verdict, you must first sue for a verdict of innocence, where the burden of proof is reversed (i.e. proof of innocence beyond any reasonable doubt), on your own money, without any possibility of being awarded the cost of the trial compensated. Then you can file the suit, and the DA then has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a false accusation was intentionally and knowingly made, with the usual appeals being possible. And while the law prioritizes such suits once filed (to ensure the credibility in other cases is not tarnished), the police strongly discourage actually filing them (for the same reason; if nobody hears it, credibility isn't impacted). About a dozen have been convicted of this in my area, in the past few years. There's half a million citizens in my area. You know, names, case numbers, Judge names.... something besides.. "My friend" or "I heard it from the man across the street"

SoftBonds -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 10:20:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Satyr hides those he cannot debate, kalika. [;)] Tweak... see if you can get Satyr to back up his bullshit. quote: Note that to get such a verdict, you must first sue for a verdict of innocence, where the burden of proof is reversed (i.e. proof of innocence beyond any reasonable doubt), on your own money, without any possibility of being awarded the cost of the trial compensated. Then you can file the suit, and the DA then has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a false accusation was intentionally and knowingly made, with the usual appeals being possible. And while the law prioritizes such suits once filed (to ensure the credibility in other cases is not tarnished), the police strongly discourage actually filing them (for the same reason; if nobody hears it, credibility isn't impacted). About a dozen have been convicted of this in my area, in the past few years. There's half a million citizens in my area. You know, names, case numbers, Judge names.... something besides.. "My friend" or "I heard it from the man across the street" I think he is pointing out that if you are trying to charge someone with the crime of a false accusation, they get the same assumption of innocence as anyone else. That said, generally if someone has filed false charges, it is a crime, so the PA can go after them. The issue is, that between the 95% certainty of rape and the 95% certainty that no rape occurred is a pretty large gap. There are probably a huge number of cases that fall into those gaps. Now since he-said, she-said is the leading cause of that type of case, you should ask whether it is more likely that a woman would go through a court case, getting her name dragged through the mud, out of petty spite, or because an actual rape occurred... Another option is for the person who feels they have been wrongly accused to file a civil suit regarding defamation of character. However, this is also a pretty low success tactic. Granted, since it is a civil suit, the defendant won't have much protection in terms of lawyers (I think they have to pay for their own), but the plaintiff has to prove that a. he has a reputation. b. it was harmed. and c. her statement was false. If all she did was go to the cops, not the press, than proving she was the cause of any harm to his reputation would be difficult... But if he has lots of money, he can use that sort of suit to bash a woman, even if he did rape her and get away with it...

kalikshama -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 10:28:20 AM)
In the recent rape thread, we discussed that the incidences of false rape accusations were in line with those of other crimes. But somehow, other types of false allegations don't make it into the debate.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 10:36:11 AM)
quote: I think he is pointing out that if you are trying to charge someone with the crime of a false accusation, they get the same assumption of innocence as anyone else. That said, generally if someone has filed false charges, it is a crime, so the PA can go after them. The issue is, that between the 95% certainty of rape and the 95% certainty that no rape occurred is a pretty large gap. There are probably a huge number of cases that fall into those gaps. Something I have addressed before. Yes, women get charged with making a false police report. And they should. However, an acquittal in no way means a false charge was brought. A woman dropping charges does not mean a crime was not committed. quote: Now since he-said, she-said is the leading cause of that type of case, you should ask whether it is more likely that a woman would go through a court case, getting her name dragged through the mud, out of petty spite, or because an actual rape occurred... Rarely will spite carry a woman that far... more often, its money. More often, the woman is forced through various methods to drop the charges.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 10:40:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama In the recent rape thread, we discussed that the incidences of false rape accusations were in line with those of other crimes. But somehow, other types of false allegations don't make it into the debate. I was thinking that.... If I have something stolen from me, and I see you with it, I would go to the police and state you stole it. They would investigate, and it may turn out that you bought it honestly from someone else who stole it from me. Are there false report charges? Nope. Is it front page news? Nope.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 11:34:50 AM)
Fast reply This is a sensative subject, and one many feel strongly about. When speaking in general and not directing things at a poster, it is good and part of the discussion. When a derogatory term is directed towards a poster, you risk a violation. Please think before posting, and have a good discussion. Thank you all for your contribution to the forums, VideoAdminGamma

tweakabelle -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 1:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Honestly, if you can't see some parallels between some of these statements and some of the nazi propaganda, you're fooling yourself. I guess I'm not up on my Nazi propaganda. Examples of parallels please? quote: If you think sweeping generalizations, demonizing males based solely upon the fact that they are males doesn't happen on these very threads with regularity, you either can't read or your comprehension skills need work. Your demonizing males is my advocating responsibility/sharing personal experience - I fail to see how these statements are that of a feminazi: quote: I don't think they would. They don't mind the risk for us, but they do not want to take it themselves. (guessing from being with men who don't want any/any more children but did not want to get "snipped" which is a one time deal and has no long term effects vs the pill.) quote: Women couldn't "trap" men if they were more discriminating about who/where/what they did with their thingies. Yup. Poor DS. It must be frustrating to go to the trouble of dredging up that litany of quotes, only to be informed that the entire argument he is advancing has already been presented and dealt with at least twice already in this thread. And that's apart from it being pointed out several times that his argument is a couple of decades out of date. All of which suggests he hasn't been reading the thread at all. So, DS, to spare you further blushes, here's one way that quite a few posters here regard those who use and defend the term "feminazis": "More often than not, in my experience, the term helps me to understand that I'm talking to a pathetic little twat who is terrified of women. " And before you get all defensive and sexist about it, that particular way of looking at the term was proposed by a male.

tweakabelle -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 1:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: quote: Using the material you, and one or two others, have posted to try to fashion a stick to beat feminism makes for a very limp flaccid stick. Lift your game please. Very subtle. It's not my masculinity that posts here. It's my rationality. And it's as infallible as my other flaccid stick: not very. Does make it prone to swinging back a bit when slapped, though. I'm not into CBT, yanno. Don't mind much. It just doesn't do anything for me, whether verbal or physical. It takes more than this to get a rise out of me. You want it up? Then you lift it. Yes, it doesn't help ones credibility when the coup de gras of last resort is always to insult a mans penis in some fashion - I really don't get this, if I wish to be taken seriously I don't try to win the argument by saying, "and your flaccid cunt smell like a dead fish, so there!" - in fact I don't think I've ever seen a guy try to win an argument that way (it violates "the woman is always right" rule of getting any), but I've seen chicks do it time and again, it's like, "when all else fails, tell him he has a tiny dick", it's fucking childish, and to me it simply means you've run out of any more rational argument, nothing left for your opponent to do other than prove to you once and for all that his penis is nether small nor flaccid, kind of a self fulfilling prophecy there. It may be this is what comes from failing to respect your opponent, neither one has any standards to live up to, it just turns into a race to the bottom. If you read what I actually wrote you'll find that I made no mention of penises whatsoever. Aswad made the connection, not me. But even Aswad was careful to point out that he was referring to his "other flaccid stick", which emphasises my point. As far as I can tell, the only person making an overt connection is you. You might like to ponder the significance of that. I wish I could feel more confident that you will.

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 2:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But even Aswad was careful to point out that he was referring to his "other flaccid stick", which emphasises my point. I don't think that little issue matters, Tweak. Men who are easy, to some minimal level, about gender relations, can laugh at sideways comments from women to them about flaccid dicks. Aswad showed that he could. On the other hand, if such a remark comes from a woman who expects it to 'cut' a man who she thinks, wrongly, is an unreconstructed sexist . . . it'll only make him laugh at her for being a bit silly and childish.

tweakabelle -> RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law (2/27/2012 2:33:46 PM)
quote: Aswad It's not my masculinity that posts here. It's my rationality. Are you sure? Really sure? It might be easier to accept your claim had you not followed this claim, almost immediately, with this particular gem: quote: It takes more than this to get a rise out of me. You want it up? Then you lift it. Whether one can neatly cleave apart one’s gender and one’s thought processes in the manner you are claiming is dubious. Contemporary philosophy, epistemology, psychoanalysis and current understandings of gender all say no. Post modern theories of subjectivity assert that gender and its close, intricately related cousin, sexuality are the very building blocks with which humans are constructed and construct themselves. This claim is dubious at the best of times. Even more controversial when made in the context of a gender-related discussion. So this is not a claim, that I would ever advance on my own behalf. And I’d suggest that you think very seriously and deeply before you do. Rebutting this claim has damaging, possibly terminally damaging effects on your entire position.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875