EXPECTATIONS
Show & Tell
Cosmic Funnies

No title available
todays bird
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Origami Around
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

Discoholic 🪩
Mike Driver
Peter Solarz

izzy's playlists!

Kiana Khansmith

PR's Tumblrdome
Cosimo Galluzzi
trying on a metaphor
untitled

titsay
official daine visual archive
macklin celebrini has autism

seen from Taiwan
seen from United Arab Emirates

seen from South Africa
seen from Russia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Arab Emirates

seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@alittledifferentisuppose
women with small egos are known to kill themselves
men with small egos are known to kill others
Really?
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
And as for the “killing others” comment, really?
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Mom-who-killed-son-4-because-she-thought-he-was-gay-sentenced-to-minimum-of-25-years-255823211.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-struck-killed-teen-sues-family-article-1.1770602
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/28/jury-selection-to-begin-for-tampa-military-mother-accused-killing-her-2/
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/04/30/chinese-woman-throws-baby-under-moving-truck-kills-daughter-hu-chen/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Kolkata-mom-kills-boy-slits-own-throat/articleshow/34657984.cms
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/05/05/schenecker-julie-opening-statements-murder-trial-florida
15 year old girl stabs and kills 14 year old boy after argument
13 year old girl stabs self, 13 year old friend, and 11 year old sister
14 year old girl stabs and kills 11 year old sister 40 times because she thought she was ungrateful
16 year old girl stabs and kills 16 year old best friend 60 times (what the best friend did wasn’t okay but it did not call for murder)
11 year old girl stabs mother while she is sleeping 9 times because she wasn’t allowed to go outside
Woman stabs boyfriend over $200.
15 year old female stabs 19 year old man who tried to protect his 22 year old female friend (who was also stabbed) after argument
Mother stabs and kills four year old son to death
18 year old female stabs and kills mother in face and neck 79 times
Woman drives car into church and stabs husband on altar for “worshipping Nascar”
24 year old woman stabs sister after argument
34 year old woman stabs fiance over argument on what their wedding color scheme should be
28 year old woman stabs boyfriend in eye for refusing to have a threesome
21 year old stabs 21 year old sister over argument over apple fritters
54 year old woman stabs boyfriend for refusing to stop listening to The Eagles
24 year old woman stabs self and then claims a man did it
52 year old woman stabs 45 year old boyfriend with knife and fork after argument
Woman stabs 61 year old mother
48 year old woman stabs 24 year old boyfriend
Woman stabs fiance for not wanting to drive drunk to the liquor store
Woman in 20s stabs 56 year old stranger after altercation
48 year old woman stabs 27 year old daughter in back
30 year old woman stabs 42 year old man after verbal argument
26 year old woman stabs bf after his dog eats her marijuana
Woman stabs her child’s father after argument
19 year old female stabs 18 year old male after argument
48 year old woman stabs 53 year old husband and kills him
28 year old woman stabs 41 year old after her baby shower
30 year old stabs 26 year old pregnant sister and law and kills both her and baby
Woman stabs cop during a traffic stop
24 year old stabs 28 year old brother over argument about household chores
28 year old woman stabs 16 year old female in the face that she suspected was her boyfriend’s mistress
Woman stabs boyfriend 31 times after he says his ex’s name in his sleep
28 year old woman stabs boyfriend after dispute about a camping trip
33 year old woman stabs 42 year old husband in neck three times after petty argument
49 year old stabs herself and blames ex-husband
Woman stabs husband over television show characters
Woman stabs 23 year old boyfriend after argument
Woman stabs husband because he snored
19 year old female stabs and kills her 19 year old female cousin after argument
23 year old woman stabs family member after argument
Woman kills man for refusing to give her beer
Woman stabs man for refusing to have sex with her, threatens to cry rape
Woman rips off man’s testicle because he rejected her, tried to swallow it
Woman kills man for refusing to marry her
Woman cuts off man’s penis because of argument
Woman shoots her husband after argument
Woman cuts off cheating boyfriend’s penis, flushes it
Woman suspects husband of cheating, stabs him to death
Woman shoots, kills boyfriend for cheating
Woman stabs boyfriend for cheating in Monopoly board game
Woman shoots, kills man for ending relationship
Woman sets husband’s genitals on fire for hugging another woman, dies
Woman kills, dismembers husband’s body over argument
Mother kills 18-month old twins to get back at husband she thought was cheating
Woman kills husband after he confronts her about affair
Woman kills cheating husband with lethal dose of heroin
Woman runs over, kills cheating husband
Obese woman sits on boyfriend, kills him and avoids jail time
Woman kills boyfriend with stiletto shoe
Woman murders cheating husband with coffee mug
Woman kills boyfriend for not buying her a gift
Woman kills boyfriend who accused her of cheating
Woman stabs and kills boyfriend , Judge: “I hope you die in prison”
Woman shoots, kills ex-boyfriend, buries him in pile of debris
Woman shoots boyfriend in the back of the neck, killing him
Woman shoots boyfriend six times, kills him after argument
Woman stabs, kills boyfriend over mother’s day gift
Woman stabs boyfriend to death, also stabbed her husband to death 7 years prior
Woman pushes way into home, stabs boyfriend to death over argument
Woman angry at boyfriend takes her anger out on his 4 year-old
Woman stabs boyfriend to death, thought he was cheating on her
Woman bludgeons husband to death with hammer to pay back loan
Woman stabs, kills boyfriend during argument
Woman murders boyfriend for tweeting out his female crush
Woman shoots and kills boyfriend, kills self while out on bail
Woman stabs to death boyfriend over argument about an ex
Woman stabs and kills boyfriend for social media posts
Woman shoots boyfriend in the face, fails to make it look like suicide
Woman kills boyfriend’s puppies during phone argument
Woman shoots boyfriend in the face with rifle during argument
Woman pushes boyfriend off fence after argument, killing him
Woman attacks boyfriend with large knife, intent to kill
Woman abused, threatens to kill boyfriend in sleep
Woman beats, murders boyfriend and puts him in freezer because he wanted to break up with her
Woman held gun to boyfriend’s head, murders on Christmas
Woman with previous assault charge on another boyfriend stabs and kills different boyfriend
Woman attempts to murder boyfriend with giant breasts
Woman stabs boyfriend in neck, killing him after argument
Woman chokes and stabs ex-boyfriends cat to death
Woman starts argument with boyfriend, stabs and kills with umbrella
Woman kills boyfriend with her car after argument
Woman shoots, kills boyfriend in his bathroom
Woman shoots, kills boyfriend with illegal handgun
Woman sets her boyfriend on fire, killing him
Woman shoots and kills ex-boyfriend multiple times, kills herself
Woman shoots boyfriend in the head, found out he was dating other women
Woman stabs and kills boyfriend over finances
Woman stabs and kills boyfriend’s lizard because she thought he was flirting with other women
Woman shoots, kills boyfriend who wanted to end their relationship and urged her to get an abortion
Woman attempts to murder husband with poison in her vagina
Woman stabs boyfriend to death after he slaps daughter
Woman conspires to have secret lover murder her husband
Woman stabs, kills boyfriend over argument on Labor Day
Woman stabs boyfriend in the chest over argument
Woman stabs boyfriend to death after finding photos of other women on cell phone
Woman tortured ex-boyfriend’s dog until it died after argument
Woman stabs boyfriend in his chest and through his lung, nearly killing him
Woman fatally stabs boyfriend during heated argument
Woman kills her boyfriend with blunt force trauma to the head using frying pan
Woman stabs boyfriend to death for drinking her beer
Woman strangles boyfriend to death during argument
Woman stabs boyfriend with serrated knife over argument
Woman shoots, murders boyfriend while she was on house arrest for another murder 11 years prior
Woman stabs, kills boyfriend then texts friend about eating the body
Woman stabs, kills boyfriend over dispute
Woman shoots boyfriend in the head, suspecting he was cheating
Woman shoots man in the groin after argument
Woman fires handgun into the home of man who denied her a kiss
Woman stabs husband to death over cheating fears
Woman shoots, kills ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend
Women kills husband, commits suicide
Woman shoots and kills man over argument
Woman kills husband with baseball bat for talking back to her
Woman kills husband, confesses to family then shoots herself
Woman stabs boyfriend 31 times after he said ex’s name in his sleep
Woman shoots husband in the head, shoots herself
Woman kills boyfriend over argument at house party
Woman shoots boyfriend with shotgun for texting another woman
Woman kills boyfriend because she “smelled sex on him”
Woman runs over boyfriend, kills him
Woman stabs boyfriend in the eye for turning down threesome
Woman stabs ex-boyfriend for refusing to stop playing the Eagles
Woman stabs boyfriend, throws out his prosthetic legs so he can’t chase her
Woman ties up, stabs husband 193 times, jury finds her guilty for suspicion of trying to claim life insurance
Woman stabs fiance for refusing to take her to the liquor store
Woman assaults and threatens boyfriend with knife for not cuddling
Woman stabs man with ceramic squirrel for not bring home beer
Woman stabs taxi driver after he refuses to have sex with her
Woman stabs ex-boyfriend in his penis after discovering he had a new girlfriend
Woman stabs boyfriend twice over time he spent in bathroom
Woman stabs boyfriend over Facebook post
Woman stabs her boyfriend several times because his dog ate her marijuana stash
Woman stabs boyfriend for not calling her every two hours
Woman shoots man five times for rejecting her, kills herself
Woman murders ex-boyfriend with liquor laced with poison, was jealous he was engaged to new woman
Florida woman shoots, kills her 2 teenage sons
Mother throws 1 year-old daughter under truck, kills her
California mom stabs her 3 daughters to death. all under 2 years old
Mother attempts to kill her 3 teenage children
Mother kills her infant son by stabbing him to death
Woman kills 2 year-old girl, attempts to kill 10 year-old boy
Utah mom murders 6 newborns, keeps them in garage
Mother charged with trying to suffocate daughter
Woman charged for killing 8-month old baby
Mother drowns both of her sons aged 3 and 6
Mother attempts to drown her 3 children in ocean
Utah mother shoots and kills two teen daughters, then herself
Mother suffocates 14 month old son, fails at attempted suicide
Woman babysitter murders 19 month old boy
Mom kills 7 month old daughter, blames Jesus
Woman operating illegal daycare responsible for 3 month old girl’s death, police find 14 children in her basement
Mom strangles 3 day old baby boy, discarded body in trashcan
Woman suffocates 2 year old girl of fiance, fakes sexual assault by unknown assailant to cover tracks
Mother charged with killing 2 year-old daughter
Mother of several children with history of violence murdered and buried 2 year-old daughter in shallow grave
Mother stabs and kills her 2 children in exorcism
Mother kills her teen son and daughter, self
Mother confesses to killing 10 year-old son
Mother tortures and kills 3 year-old son, burned genitals with lighter
Most child abuse, neglect, and murders are committed by females
So to sum it all up -
- Men commit suicide more often than women
- You are making assumptions about an entire gender, based on your own little ego trip, thinking women are harmless
- man or woman, you are human. Humans can hurt others.
Please think before you make a post like this - it can hurt others.
let me fix this:
men with small egos are known to kill themselves
women with small egos are known to become feminists (and kill others)
Literally shut the fuck up
Dang, seawitchintraining, you a little salty ain’t you? What’s the matter? Facts getting in the way of your victim complex? I love how you tagged this “misogyny tw”, nice to know that providing actual facts and statistics instead of just pulling a BS assumption out of your ass is misogyny.
SO. MUCH. FUCKING. THIS.
No one body shames women quite like feminists.
That’s because feminists hate everyone who don’t call themselves feminists or don’t take them seriously.
So this happened
How dare women be beautiful.
HOW DARE THEY
It’s not because she’s too beautiful, it’s because her body is impossible. A human with her proportions would literally be dying, and that body image isn’t positive for young girls.
amusingtextposts Barbie’s proportions are as they are because she’s not intended to be naked. It’s impossible to scale clothes down to her size while maintaining the relative thickness, so they make her naked proportions wacky so she looks normal clothed. Scaled up to our size, her thinnest clothes would be the equivalent of enormous wool sweaters.
allthingswittyandneko all you have to do is scroll up for a SECOND and you’d know that’s bullshit - look at her legs and arms and neck and tell me, even with her clothes on, that those are even close to normal human proportion. where did you even get that information??
anddowhatyouwill
The lead designer.
Literally the first result when googling for a source.
I know it’s big on Tumblr to just scream “LOL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES” and walk away with some false sense of pride, but when the source is so easy to find, trying to pull that here is just pathetic.
ahahaha, i asked you where you found it not because i wanted to know your sources - after all information that is clearly untrue will still be untrue no matter who supplies the information. i asked you because it is just so dumb to actually believe that! hahhaha the lead designer of barbie said it - of course the lead designer of barbie has some bullshit response to claims of his product being sexist. also i LOVE clear shot at the designer at the end of the article - if you bothered to read that far - that says that thin dolls like barbie do harm young girl’s self esteem (of course).
Oh, I saw it. I saw that the article only said “MAY”, not does. Further, I also actually clicked that link, and that article absolutely made no accusations. It merely concluded with an expression of the importance of further longitudinal research into the impact of any and all fashion dolls. Good try though.
As for everything else you said? “Lolol you really believe that lolol”? Yeah, I think we’re done here. I point out the simple laws of physics regarding scaling down fabric clothes, and cite a source who would know something about it, and this is all you can bring to the table in response? Come to me with an argument and sources if you want an actual discussion, otherwise, don’t waste my time with a reply.
okay fine let’s be all serious sorry it’s your easily-identifiable misogyny thinly veiled as “logic” is not as funny to you as it is to me. but anyway speaking of very simple google searches it’s quite easy to find a doll that is much more similar in proportion to the average girl than barbie is and hey they actually look like barbie minus the whole completely unrealistic body standards and they also fit into fabric/clothing!! http://www.businessinsider.com/barbie-doll-with-real-womans-measurements-2013-7#if-barbie-can-look-good-as-an-average-woman-why-doesnt-mattel-make-one-lamm-asks-10
and reading through that study, it’s clear that it’s, mathematically, more than just a “may” -
1. “These findings provide support for the first hypothesis: that exposure to Barbie dolls causes an increase in girls’ body dissatisfaction and that this negative effect is specific to Barbie and not observed after exposure to dolls with a body size that resembles the average U.S. woman. In addition, the findings also demonstrated that the Barbie doll effect is age related.”
2. “For the youngest year group, girls from age 51⁄2 to age 61⁄2 years old, the two main findings were that Barbie doll exposure significantly depresses overall body esteem and increases discrepancies between girls’ actual and ideal body size, such that girls desire more extreme thinness after seeing Barbie doll images than after seeing other images.”
3. “The pattern of findings was similar for the Year 2 girls, who are from age 61⁄2 to age 71⁄2 years old, but it was amplified. The negative effects of Barbie doll images were stronger, both in terms of decreasing body esteem and increasing actual-ideal body size dissatisfaction in the direction of girls wanting to be thinner. In addition, there was now also a significant effect of Barbie exposure on girls’ discrepancies between their actual body size and their ideal body size as an adult woman such that girls desire more extreme thinness when grown up. As for the younger girls, Emme doll images had no impact, including actual-adult body size dissatisfaction. Thus, the detrimental impact of Barbie doll images on girls’ body image was more pronounced at this age and also included their aspirations for an adult woman’s body size.”
BUT good job reading the last stanza and then quoting it back to me :) it was really sweet of you to do that
Good job cherrypicking parts from the article, but you’re not doing it justice. That article was a research study that was attempting to prove a point. As such, it’s full of information and observations that attempt to prove the hypothesis. But the end result of the article is that the hypothesis remains unproven, hence a concluding section that made no accusations and defined nothing as proven. Again, good try.
Now, I want to talk about that article you mentioned, about a doll with “realistic” proportions and “whyyyy is nobody making it, it must be misogyny!”. I hate to break it to you, but no, it’s not misogyny. Apart from the scaling down clothing issue, Barbie looks the way she does because the consumers want her to.
Barbie has existed since 1959, and barring differences in clothing and hairstyles, she’s looked about the same for all this time. Before 1959, most dolls were those porcelain ones that looked quite realistic, and for years, Barbie was on the shelves right beside them, competing with them directly. Barbie won, and she has continued to win year after year, decade after decade, crushing all new comers to the doll market. Take it from someone with a business degree - every square inch of Barbie has been blown up on a projector in way too many marketing rooms, analyzed for way too many hours by way too many people who make way too much money, and meticulously designed and crafted to be most appealing to the consumer. They then take dozens of their redesigns and give them to way too many focus groups, to try to figure out which is the most popular one. If kids didn’t like the look of Barbie, she wouldn’t have succeeded in 1959, and she wouldn’t sell today. If the culture changes today, and the look of Barbie falls out of favor for kids, they will stop asking their parents for the dolls, and Barbie will be redesigned pretty much instantly. There is no social engineering, there is no “patriarchy”. There is business. That’s what Barbie is - a profit line for Mattel. And they don’t give a shit about social engineering, they care only about what sells the best. Period. You can’t blame some kind of grand societal conditioning for this, because again, in 1959, Barbie was the first of her kind. Nobody forced those kids to want those dolls - they looked at them, and they decided for themselves which toy they wanted. You can’t force them to want another doll. And if some new “realistic” doll comes out to compete on the shelves with Barbie, it won’t last. That was their competition in 1959, that’s been their competition ever since, and for all these decades, Barbie has won. Because that’s what the customers want.
Now, you might try to say “but kids don’t know what’s BEST for them!”. Well, Barbie is not the broccoli or McDonald’s issue. She is not the outdoor exercise or videogames issue. She’s a toy. She’s a doll. If you as a parent are concerned about body image, it’s on YOU to actually have that parent child talk, so the kid KNOWS that Barbie is just a toy, and that she doesn’t need to surgically elongate her neck or starve herself to look a certain way. Trying to force some Average Annie doll onto the market is going to fail harder than the Microsoft Zune. Kids don’t give a shit about “body image”. They care about what toy they just plain like the most. That’s Barbie.
He is not a socialist. Damn, Americans are like the worst and most incapable people in telling what socialism is or who is a socialist, it seems like many still live in the Red Scare, certainly @redbloodedamerica. And yes Bernie Sanders ideas are refreshing for the USA. Futhermore his age has nothing to do with it, so I don’t know why it is even mentioned in this meme.
Hey you dim bulb, Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, in case you have not heard. And of course, I understand what the difference is between that and Marxist socialism; not that it’s much better. It’s like saying “I’m socialist-lite because I’m too pussy to go completely anti-capitalism because I know full well that it is a failed economic system and I need capitalism to make my stupid progressive ideas work.” Yes, unlike yourself, we are full aware of what tired, old ideas Bernie is selling and we’re not interested.
No, his ideas are not refreshing in the least. They are the same stale progressive nonsense we’ve heard since the 1900′s. It’s all class warfare, big government, anti-big business rhetoric. The jab at his age was a joke for those too slow to get it.
Oh please spare me your nonsense. A democratic socialist is way different from a marxist socialist. It is like saying: “I see the good points of both idea’s and know that it is mentally insane to have only one of those systems implemented, as this allows for everyone to get equal changes, for entrepreneurs to flourish and a good safety net for the sick and poor.” But funny you call it old, for the USA is seems a bit new.
So how exactly are the ideas of the conservatives refreshing? His ideas are not class warefare, they are about creating a equal change. His ideas are not big government, but about a productive helpful government. His ideas are not anti-big business, they are anti-cheating by big business. So yes his ideas are really refreshing. But for your info the red scare is over, the cold war is over, so you can come out your bunker
My favorite cliche of liberals and progressives:
“Our salvation doesn’t lie with capitalism or socialism…but rather somewhere in the middle using both systems.”
Oh, you mean a mixed economy using illegal income redistribution to fund a welfare system and public works that you cannot opt of? You mean the same system we’ve had for over a hundred years that has currently put us $18.4 trillion dollars in debt? That one?
“His ideas are not class warefare, they are about creating a equal change. His ideas are not big government, but about a productive helpful government. His ideas are not anti-big business, they are anti-cheating by big business.”
Oh, you mean creating equal change by elevating some people by taking from others? That kind of equal change? How did that differ from Obama’s kind of change exactly? Please explain how this is not “hope and change” 2.0.
When you say his ideas are not big government, do you mean he is going to create this change outside the confines of government? How is he going to use “productive, helpful” government in a way that won’t be taking money out of my pocket and giving it to someone else? How are his economic plans to “help us” and create “equality” going to lower the deficit and start paying back our unstable debt? Please, tell me in detail. I’ll wait. Take your time.
And if he isn’t anti-big business and not a class-warfare clown, then why does he hate millionaires and billionaires so much?
After all, how is he planning on making all these grand changes without all taxes that millionaires and billionaires pump into our federal government to redistribute?
Where can I opt out of Bernie’s helpful plan? I’d like to opt out please. In fact, how about Bernie go try to be helpful in a country where they’ve experienced his flavor of mixed economics - Greece.
Ahw you used gifs and video’s that don’t really add much, how cute!
I mean a system where you don’t go on needless wars, allow for regulation so we don’t get banks that are to big to fail and don’t make products that eventually they don’t understand anymore either, you know the things that caused the crisis of 2008. No… Oh god… It means that those who do not have the financial means to develope themselves. For instance a student might be a very gifted one but he doesn’t have the money to pay for college or university, I think with this the government can help. Making college free, a plan payed for by only a small tax on wallstreet, is one of those things, which allows equal changes. Big government is a opinion, for you government would perhaps earlier be called big government than for me. So no, for me it won’t be big government if such services are carried out by the government. As for now Bernie Sanders rather wants to increases taxes on the rich, so unless you are rich I don’t think it will mean taking money out of your pocket. Also here are some of this ideas on how to pay the debt: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top10 Or perhaps this piece on Bernie Sanders tax plans: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/30/tax-planning-for-the-risk-of-a-bernie-sanders-win/ I don’t think he hates billionares so much, I think he hates the fact that there are billionaires who buy into elections or dodge taxes using loopholes. But I would like to know from you why there is a increasing gap between the rich and the poor even tough they are taxed so heavily. Because ‘WHY DOESN’T ANYONE THINK OF THOSE POOR BILLIONAIRES!!??’
And I do not get the idea that you know what went on in Greece. Greece would have been fine if they didn’t join the eurozone or weren’t allowed to. Greece credit rating before joining the eurozone didn’t allow them to lend much money, but since they joined the eurozone they got the credit rating of Germany, which is the largest economy of the eurozone. And thus they could lend way more than they could eventually pay for. So I find it unfair to say that this would be the same to Bernie Sanders being president, even more because mixed economies like Germany, like Finland, like Norway, like England, like the Netherlands are doing fine.
Again, how is Bernie Sanders going to pay for free college without driving up the debt further or stealing more money from my pocket?
For instance, the link you just provided says, “the federal government (you and me) would cover 67% of this cost, while the states (you and me again) would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.” So, basically that’s stating that you and I are covering 100% of the cost. The Robin Hood (completely opposite of Robin Hood) Tax on Wall Street is stealing money from “investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trade speculation.” That is taking money right out of our pockets still, you gigantic clueless buffoon. 50 cents out of every $100 is not “a small tax.” Most of the economy relies on these transactions for things like day trading, to money markets, to our 401ks. Even his fans know the plan is a sham. If that were not a prime example of how asinine that plan is, the fact that essentially tacking on 4 more years of public high school should be clear to everyone how anything that is free to everyone holds little to no value to anyone.
Big government is not an opinion when it is literally the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. It is the largest monopoly in the country and spends and collects more money than anything else on earth. Still not big enough in your opinion? If it were a corporation I’m sure you’d be screaming in outrage. But you’re a putz, so of course reasoning does not apply to you.
Again, the rich already pay all the taxes in this country. But it’s never enough for the class warfare justice warriors. “Eat the rich” at all costs. And all those proposed ideas to reduce the deficit (not the debt you dunce) are all increases in taxes except for his military spending cuts. Too bad confiscating all the money from every rich person in this country would not put a dent in our dent at the levels for mandatory program spending.
I’m not even going to get into explaining how you completely missed the point about Greece, but I’ll tell you what, I’ll answer your question about wealth inequality as soon as you can tell me why income inequality is necessarily a bad thing. I want to hear exactly why you believe the amount of wealth of someone else is detrimental to someone else?
For instance, the link you just provided says, “the federal government (you and me) would cover 67% of this cost, while the states (you and me again) would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.” So, basically that’s stating that you and I are covering 100% of the cost. ” The legislation would be fully paid for by imposition of a federal “speculation fee” on Wall Street investment houses, hedge fund and other speculators of 0.5 percent on stock trades, a 0.1 percent fee on bonds and a 0.005 percent fee on derivatives. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-spending-plans-would-radically-change-the-us-2015-7#ixzz3kZTPo5NX” You and I are not the only source of income of the Federal and State government, this is something you should know. So considering the article it is most likely that part of the tax collected from the Wall street tax will be passed on to the states. And you and me aren’t likely to be paying speculation fee’s. Futhermore are Bernie Sanders plans often financed by closing loopholes and taking away debt increasing tax breaks The Robin Hood (completely opposite of Robin Hood) Tax on Wall Street is stealing money from “investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trade speculation. Yeah because it is the poor single mom, working several jobs and still has to collect foodstamps who is the real thief here. It is indeed a tax on financial transactions. I think Wall Street can take such a tax, and I wonder what makes you think Wall Street can’t. And this is what I like of Bernie Sanders. Wall Street has caused the crisis of 2008 with an absolutely diseased business culture and lack of business ethics. They happily take all the profits but when they fail they look for the government and thus the people to bail them out. And I think that is is good that someone stands up ands speaks out against that. Futhermore, claiming that free college will take away the value of a college degree is in my eyes a flaw. The fact that it is free and thus people who before couldn’t afford college now can will not change the difficulty of college. I also do not think that is makes any sense on economic basis to not allow youth to exploit their full potential just because mom and dad can’t afford college or debt would be such a heavy burden, don’t you agree? Big government is not an opinion when it is literally the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. It is the largest monopoly in the country and spends and collects more money than anything else on earth. Still not big enough in your opinion? If it were a corporation I’m sure you’d be screaming in outrage. But you’re a putz, so of course reasoning does not apply to you. Well that you rather have it in the hands of a corporation where you have no influence on that is up to you, that I rather have it in the hands of something where people have, and it may be limited, influence on sounds to me like a way better idea.
I am not for eating the rich and sure a nation can’t fare on tax increases alone, but what we have seen is that the 1% increases in wealth and that would be odd wouldn’t it? They are ‘taxed to death’ right? I am in favor of wealth inequality until a certain extend. Great wealth inequality is bad for a nation, as it brings great deals of mistrust in society. So yes I think that it shouldn’t get out of the hand. (Financial) Success should be a part of society, as it will be a drive for people to be that entrepreneur, as it will create people that inspire. However people of the 1% aren’t always (mostly) self made billionaires, a great deal inherited their wealth, lived a perfectly comfy live. But this shows that you have no idea what Democratic Socialism is as you still speak to me like I am a communist wishing to give everyone the same amount. You won’t explain because you can’t, Greece is not comparable with the USA. So yes I think some money, not all, can be ‘redistributed’ to the poor to close the gap a bit, as opposed to the form of ‘wealth redistribution’ where the rich get richer and the poor poorer. But I would like to hear who you support and what your ideas are, because you appear to be the living example of an dutch saying: “De beste stuurlui staan aan wal.” Which means, it is easy to only criticize. And I really wonder if this discussion has any use because you and I will always fundamentally disagree on this point
Listen, I’ve already covered your points about free college. You can keep posting new links with the same information over and over, but it’s not going to change the fact that it is a crackpot idea. Even the Business Insider article you just posted stated, “However, it’s in details like this where sometimes Sanders’ proposals run into trouble. While some have, indeed, suggested that the potential revenue from taxing financial markets activity is vast, others disagree. The Tax Policy Center last month examined the prospects of a Financial Transaction Tax and determined that, under a best case scenario, it could raise $50 billion per year and would likely raise less.” The TPC is not the only group to downplay Bernie’s ostentatious estimates, the CBO also stated that it would likely only raise $180 billion over 8 years. Not to mention, any financial transactions tax would be counterproductive in that it would shrink the economy causing less tax revenue from other tax sources in related industries. It’s essentially moving federal revenue around. Going back to my original question, how does plan help pay off the debt or lower the deficit? Answer: it doesn’t. It increases it more. “But free college, right?”
“You and I are not the only source of income of the Federal and State government, this is something you should know.”
Actually, we are. I’m can’t say I’m surprised that a fan of Bernie Sanders doesn’t understand how the economy works, but it’s not that complicated. Whenever you pull money out of the private markets, be it the stock market or big business, you are taxing the people. You see, first off, many private citizens enjoy the gains of these speculative stock market be it credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, or buying stock. This plays into many people’s retirement plans and stock investments. In other words, you are taxing the everyday citizens out of their own investments.
Also, when you tax businesses, they pass along that cost to the consumer which again is you and me. Only a complete economic idiot would believe that you are only cutting into the profits of big companies rather than their bottom line. Companies will do whatever they can do remain profitable because that is the name of the game. You can’t change that. Also, as the video posted above pointed out, there are not enough loopholes and tax breaks to make any conceivable difference in anything. It is a moot point. And more importantly, you as a taxpayer take advantage of these same loopholes and tax breaks as a millionaire does…or at least I’d hop you or your CPA are smart enough to. They are available to everyone. Eliminating these things is still just taxing people more anyway. Again, it goes back to the “eat the rich” mentality.
“They happily take all the profits but when they fail they look for the government and thus the people to bail them out. And I think that is is good that someone stands up ands speaks out against that. ”
Well, surprise, Bernie is not the only candidate that does not believe in bailing out businesses. There are plenty of Republican and Libertarian candidates that 100% agree with this as well. This isn’t something unique to progressives. However, progressives seem to be okay with bailing out public works projects, failed infrastructure plans, or public investment into businesses of their choice like green energy companies. So, they stand up as far as no money for private companies, but sit down and pull out their wallets when it comes to money for public companies and projects. How compassionate.
“Futhermore, claiming that free college will take away the value of a college degree is in my eyes a flaw. The fact that it is free and thus people who before couldn’t afford college now can will not change the difficulty of college.”
I hate to break it to your fragile little mind but there are far too many college students today that cannot afford to go to college already, but do so anyway. They do this through our ballooning student loan program. It’s essentially easy money for college now. Taking away these student loans that too many already use and then providing free college for everyone is shifting an already out-of-control problem onto the hands of the taxpayers. It’s a terrible idea.
Moreover, this asinine proposal would essentially turn colleges into public high schools. A current problem with public schools is that you are stuck in specific schools in your areas instead of being able to pick and choose the school of your choice. Are you okay with everyone going to the college of their choice free of charge? Or do you believe that students must go to an assigned college in their area? The reason I ask is because you are dealing with limited resources and when you open up demand, you are going to have problems fulfilling this added demand without some kind of orchestrated planning. And that’s what the progressives ultimately want. They want to be in charge of where students go and the education they need; not what they want. This is exactly why adding four more years of public schooling is essentially dragging out high school four extra years. You might as well do that if you want more free education. BTW, is there any cap in free tuition on Bernie’s grand scheme, or can students stay as undergraduates perpetually forever on the taxpayer’s dime like many students tend to do today?
“Great wealth inequality is bad for a nation, as it brings great deals of mistrust in society.”
Really? Mistrust makes it bad for a nation? That’s really the best excuse you can come up with to justify taxing the rich more than everyone else? I’m sure you immediately did some Googling to try and answer the question, but you’re not going to find many better excuses to why wealth inequality is wrong or any concern whatsoever. Thomas Piketty’s joke of a book is about as good as it gets as far as an economic point of view, but it still does not really answer the question either. That’s because the only reason wealth inequality is bad to progressives is because of envy. The rich have something they don’t and that’s not “fair.” So, progressives like Sanders need to punish those that have and give it to the have-nots. That’s why Bernie Sanders can’t stop talking about millionaires and billionaires. He’s a class-warfare demagogue and you are sheep that has bought into the class envy narrative. For example, you just stated:
“However people of the 1% aren’t always (mostly) self made billionaires, a great deal inherited their wealth, lived a perfectly comfy live.”
“In my thirty plus years of surveying and studying millionaires, I have consistently found that 80 to 86% are self made. That also applies to decamillionaires. In 1982 according to Forbes about 38% of America’s wealthiest people were self made. In 2012, the percentage jumped to 70%.”
- Thomas J. Stanley, PHD (Author, Researcher, Expert)
You see, like a true useful idiot, you have been psychologically convinced that all rich millionaires are greedy stock brokers, CEOs, company owners, Wall Street fat cats, trust fund babies, etc. The truth is they are mostly retired people that saved up their wealth or small business owners who saved their profits after years of hard work. Odds are you have a millionaire somewhere in your family and don’t even know it because they live comfortably and well within their means.
Being wise with your money is wonderful attribute, so I hope this bit of knowledge helps you get out of the trap of believing politicians like Bernie Sanders have your best interest’s at heart by stealing from the “rich” to redistribute to everyone else. That’s essentially what social security is and it is has been looted like most wealth redistributing schemes by the federal government. So, you should be more interested in keeping your own money for yourself rather than letting a politician take it for their grand plans like free college for everyone.
You want to know who I support? I support the politicians who want me to keep the most money I earn from my hard labor, who want to scale down the size of government on all levels especially restrictive regulations on business, who want to end entitlement programs that make the poor dependent on government, and who are willing to protect this country from threats domestic and abroad. You should to, because like Greece, the United States is on the same course of economic collapse regardless if you believe it or not.
BTW, all the questions proposed in this reply were rhetorical in nature. They were meant as questions to not only make you think but also for the added benefit of my reading audience’s further knowledge. I’m not interested in anything else you have to say about this matter because you do not know what you’re talking about.
I'm still nervous to have a relationship because the thought of someone accusing me of rape is terrifying.
Same here m8e - I’m off to university soon, which is probably full of feminists, and I don’t know if I’m going to be safe
Is this the real life, is this just fantasy
No I mean because it’s so easy for a woman to accuse a guy of rape with no proof at all and ruin his life.
You know what’s ridiculous, how literally around 2% of rape cases result in a conviction even though it is well known that far many more rapes take place. It’s ridiculous that with actual evidence women are still watching their rapist walk free, so you genuinely have nothing at all to worry about. So many studies show that there are the same amount of false rape claims than there are false GBH claims so stop shaming feminists who are trying to fight for the right to not be legally and inhumanly abused by males, you self-centred asshole.
And only 2-5 percent of all reported rapes turn out to be false claims. So your fear of being accused of raping somebody is quite irrational, considering your chances of that happening. While the fear of being raped that people experience when going to college is understandable, considering campus rape statistics.
Maybe that’s a fear they have because they are actually predatory and would rape a woman…
OP, stop raping women then. If you aren’t forcing, harming or intimidating anyone into any sexual acts or making them afraid of what you might do if they don’t do what you want then you’ll be just fine. Assholes.
Because women falsely accuse men of rape I’m a rapist? Your logic is as shit as your blog son, step your game up.
Yes the 1.5 million rapes every year in the US are just women “making it up”.
My point is that any man “worried’ about “false accusations” is probably a rapist. I shall repeat: stop forcing and abusing women to get “sex” and your worries about “ false accusations” will magically fade.
And you probably are a rapist since most men are. Goodbye
wow WOW wow WOW this is some sexist shit.
I’m gonna assume you’re not a troll yet just helplessly brainwashed by the shit you’ve been spoonfed on this site, so my apologies to my followers if I’m just feeding a troll right now.
Men who are worried about false accusations are men who are worried that women will regret what they did and just accuse them of rape. Or maybe women who want way more than the man, despite being informed that the man is not interested in a relationship or in an open long distance relationship (e.g. Mattress Girl).
Shockingly, many rape accusations ARE false accusations. It’s sad that there are people who are so cruel as to ruin the lives of another person and devalue genuine rape cases for their own selfish reasons, but it’s the truth. People falsely accused of rape did NOT force or abuse someone into sleeping with them. How thick are you?
Worrying about one’s own safety because of this disgusting trend of people throwing other people under the bus for doing nothing wrong does NOT make someone a rapist, and saying that “most men are rapists” is a disgraceful and sexist thing to say, regardless of what your little echo chamber on Tumblr is going to tell you.
>no sources across all of this :( m8
Sources for what exactly? I didn’t state any numbers
termanal-velocity, kristen-the-rageful
you fucking idiots
hey, you raped me!
What other proof do I need besides saying “You raped me”, right? So, you’re a rapist and I should report you to the police and don’t you dare ask me for proof! NOOooooOo way would anyone ever lie about rape!
Try applying your logic to any other crime and you still sound like a jackass - because our entire system of justice is based on “innocent until proven guilty”. We don’t say “Unless you’re accused of _______, then we just assume you’re guilty”.
It’s hilarious that you’re asserting that we should just take people’s word when the truth of the Mattress Girl case has recently been revealed - that she was lying because she was angry her affections were not being reciprocated by the man she accused. Not only did she label him a rapist, but carried on an attention seeking charade for nearly a year now, despite all evidence proving she was lying and the accused not even being allowed to defend himself in court.
And “any man “worried’ about “false accusations” is probably a rapist. I shall repeat: stop forcing and abusing women to get “sex” and your worries about “ false accusations” will magically fade.And you probably are a rapist since most men are.”??
The widely accepted statistic for false rape accusations is between 2-8% even though14 out of 20 studies have placed them at a much higher rate. But even if we accept the 2-8% statistic, the numbers are not low as the statistic would suggest. For example, in 2009 there were 88,097 rapes reported according to the Department of Justice. If we take 5%, the median of 2-8% that people widely accept as the true statistic of false accusations, that would mean out of 88,097 reported rapes that 4,404 men were falsely accused of rape. That’s four thousand four hundred and four men falsely accused of rape just in 2009 alone.
Just let that sink in for a minute.
That is in no way a small number and quite frankly a very disturbing realization. Now apply the same calculation to every figure since 1990:
1990 // 5,127 falsely accused 1991 // 5,329 falsely accused 1992 // 5,453 falsely accused 1993 // 5,300 falsely accused 1994 // 5,110 falsely accused 1995 // 4,873 falsely accused 1996 // 4,812 falsely accused 1997 // 4,807 falsely accused 1998 // 4,657 falsely accused 1999 // 4,470 falsely accused 2000 // 4,508 falsely accused 2001 // 4,543 falsely accused 2002 // 4,761 falsely accused 2003 // 4,694 falsely accused 2004 // 4,754 falsely accused 2005 // 4,717 falsely accused 2006 // 4,739 falsely accused 2007 // 4,593 falsely accused 2008 // 4,593 falsely accused 2009 // 4,404 falsely accused
That’s 96,244 men falsely accused from 1990 to 2009according to the figures provided by the Department of Justice in correlation to the median of 5% from the 2-8% false rape accusation statistic.
The feminist outcry of “rape apologist” and “victim blamer” only works on those simple minded enough to fall for buzzwords that hardly make up for lack of a good argument. While its true that rape can sometimes be hard to prove, false accusations are virtually impossible to prove especially when no proof can be provided to support either claim which only comes down to “he said, she said” and is open to personal opinion.
The overall truth is that women can use the power of being perceived as victims to their advantage while men cannot. Whether they choose to use this advantage or not really depends on their character. Obviously not all women are this way but many are and its an insult to the victims of false accusations to suggest that because the rate is supposedly low that it means they are inconsequential. Feminists will believe this up until someone they love is falsely accused and when that happens, what then?
False accusations are the sole reason for doubt when a real victim comes forward to make a report. Essentially, false accusations are more responsible for under reporting than the so-called rape culture. The sooner feminists and others realize this, the sooner real victims will find justice instead of a cloud of doubt.
Here’s reality, stripped of propaganda. 10% of cases are conclusively true. 5% of cases are conclusively false. And any amount of the remaining 85% could be true/false.
And you expect us to believe that even though one-third of the conclusive cases have been proven false, none of the remaining 85% are?
Automatically believing someone just because they claim to be the victim of a crime you deem to be “more important” doesn’t mean we should automatically believe them. People gethurt, asshole. To put it simply, men who are falsely accused and convicted of rape become the victims of brutal, reoccurring sexual assault during their sentences. So when feminists downplay false accusations what they are really saying is that innocent men who are sexually assaulted over and over again in a confined space with no hope of escape or help either deserve it or isn’t at all important.
If I use these statistics about the average amount of rapes in the US (keeping in mind that famous rape apologists Mary Koss and the CDC, who don’t count male rape as rape, are part of the research team), we come up with 89,000 rapes. Let’s assume that they’re all separate incidents, and not repeat offences, all with different rapists.
Now that we have that settled, let’s bring up RAINN’s bullshit statistic that 54% of rapes are never reported. Thus, the 89,000 is 46% of all rapes. Cross-multiply and divide, we come up with 193,478 rapes. (I rounded to the nearest whole number because you can’t have half a rape.) Let’s again assume that those are all separate victims and separate offenders.
A Google search of “US population” reveals that there are approximately 313.9 million people. Thus, approximately 0.06% of the population is a rapist.
Wait…
Ah, right, I forgot the most important part! Feminists love to spout that 99% of rapists are men (because 99% of people arrested for rape are men, because no one gives a shit about female rapists, but let’s put that aside). We can just round that up and say that all rapists are men, shall we? Women make up 50.8% of the population (seen here, where men don’t garner a mention at all), so men make up 49.2% of the 313.9 million. Okay, so there are about 154,438,800 men in the US. Okay, that means that approximately 0.1% of the population of men is a rapist. (x)
You and your ilk remind me of the witch burnings, quick to believe anything that plays into your predetermined views about men as monsters as women as infallible angels who never lie about rape for any amount of reasons including covering up an affair to having an excuse for skipping work tonot getting enough sympathy from friends to not wanting to pay a $13 cab fare to simply not liking the men they’re with anymore to motivations of racism to being obsessed with the victim to no reason at all.
People are skeptical because in today’s society lying about shit like this isn’t even punished, and it happens far more frequently than idiots like you want to admit. If you’re afraid to come forward”, you can thank the women and feminists who think false reports are “no big deal” and try to shove them under the rug or lie about how often they happen, like you just did.
You wanted sources m8?
get fucking gud.
Thanks for the sources, but I think you misunderstand which side I was asking for sources, also your reply is the most cringey fucking thing I’ve ever had to lay my eyes on. What kind of a fucking fedora-tipping redditor ends an argument with “get fucking good” in bolded text, as though it’s a fucking accomplishment to type out a wall of text everyone is just gonna skim over. Jesus CHRIST.
hahahahah fucking cry harder kid
“waaaaah no sourcez!”
*gets sources*
“waaaah it’s too looong! F-f-f-fedora”
What kind of retard asks for sources and get gets asschapped when they get them, lmao look at this fuckstick.
Don’t get a droopy lip buttercup, it’s going to be ok “m8” :)
a 16 year old with 3 paragraphs about their pronouns and how they’ve rejected “thuh labelzzzz” accuses me of being cringey - what a time to be alive, fuck hahahaha
You've probs been asked this a ton but what do you say to POC when they say we can't call America a white country because we took it from the natives and then brought black people over from Africa
Tag “Indigenous People”Tag “Native Americans”Tag “Colonialism”Tag “Aborigines”FAQ “But America has always been multiracial”The Left always tries to distract with “Native Americans were there first“ whenever European-Americans criticise the US’s current immigration policy. They rely on most European-Americans being so inculcated with self-loathing that they’ll drop the issue before daring to ask ”hang on, what’s that actually got to do with what I’m talking about?”.What does Native Americans being there first have to do with a debate about the pros and cons of Third World immigration into America today? These immigrants aren’t Native Americans; letting them in isn’t going to make up for anything. It’s not going to increase the power of Native Americans or get them their land back. So the next time someone says “Native Americans were there first”, I think “so what?“ is a reasonable reply.It’s like saying “there was orange juice in that glass before you put apple juice in it, so now you have to put cranberry juice in it”. No you don’t. Have more apple juice, have no juice, have whatever kind of juice you want. If a Native American woman got raped by an Englishman, she doesn’t have a moral obligation to get raped by a Mexican. If England beats America at football, England doesn’t have an obligation to lose to Mexico. What did the Native Americans do when the European settlers started taking over? Did they welcome them with open arms in the name of diversity and tolerance, or did they resist? They resisted. So why shouldn’t the new indigenous people similarly resist the new newcomers? When a Native American scalped a white man, was that a hate crime?And let’s not get into a semantic debate about immigrants from Latin America being “Native Americans”. They’re not Native Americans in the sense of being Native to the territory of the US, where they’re moving to. In 1491 do you think a tribe in North America would have been happy to see a tribe from South America turn up in its territory? America is a white country because most people are white and white people created it. It’s 70% white and before the recent change in immigration policy it was 90% white, and that’s what I mean by “a white country”. These people never say that Turkey isn’t Turkish because the Greeks were in the Anatolian peninsula first. There is a theory called the Solutrean Hypothesis which says that the first settlers of the Americas were from what’s now France. If we assume that the Solutrean Hypothesis is not true, then what we have is people migrating from Asia in the Stone Age and establishing various tribes which fought with each other and stole each other’s territory all the time. I suppose you could say that each tribe’s territory constituted a country, so there were several hundred tiny countries there; but there was no United States.The country America was not created by the Native American tribes. The British created the Thirteen Colonies and the British-American colonials created the USA. Native Americans did nothing to create America other than get out of the way. Sucks to be them, but they lost. That doesn’t mean European-Americans now have some obligation to lose just because the Native-Americans lost then; allowing a mass influx of Third Worlders isn’t going to change what happened.Allowing a mass influx of Africans, Asians and everyone else doesn’t ameliorate the dispossession of the Native Americans, it exacerbates it. Oh, someone from England stole your land? Well, here’s someone from Pakistan to steal your land twice, feel better? It doesn’t make sense. PoC and self-loathing whites only pretend to care about Native Americans insofar as they can use them to gag and flagellate white people. How do Native Americans benefit from Hart-Celler immigration, and if they don’t benefit, then why crow-bar them into the debate? Is it not possible that Native Americans might oppose contemporary mass immigration too? As for whites bringing blacks as slaves, what exactly does that prove in relation to contemporary immigration? Okay, it wasn’t 100% white, it was 90% white. What’s that got to do with becoming 70% white? Black slaves were generally 10-15% of the population and their free descendents who were allowed to stay in the US still are. Blacks weren’t brought there to be citizens, they were brought there to be slaves. The first Naturalisation Act of the US says that citizenship is for free whites. America was explicitly founded as a country for white people. It has been majority white since the first colonies in the 17th century. Go and look at the Founding Fathers and tell me how many were PoC. There is no logical connection between “we brought a minority of blacks to this country to be slaves” and “we should permit neverending immigration from every corner of the Third World”. It’s a non sequitur.To quote Jared Taylor, all countries begin as nations of immigrants. After a few generations, they decide they like it the way it is, and they become nations of natives. Who is or isn’t “indigenous” is all relative. An English-American family who came on the Mayflower is indigenous compared to José Gonzales who just jumped the border or Muhammed Iqbal who just got off a plane.And ultimately, we don’t actually need to justify acting for our own interests. We support what’s good for us and oppose what’s bad for us, because that’s what it is to exist. We oppose what’s going on because it’s in our interest to, like every other group which acts in its own interests. Mexicans who swarm into America do so because they want a better life. Americans who oppose Mexicans swarming into America do so for the same reason.
In 2006, Joseph Contreras profiled the issue of Guatemalan immigrants illegally entering Mexico for Newsweek magazine. He pointed out that while Mexican president Vicente Fox demanded the US grant legal residency to millions of illegal Mexican immigrants, Mexico had only granted legal residency to 15,000 illegal Guatemalan immigrants. [x]
non-american people probably think we’re exaggerating when we talk about gun control in america but as you can see, we’re really not. how is this ‘cute’ like?? lmao
To lots of Europeans, it seems like we’re making shit up. I lived in America for years. I can confirm that it’s not an exaggeration. There are hundreds of thousands of people who honestly believe that arming themselves against (entirely hypothetical and non-existent) malign government forces is their patriotic duty.
Over here, we’d call that treason.
It’s not just a question of liking the boom sticks. It’s a whole other way of parsing reality that just doesn’t seem to match actual reality.
Americans still remember that treason is an important right; our nation was founded in kill-you-in-your-sleep-on-christmas revolt and on land taken from people who waited too long to unite and wipe out a creeping threat to their sovereignty. Government doesn’t give rights, as they are inalienable; its function is protection of rights, and when it no longer serves that purpose, it’s the right of every person on earth to get rid of it. That’s where the armed population comes in. Our government hasn’t yet proven totally corrupted and useless, so we’re holding off on the rather consequential act of civil fucking war. But you cannot possibly say that ours is a very just and righteous government. That’s why a little kid learning to shoot is cute; someday they might have to destroy those who would make slaves or examples of them, and they will be capable, and that’s good.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a prime example of what I’m talking about. This was posted unironically. This guy is not joking. He actually believes everything he’s saying. In any other educated country, it would be regarded as ridiculous at best and sometimes scary to the point of psychopathy. In the US, the more violently they adhere to these weird ideas, the more patriotic they think they are.
Read what he said again. He said that in response to my post. This is his defence. This is him explaining why he’s not a lunatic.
Lots of states and parts of other states are a bit more enlightened. Where I was living, I never saw a gun in the whole five years I was living there. It’s just some places, and they tend to congregate in certain well-understood, historically salient, low-income and low-education areas. And Montana. You’ll have to do the math on that yourselves.
You keep implying I’m wrong and crazy but you don’t say why. America’s had two revolutionary wars in its short history, one successful, one less so. Anyone who wants another is a fool, but so is anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the possibility and the associated things that will have to be done. It’s not a particularly extreme ideal, both historically and globally; undesirable governments are upset by force all the time. “oh but that’s just in dirt-countries; that would never happen HERE” you may tell yourself, and that’s because you think we’re somehow superior. We’re not really, we just have more global influence.
Also, bull shit you never saw a gun in 5 years; you definitely saw one on the hip of a cop or as an obvious item tucked under the arm of a plainclothes security agent. Maybe you didn’t NOTICE any, but I guarantee you that if you lived in America there was definitely a gun somewhere near you most of the time. They’re like spiders. Furthermore, you can take your prejudiced garbage and shove it; just because someone doesn’t make 6 figures a year or hasn’t got a degree from a big-name 4-year college and live in the “nice” metropolitan utopias doesn’t make them the backwoods inbreeds you like to imagine us gun owners all are. And those poor fucked up people who DO fit the profile, with the crippling poverty and the fading American dreams, tend to have guns because their government can’t or won’t help them, much less protect them from other desperate people, so they have to go armed as a matter of basic survival. “Enlightened” my ass; you’re a lot more like sheltered, and I sincerely hope that you’re lucky enough to stay that way your entire natural life, but I’m not too optimistic. If you won’t get your own, at least go learn to handle a gun safely and effectively; there’s lots of free or very cheap courses available, even in your nice safe bubble. Think of it like learning to float and swim; even if you never plan to use it, you’ll not be unable when you have to.
It’s funny when non-Americans think their opinions on America’s internal affairs are worth a shit.;
Yeah, yeah, we get it. You don’t like us.
Whoopty-shit.
Only cops should have guns. All cops are racist and will shoot you for no reason. Don’t arm yourself; the cops will protect you. The cops will kill you.
Most of North America is still rural.
You need a gun, because in the middle of nowhere, help isn’t coming very fast.
There’s nothing scary, or “psychopathic” about rifles. they’re lightweight, accurate and easy to maintain.
Help isn’t coming very fast in liberal utopias like Detroit, either.
A gun often won’t protect you from other human beings, they only have to surprise you or get lucky. Luckily most of Detroit is still quite nice.
I follow the best piece of advice from martial arts “don’t be there”.
There are an estimated 300,000 defensive gun uses each year, often involving only pointing the weapon at the bad guy with no shots fired.
So, yes, a gun will often protect you from other human beings.
I’ll wait …….
The right to bear arms! Boom! I win.
S-slavery…?
Slavery is not, in fact, a civil right.
Well yea, I mean the opposite of slavery freedom to oneself and own property and voting and all that jazz is a civil right.
Yes, and the ending of slavery in the United States was opposed by conservatives.
Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch. Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button…. Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America. This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer… October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free” January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C. July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men” September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule” October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight” January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86% February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it. August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV) June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight. The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc. The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”. Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies. Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States. The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP. So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore. Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input. There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake. This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights. Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems. Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home. Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP. BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles. And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/ http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/ So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth. REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue. It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands. An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet. Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.” The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.” Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.” Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system. Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative. Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction. Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox. Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.” Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party. The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007. As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice. The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet. Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet. More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet. An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube. Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party By Frances Rice History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians. Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.” Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white. On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.” Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi - assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’” “White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page 186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers.“ Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/ Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!
For all you liberals out there who were trying to convince me that the parties switched positions on race at some disputed point in time, read it and weep.
I enjoy it when a liberal makes an ignorant or presumptuous statement on one of gop-tea-pub‘s posts and it takes me 15 minutes to scroll through his response.
Feminism Rant
Ok. Let me say something please. Feminism is NOT thinking women are better than men. Feminism is thinking women and men should be treated equally. People who spread gender hate and gender discrimination of any kind are NOT feminists. People who don’t believe women should have equal rights to men are NOT feminist, no matter if they have plausible views. Women who call themselves feminists and discriminate against OTHER WOMEN who don’t choose to call themselves feminist ARE NOT feminist. Feminism is a fight for equality, and it’s alright if people have different or opposing views. There ARE male feminists. My father calls himself a feminist. Feminists do not believe that women are higher than men and do not hate men. There is no difference between a “feminist” and an “equalist” except that the first is a longer established movement and the second is a newly coined, easier excepted term. Being a feminist does not mean I want women to rule the Galaxy. It means I want to be seen as equally much of a person as a man would be.
I appreciate what you are saying in that you obviously care about gender equality. Unfortunately it is not up to you to define who is and is not a feminist. A person is a feminist if they say they are. I do, however, believe that many people call themselves feminist because they believe doing so is simply saying ‘I believe in gender equality’, however it is nowhere near that simple.
Feminism is a movement based on its own theories of society. A feminist, essentially, is a person who believes in those theories. So a feminist believes that men have been privileged over women throughout history and believes that this is largely of men’s own doing. These are the core beliefs of feminism, and where its further thinking and campaigns stem from. Where you go with your thought after that can vary greatly, which is why we see different branches of feminism.
And this is why there is in fact a massive difference between a “feminist” and an “equalist” since a feminist believes feminist theory to be an accurate model of society where as an equalist more than likely does not. This is also a big part of the reason why people, like myself, call themselves anti-feminists. Because we believe this feminist model of society to be wrong and do not support the perpetuation of those ideas as unquestioned truth.
As said above - I do think there are people who call themselves feminists who have not really taken these ideas on board fully, and who think they are doing right by standing for gender equality, probably choosing feminism because it is easily the most prominent gender equality movement. They probably believe that feminism is simply a synonym for equality. It is not. But I can’t fault their good intentions, and would only ask them to research further before taking that label.
A Letter to Anti-Feminists
Hello there, I am a feminist. You can do your scoffing later, but for now I’d encourage you to read this. *whispers* It might just change your perspective. First of all, I’d like to ask you a question. Are you aware of the movement you’re discouraging and speaking against? Do you know what feminism is? If your answer is anything along the lines of “women think they’re better than men!!! we already have equality, feminists just want attention!!” etc then please let me tell you something. That’s not correct. I know it’s hard to hear, but the idea you’ve had in your head all this time of narcissistic women who only want to post nudes online without hate is not the biggest part of what feminists stand for. Sure, your mind might think that everything is all fine and dandy with the women here, and those very women might agree with you. Obviously, if you can’t see the gender-biased reality of just the United States, I might not be able to convince you that such a thing exists (or maybe I’ll just do that in another post). But could you step outside your bubble for a minute and realize all the shit going on in other countries? In Saudi Arabia, women cannot do anything without a man present, including own a banking account, join in the conversation, or even walk outside. In Yemen, women are literally considered half of a person in the court of law, they are not protected from domestic and sexual abuse, and they can be subject to “arbitrary arrest” for just being female. These can lead to prison time, humiliation, and death- just for being a woman. Is that equality? How about this: in India, men actually throw acid on women when they feel she’s deserved it. Hydrochloric acid. And they get away with it, even though it permanently alters the woman’s face and confidence and much more and can even kill her. So no, feminism is not a movement against men. It’s actually kind of arrogant to think a movement saving millions of lives across the world is solely to attack your “manhood”. This is a movement encouraging men and women to stand up for gender equality EVERYWHERE, not just in the USA. So before you say you’re an “anti-feminist” and laugh at a joke mocking this movement, take a second to realize that just because you think you don’t need this doesn’t mean it’s not needed. Feminism saves lives. Are you really against that?
I do wonder, why are posts by feminists who try to inform others about feminism so ignorant?
Where do you get this idea from that you can somehow inform others?
Anti-feminists are a diverse group and the reasons why a person opposes feminism differs.
If we, however, talk about the new anti-feminism, which is rapidly spreading among the younger generations, they are concerned with the political ramifications of feminist policies and the feminist misinformation which are being spread by feminist in order to justify feminism and their political advocacy - a position you could have easily found out about if you had actually tried to look for information from anti-feminists on their stance.
In Cambodia, 47 % of victims of acid attacks are male, while in India, 1 in 3 victims is male.
You are asking others to leave their bubble - by itself not a bad suggestion, for sure - but you seem unaware that you are completely submerged in the feminist bubble.
Men are the majority of victims of any form of violence or governmental oppression - whether it is being sent to prison, labour camps or unlawful execution - on the planet. Men are also the overwhelming majority of opponents of crimes and enforcers of rules and laws, who fight against injustices.
Regardless of that, trying to solve women’s issues and problems is not a bad thing by itself - however, feminists are discriminating against men in the process or they are unable to find suitable solutions since they are only able to look at situation through their particular lens.
Take Saudi-Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-protest-driving-ban-not-popular
A majority of women oppose women being able to drive - for example, because they think that, since every woman in Saudi Arabia is a queen, there should be a man driving for her and she should not have to do it herself. Of those women who do want to drive, many would prefer to have lanes of their own…
Similar with many other issues.
Regardless of what we look at, domestic violence, socio-economics, acid attacks and even FGM or gential cutting, the situation does not look like feminists want to present it and it seems, what surprise, that neither African, Arabian nor Asian countries are filled with woman-hating barbarians - rather, in each place, men and women have an understanding of themselves based on their local culture, traditions and values which arises from them trying to make things work in a specific environment.
Equality is a word with different meanings, depending on what a person values.
Feminist claim that they know better than on the rest of the world - man or woman - and although many ideologies do that, the feminist worldview specifically is based on certain assumptions (that women must be the victims of X and not men, that women must feel this way and not that, that men must behave like this and not that), which are assumed to be correct, but were never demonstrated. Even better when feminists deny findings from biological and medical research simply because they do not like the results.
But no wonder: The foundational ideas of feminism were laid down over the course of the late 19th century, mostly by women who had no formal academic training and merely wrote down emotional speculations about society and history, often roughly based on philosophical and political ideas of men who came before them. Later feminists merely picked these stories and continues to add bits and pieces to these spurious tales and present as some sort of sociological theory, which they managed to market quite well. That is the origin of the lens - it is not an empirical theory and something which should be taken seriously, although it is unfortunately influencing politics, society and academia - with the damaging results which anti-feminists (many or even most in favour of feminism until they began to research) notice and oppose.
Heed your own advice and come out of your bubble, and you’ll see why people reject feminism and could have a real discussion, instead of having to rely on your risible preconceptions about what other people supposedly think, just because you are a “full-of-myself, holier-than-thou” feminist.
Also, you should take a good look at feminist history, since, despite you wanting to inform others about feminism, you display a serious lack of knowledge about feminism and feminist philosophy and instead rely on a pop-culture feminism which has sensationalist slogans but is devoid of content.
Feel free to ask questions about anti-feminism or feminism and for other sources of information.
2016 Candidates- Average Age
Democrat Party:
Average Age: 63.5 years
Median Age: 64.5 years
Ethnicities: White
Number of Candidates: 4
Republican Party:
Average Age: 57.1 years
Median Age: 59 years
Ethnicities: White, Black, Hispanic, Indian
Number of Candidates: 14
Non-White Republican Candidates:
Average Age: 51
Median Age: 44
Number of Candidates: 5
Which party is the party of old white people now???
diversity
Request from an Indian Girl (Feminism in India) - End Feminism.
From an Indian female anti-feminist who despises being used as an excuse as to why we need feminism here but also hates the way anti-feminists, MRAs and feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers say we don’t need western feminism because women in countries such as India need them instead. She is fed up of gender neutral problems being portrayed as women only problems caused by men. She requested End Feminism criticise feminism in India on her behalf, as it is now illegal for her to do so herself.
The part about needing feminism in the third world is something that has bugged me since I first heard it, anti-feminists and MRAs calling out feminists for being misandrist to Western men while themselves demonising third world men.
Section 506: “To impute the unchastity of a woman”, aka “slut shaming”, can get you fined and even imprisoned for up to 7 years.
Section 507: “Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication”, so being anonymous while disagreeing with someone, we all know that if a feminist is offended, it’s harassment and a rape threat.
This one I’m just going to quote diectly from the act itself because holy crappintons is this terrifying:
Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Here are some more examples.
From what we’ve seen of how the law is enforced in India when it comes to women filing cases against men and their families, this will very much be exploited. Deepika Bhardwaj, an advocate for men who are victims of India’s draconian laws, made a documentary about one such case, two sisters who have filed cases against any boy who so much as offended them, criticised them, existed in their presence without their consent, anything, didn’t matter, they destroyed lives out of hatred and greed. They were hailed as heroes. Defenders of women in a country that hates them so much it has laws against even so much as offending them.
And just as a sign of things to come, their definition of rape is so loose that having the parents refuse to allow a couple to marry makes the man a rapist for which the only non prisonable solution is for him to marry her which was what they wanted in the first place. And for all these things it goes from accusation to punishment, there is nothing in between unless you contest it and to most people, that process is so grueling and expensive, they find it easier not to contest it.
And we absolutely know the feminists there are aware of all this because when the law was going to start recognising male victims of rape, Indian feminists managed to put a stop to it (Israeli feminists did the same thing) because, and this is the sickening part, they didn’t want men to have the ability to make false accusations. Well well well, look who now decides to believe in false accusations. And only when it would be possible for them to be made by men. Projecting their own flaws onto men yet again. Men can not be taken seriously when they were routinely and legally mutilated at birth; abused by their wife, who drugs him, cuts off then obliterates his genitals because he no longer wanted to be with said abusive wife, in fact it’s openly mocked and celebrated by women on daytime telly; boys who are little more than toddlers are not taken seriously when they are raped by adult women let alone full grown men, I think women are pretty safe from false accusations.
Women are so powerless and oppressed in India according to feminists and to many of my fellow anti-feminists and MRAs that they can take away any single shred of hope that a male rape victim would ever see justice done, no man, no matter how brutally he has been raped, deserves justice, better that women be empowered to rape men and boys with impunity than one single woman be subject to the same injustice that they have visited upon countless men and boys.
Hey hey!!!
but also hates the way anti-feminists, MRAs and feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers say we don’t need western feminism because women in countries such as India need them instead.
MRAs do not think Indian women need feminism, Warren Farrell has always advocated for a “gender transitional movement” that would progress society beyond restrictive gender roles for both men and women. Also MRAs talk about men’s issues in third world countries quite often, check out this AVfM article about male disposability in Afghanistan. And speaking of India, AVfM actually has several contributors from India that frequently talk about men’s issues and gynocentrism in the country. They are definitely not pro-feminism for India.
No objection to the rest of your post.
Not as a group but some individual ones do, I thought I’d put “some”, had to correct a lot before posting and must have missed it. I’ve been watching Warren Farrell’s stuff for a long time, reading AVFM for just as long, though the MGTOW debacle has really put me off. I wasn’t talking about them. The honeybadgers are good as well, they’ve spoken about the laws in India before.
I was meaning individual ones (more anti-feminists though), some on here, some on youtube, who mean well but don’t realise they are throwing men under the bus by implying or outright stating that men as a group are oppressing, raping, abusing and killing women anywhere, ignoring the fact that it’s a very small group of men and women victimising a lot of men and women who are not doing that.
One of the good things about this community is that we call out our own and avoid echo chambers and dogmatism.
interesting indeed.
I don know where you get your ideas about feminism but they're horribly off the mark.
Well set me straight, please. I’d love it if you would. I want you to bestow upon me your superior knowledge on the subject matter.
Or is that all you’re going to say on the matter? Just send me a message to tell me I’m wrong and maybe I’ll start doubting myself all of the sudden?
What an odd assumption to make. What do you base it on?
First off, your idea that feminism doesn’t care about men. We very much care. However, they aren’t our focus, which is why we also need men’s rights. And yes, people can be both feminists and MRAs, and I’m proud to be both. It just makes sense.
Last I checked, I haven’t seen ANYONE trying to get rid of selective service. Cherry picking feminism here is trying to create a conspiracy when there isn’t one. I mean, sign me up if you know of anyone fighting to end it, because it’s fucking stupid, but making this an anti-feminist issue is biased from the getgo.
Feminists are for fair sentencing for female criminals. It’s only logical, because that’s equality.
Oh yeah, and I know the loop that this will take. Someone will talk about the people who fight for lighter sentences as being feminists and I’ll point out that they can’t be, and someone will try to call NAFALT, and it’ll be a clusterfuck. So let me nip that in the bud right now. The one single thing that feminists can’t be is against sex/gender equality. That’s it. That’s the only thing, and the only thing i’m addressing. That isn’t the same as trying to deny a negative element. Someone can be all manner of vile things and still be a feminist. And yet, people seem hell-bent on attaching the one group who works DIRECTLY against us to our actions and blaming us for them. They’re our enemies too. Let’s fight them together and not divide ourselves.
“ What an odd assumption to make. What do you base it on? “
The assumption that you were just planning to send me only one message in the hopes that i’ll start doubting myself? Wasn’t really assuming, I was asking…because that’s what a lot of people who send me asks do…they say one thing and then when I respond they fail to continue the discussion.
You say you very much care…what gives you the authority to speak on behalf of all feminists? What gives you the authority to speak on an international movement made up of many widely ranging backgrounds and ideologies? When I say “feminism” doesn’t care about men, I’m not talking about a person, I’m not even talking about a group of people….I’m talking about a movement, and I’m judging it by its actions.
Yes it is possible to be a feminist and an MRA…and I applaud you if you choose to do so. But you’re still dead wrong if you think the majority of feminists are okay with the concept of “Men’s rights.” They’ve turned the entire concept of “Men’s rights” into a punchline not only on tumblr, but all over the internet. Just look at news articles surrounding men’s rights that has facebook commenting enabled and you’ll see women and even men cracking jokes about how “pathetic” MRAs are, and how they’re fedora wearing misogynists who are afraid of women.
I’m sure there’s a huge portion of feminists who recognize that men face inequity and are all in favor of MRAs so long as they’re reasonable individuals. Those aren’t the ones I’m talking about when I refer to feminism as a movement…because they don’t have the pull to affect society the way the misandrist elements of the movement do. Because they all too often don’t fight against the misandrist elements of their own movement, but rather spend their time lecturing people who criticize the misandrist elements of the feminist movement because they dared to call the feminist movement in itself misandrist, because they dared suggest the misandrist elements have control of the movement (which they do).
And I’m guessing your assumption that no one is fighting against conscription is based on the fact that you haven’t heard about any fight against conscription? That might be due to the fact that men’s rights organizations aren’t as heavily funded and don’t get as much publicity as women’s rights organizations, but they’re definitely trying.
There’s this article from way back in the 20th century, back when 56k was still in use. [Article]
Here’s an article from A Voice for Men, a Canadian based Men’s Rights movement and probably the most popular by far. [Article]
And this article from just 8 months ago states that there has been effort to sue the government over the sexist policies surrounding conscription. I’ve found no update since then, maybe you can. [Article]
I never said anything was an “anti feminist issue.” I don’t believe in “anti feminist issues.” Anti-feminist is just my stance in relation to the modern feminist movement in the West. (North America, UK and most of Europe) It’s a men’s rights issue, certainly.
“ Feminists are for fair sentencing for female criminals. It’s only logical, because that’s equality. “
What you’re doing here is asserting the truth of something based on whether its logical. That’s a huge fallacy. It starts when you assert that feminism is about gender equality. It’s not, it’s about women’s liberation, it always has been about women’s lib, and any feminist scholar will tell you that. Even the “dictionary definition” of feminism states that it’s about achieving equality to men. When you attempt to make B equal to A, you’re not necessarily going to worry about the ways in which A is unequal to B. And that remains true for feminism.
Furthermore, even if feminism were supposedly about equality, its largest weakness is that the movement consists of a wide array of hundreds of thousands or even millions of women from all walks of life over dozens of different organizations who are all subject to human bias and error. What’s “logical” because it “would be equality” isn’t always what’s “logical” because it “benefits women.” And when you consider human bias, which enters social and gender politics as often as it enters into any other form of politics, you’ll see that it is in fact more logical that feminists aren’t for equality in sentencing.
As a matter of fact feminists fought against attempts to create equality in sentencing, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.
Feminists in law have even told judges to be lenient on women.
Oh right you did already say those aren’t true feminists. My bad. Even if they’re part of one of the most popular feminist organizations in the world?
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband’s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
Are you going to tell me that NOW isn’t made up of “true feminists?” Are you going to tell me you have more right to the title Feminist than the National Organization for Women?
Tumblr user blackjackgabbiani who wasn’t even a thought in anyone’s mind when the movement Feminism was born has now decided over a century or two later that the movement they had nothing to do with is now subject to their defining, and everyone else who runs the movement and disagrees with them is not a “true feminist” because they hold sole authority on what constitutes “feminist”.
The only person horribly off the mark here is you. That last paragraph of yours made absolutely no sense whatsoever. That’s not NAFALT, that’s No True Scotsman to the extreme.
Little thing about OTS. It’s based on declaring someone to be part of a group or not based on irrelevant qualities. And handwaving feminists who establish what is and isn’t feminism based on WHAT THE MOVEMENT REALLY WORKS FOR as being just “OTS, OTS” over and over again is not only preventing us from drawing the line in our own movement, It lets people who’ve stole out name for their own evil purposes and who work DIRECTLY AGAINST what we stand for get away with it. So don’t tell me we don’t try to stand against misandry when you insist that we’re somehow covering for them when we do so.
And again, this isn’t me. And this isn’t defining things by logic. This is what feminism actually IS. This is literally every feminist I’ve ever worked with. And they do what happens to be logical. Nice to see that you reach an arbitrary conclusion.
NOW used to be feminist. Now they’re not.
Let me put it to you this way. If someone claimed to be for racial equality but spent all their time trying to pass laws against a race, would you believe them? Even if there were thousands of them, would you believe them? Would you think that they represented the racial equality movement? Would you claim that anyone calling them out on their bullshit was making excuses for them?
And I want to know where you get the idea that I’m somehow deciding on these things myself. I’ve been politically active most of my life, and I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that’s longer than you’ve been alive. I know what goes on. And it isn’t what you claim is everywhere.
I’m just waiting on evidence that you actually do work for actual equality. I want to see some evidence, some reliable evidence that you’ve worked against the misandrist elements of the feminist movement and have done more in favor of equality than the misandrist elements of your movement have done against it. Because I have a really long list that I got the above links from that shows that groups who self identify as feminists actually work against equality. And what the fuck is OTS? Only True Scotsmen? That’s not the phrase, it’s No True Scotsman. NTS. That part confused me for a second, I’m sleepy right now, I’ve been up all night grinding levels in my vidya game, don’t make me think too hard.
What you can’t seem to get through your thick skull is that “Feminism” and “Gender equality” aren’t synonyms. Never have been. And it doesn’t have a trademark on the concept of equality. So if someone claimed they were for racial equality and worked against racial equality, no. I wouldn’t believe they were for racial equality. But if they said they were a group by a certain name, I would believe they are a group by that name. I just wouldn’t believe they’re for what they claim they’re for despite their name.
That’s the same way I view feminism. You working against the misandrist elements of feminism is great, if you actually do that. But arguing with people online who are critical of the movement that self identifies as Feminist isn’t doing a damn thing except silencing criticism of people who publicly self-identify as feminists but are really just misandrists, thus allowing them free reign to do their horrible deeds. Let me break it down to you as to why:
If a self-proclaimed feminist says something is good for gender equality, the everyday person who wants to be in favor of gender equality but isn’t educated on gender politics will generally accept whatever they say…up to and including the notion that men are inherently prone to rape and violence, and that women are nice and delicate and incapable of rape and abuse. Now when someone criticizes those ideas, they have to identify the people who are spreading those ideas…and those ideas are being spread by people who are publicly identifying as feminists. So people like me, who like to raise awareness that those people are full of shit are going to have to identify those people who happen to be full of shit by how they identify to the world, and that’s “as feminists.” Otherwise the everyday person would be like “no that can’t be wrong, so-and-so told me that and they’re a feminist (to the best of my knowledge) so I’m going to keep on believing (these toxic ideas).”
Now again, as I’ve stated several times before, I’m aware there are good feminists…and good feminists have my full support….but denying that those people are feminists does absolutely fuck all. You need to acknowledge that those people are feminists, and relent that they’re simply misguided or misandrist feminists. You’re wasting your time arguing with me if we both want gender equality. Stop worshipping a label, I’m not the one who tainted the name “feminism.” Go fight the misandrist elements of your movement if that’s truly what you do.
(again, I’d like some evidence of this. because it sounds like a lot of platitudes and empty boasting to me)
You want proof, comb through my blog. I don’t usually tag though, but if you search for feminism or feminist , It may be there, depending on how your tags work (some seem to just to by tags while others scan the post itself).
As far as WORK work, what do you want? To follow me to the office?
Let me tell you what issue you (General you, regarding antifems) present and why it’s a logical impossibility.
You propose that we feminists do nothing about problem elements in the movement, as well as that we do nothing about those who steal our name for bigotry.
Then you propose that anybody who calls themselves a feminist is one, regardless of their actual adherence to the core beliefs.
Then when we point out that those people aren’t part of our movement, we get told that we’re making excuses and (you’re right about this, sorry) No True Scotsman keeps being repeated endlessly.
And so antifems keep insisting that we don’t do anything, and shout us down when we do. How are we expected to accomplish anything in that situation? Either let us draw the line that’s existed all along, or help us kick them out. Don’t give them the power they crave. Don’t let anybody believe that they’re part of us. That’s exactly what we’re working to prevent. If you want to fight them, do so, but recognize that you only make it harder when you justify their false claims.
I’m not “worshipping a label” and frankly I resent that. I’m sticking with a proven winner because I know from personal experience that it isn’t anything like you describe.
Okay your blog isn’t proof that you’ve made real world advances towards actual equality and against the misandrist elements of your movement. I’ve provided you with real world examples of how the misandrist elements of your movement have made advances in the name of their brand of feminism (with or without “anti-fems” labelling them by the label they’ve applied to themselves). I’m talking about news articles, I’m talking about photos, I’m talking about anything online that comes from a reliable source that documents your efforts towards equality.
You know from personal experience it’s not anything like what I describe…I’m describing a myriad of verified sources that say that everyone else’s experiences say it’s not anything like you describe. So your single person’s “personal experience” trumps verified sources and official news sites testimonies? You don’t expect this shoddy testimony of yours to change my mind on feminism, do you? “I do more in the name of feminism than these fake misandrist feminists, believe me because I say so!”
Here’s a huge list of bad things misandrists have done in the name of feminism, I’m placing you on ignore if you say “but those aren’t true feminists”…because the fact of the matter is that these people have had an impact on this world under the banner of feminism whether I continue to call them that or not. They don’t need me or any other “anti feminist” to validate them as feminists…they’re already fucking validated by the rest of their own movement and are in the process of crushing equality while you complain that people critical of them are somehow holding you back in your effort to fight them???!!!!????!!! As if that makes any fucking sense, you do not need us to play along pretending bad feminists don’t exist in order for you to expel them from your movement, we just need you to expel them from your fucking movement.
If you could give me just one link to show me some of the work you or your group of “true feminists” have done (not your /tagged/feminism which just shows other posts about you talking about how you disapprove of people who aren’t true feminists…) then maybe I’ll give you the slightest bit of credit. Look here, this is copypasted from anti-feminism-pro-equality:
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Try to shut down female prisons.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
Strawmanning MRA members.
feminists attack church.
Feminists transphobia
Feminists slander the MRM
Again,
And again,
Call them terrorists.
Feminists say Men can’t be raped.
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Woman smashing bottle in mans face in public. Nobody gives a fuck.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Female on male abuse in public is at best ignored, and at worst celebrated.
Public stops a man from abusing a woman in public, same crowd laughs when the roles are reversed.
No funding for male shelter.
Founder of Canadas only male shelter for abuse forced to close due to lack of funding before committing suicide.
Violent crimes? Only a few examples. One of which is their violent protest against Warren Farrell when he spoke in Toronto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
Another would be this mob of pro-abortion Feminists in Argentina: http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men: http://youtu.be/qodygTkTUYM
Tumblr users sarah-bunny and feminism-is-your-friend harass and DOXX an Asexual rape victim: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78589971327/abbeyxmae-serebrii
Tumblr user manhatingfeminist tells a user to kill themselves: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78734991790/you-need-to-kill-yourself-lol
Tumblr user musemorplsunerd defends a woman who raped an 8 year old boy: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/81918411593/you-do-realize-that-8-year-olds-cannot-give-any-kind-of
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
many feminist leaders were borderline genocidal. In fact Valerie Solanas, who helped to shape modern patriarchy theory, and who’s writing is still taught today in women’s studies classes, not only attempted to assassinate Andy Warhol, but also wrote a book called the S.C.U.M. Manifesto (or feminist Mein Kampf), which was about gendercide, and she is still hailed as a feminist hero to this day. this book is still used in women’s studies classes despite the fact that it proposes reducing the male population to 10% and using them for breeding purposes.
men actually have less rights than women. men are also demonized as rapists due to unequal rape laws that favor women. when you analyze the situation you’ll find that women rape almost as often as men (about 40% of rapists are women) and men are raped just as often if not more than women.
In 2008, a law was passed in England and Wales that allowed long-term domestic violence victims who killed their abuser to be charged with the lesser charge of manslaughter, but this only applies to women.
In California and Montana, a woman can name any man she likes as the father, he gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the father within 30 days he is now the father and must pay. He cannot contest it. And DNA tests to prove paternity are not considered proof by the courts.
Women who falsely accuse a man of rape, who would be sent to prison for 10+ years if convicted, only gets fined or a slap on the wrist.
There is also the gender bias in the Probation Departments:
A higher score on the Probation Assessment Tool (PAT) means a recommendation that could lead to eventual dismissal of charges. A lower score means probation or lockup, not to mention the juvenile delinquent tag. [Judge] Hunt claims PAT routinely rewards girls with 14 extra points for gender alone, while boys get 0.
Then there are studies that show women who fail to pay child support are incarcerated only 1/8th as often as men with similar violations.
The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting in having mostly male batterers criminally pursued, and female batterers left alone.
Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names published and their lives ruined even if they are not convicted or charged - their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or a light one.
Feminists skewed the Definition of Domestic Abuse, resulting in only male abusers being arrested and female abusers not.
Feminists’s DV training hurts Police training
Feminist Mary Koss denies male rape victims.
Feminists violently protesting against Warren Farrell at U of Toronto
A mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men
Feminists fought a law for equal custody to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. Multiple times.
Feminists started a campaign against Father’s rights groups
Feminists fought against laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against a law to end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminist fought against men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists in India and Israel fought against female rapists being arrested, charged and convicted of rape.
Feminists fought against a economic stimulus for male-dominated job such as construction, etc.
Feminist fought a law against Paternity Fraud.
Feminist Harriet Harman has publicly requested employers to hire women in preference to White men if both job candidates are equally
Equality Minister,feminist Patricia Hewitt, was found guilty of breaching the Sex Discrimination Act by “overlooking a strong male candidate for a job in favour of a weaker female applicant”.
Elected in 2009, the lesbian feminist prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has vowed to “end of the Age of Testosterone
Feminists want to peeing while standing illegal
Erin Pizzey had to flee the UK because she and her family received death threats and her dog murdered all because feminists didn’t like that she discovered women were equally as violent as men.
Also Suzanne Steinmetz and her children received death threats and bomb threats she discovered that the rate at which men were victimized by domestic violence was similar to the rate for women.
Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all received death threats from feminists, simply for publishing their findings (that female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence).
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Most feminists backed studies are bullshit.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t apply to rape.For men only
Feminist changes mind on rape culture when her son is falsely accused.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Try to shut down female prisons.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
feminists attack church.
Feminists shut down a festival about gender equality for including men.
Feminists hope MRA’s die.
Feminists against fathers day.
Feminist makes up fake assault stories.
Female reporter bullied by feminists at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
I’m convinced that MRAs don’t know what rights are
Ok. Let’s play a game shall we? What is a right? And what rights do men have in the first world that women do not?
I’ll open with my definition of rights, and a list of rights women have that men in the first world do not. sound fair? Cool. Bear in mind I’m not an MRA. so technically I fall outside your scope, but I the list I’m posting comes from the Men’s Rights camp.
First off, a Right. It is something we can code into law, and hold people accountable for violating, and give people who have had that right violated recourse against the person or persons who violated that right.
Reproductive rights
Right to an intact body
The right to vote without agreeing to be drafted(US)
The right to call the violation of their body by another gender rape.
men already have ¾ of those so maybe you’re really only arguing for the right to not be drafted. if you’re saying only women can claim rape by someone of a different gender then you’re already being sexist toward men including trans men
No they don’t if you think they do, show any laws that require a man to be even informed he has a kid, let alone gives him a choice in whether or not to be a parent. In most states if the mother is married her husband is automatically the legal father even if she had an affair. The biological has no legal recourse to see or try to get custody of his child. Equally the Husband is on the hook for life for a kid that isn’t his, he can’t even refuse to be put on the birth certificate.
How about a law protecting boys from forced genital cutting? There are laws protecting girls from this. Hell there are laws, in the US at least, that make it illegal to leave the country to get the procedure done. you leave and come back with a mutilated daughter you lose the kid and go to jail.
Men got the right to vote by agreeing to be drafted, along with a myriad of other things they can be denied for not signing up. That was part of the reason some women were against getting the vote, they were afraid it would make them subject to conscription as well. In fact there was even a lawsuit ages ago claiming women should be conscripted because they got the vote, and was only shot down because at the time women weren’t allowed in combat roles.
In the UK it is not possible for anything a woman does to a man to be called rape. Int he US the legal definition of rape is still defined as carnal knowledge of a woman. Even a recent CDC report wouldn’t call non-consensual sex with a woman(forced to penetrate) rape, it was classified as “other sexual assault” or something. Had it been counted as rape? It would have shown that the number of male and female victims are nearly equal.
But since you’ve decided to go on the attack is it safe to assume you either had no idea what a right is, or you couldn’t think of a single right that men have women don’t? Because all you’ve shown here is utter ignorance of the law. Bonus, you desperately tried to write off the whole thing by manufacturing a a point of view I never expressed to call me sexist.
I want to know what makes OP think men have ¾ of those rights. What made them think men have reproductive rights? What made them think men have the right to an intact body when male genital mutilation in North America is instead called “routine infant circumcision.” What made them think men can cry rape against a woman and be believed, much less have their female rapist convicted?
Please enlighten, OP.
Feminist: ”Violence is a serious crime. We need to protect women.”
Egalitarian: “Violence is a serious crime. We need to protect everyone.”
—
Feminist: “Men don’t need abuse shelters. Close them…
‘‘Women don’t need special treatment or handicap’‘
Feminists are not asking for special treatment or handicap.
Feminists are asking for equal rights,
And if we have equal rights then please care to explain:
Why women need to fear being raped or harassed or murder SPECIFICALLY due to their gender, when was the last time you heard of a man being murdered for being a man?
Why are women constantly being objectified in order to make a profit, but not men ?
Why do women STILL get paid less then men ? YES, they do, and i dont want to hear that ‘women have to take more time off’ crap
Why are gender-specific words like ‘bitch’ and ‘whore’ still constantly being used ?
Why are women not taken seriously for being women ? Why is it assumed i’m less than everyone else? Why are GUYS made fun of for being too ‘feminine’ ? Why is my gender an INSULT ?
Why is it that female babies are still in 2015 being abandoned or murdered for being female ?
Why is it that in some places if a girl ‘dishonors’ her family by doing something men get to do all the time they are murdered so that their family can ‘protect their honor’ ?
Why is it that in 31 states if a woman has a child as a result of rape her rapist can sue her for custody and visitation rights ?
Why is it that women have to have children who are a product of rape due to anti abortion laws ?
Why is it that in the lgbtqia community lesbians who are masculine get more respect than gay men who are feminine ?
When i type in ‘women should’ into my search engine I get:
Women should learn in silence
Women should cover their heads
Women should not wear eye makeup
Women should make her husband her number-one priority
Tell me we don’t need feminism.
I fucking dare you.
“Tell me we don’t need feminism.I fucking dare you.”
You do not need feminism. There I said it.
You, a woman in a first world country, have all the rights of men and more.
“ Why women need to fear being raped or harassed or murder SPECIFICALLY due to their gender ”
Because feminism has convinced them that it is inevitable. Rape is not gendered, harrassment is not gendered, and women are MUCH less likely to be murdered in basically any country. Those that are are not being murdered for being female, but because a murderer is crazy. If anyone is murdered for their gender, it is males. Two words : Selective service. Women don’t have to do it. Why? Because. As a man, if you don’t sign up before the age of 26 you can be fined $250,000, be denied a trial, and get up to five years in prison. You are denied student loans. You are denied Federal Job Training. You are technically not a citizen. Some states give worse punishments for not signing up. It makes it harder to get a driver’s license, financial aid, and to pursue employment. They even require illegal immigrants to sign up. And they say nothing of providing them with a citizenship, as far as I can see. It is widely believed that “only sons” are not required to sign up for selective service and the draft. This is false. They can, and will draft only sons who “carry on the family name”.They can draft single fathers. Men are required to sign their lives away in exchange for rights women get automatically (vote, ID cards, scholarships, even citizenship).
Men, throughout history, have been the overwhelming majority on war victims. You may have been influenced by Hillary Clinton’s stance that “women have always been the primary victims of war” but you, as well as her, are wrong. Men get harsher sentencing than women in the same crime, and men get the death sentence much much more often than women on similar crimes (murder vs. murder, terrorism vs. terrorism, ect.)
You as a woman are not paid less than a man for the same work. There is a thing called the equal pay act of 1963, guaranteeing you equal pay for equal work. Oh look, a picture:
If on the slim chance you are being discriminated against, you can sue for hundreds of thousands if not millions (depending on the company) and no company wants to risk that. Teh difference is an EARNING gap. As in women tend to earn less than males. Which is not surprising, given that women are more likley to work part time while men are more likely to work full time and overtime, that pregnant women take off 3 months or more from working, and women tend to go after easier jobs that happen to pay more. The Beaurau of Labor has a study cited even by the president (who also falsely claimed that there was no law in place for equal pay) as proof of a gendered wage gap, but anyone even remotely skilled at statistical analysis could show that key variables were missing. Most importantly, THE SAME JOB. It only showed earnings of males and females and found a gap. It didnt measure the same job, same hours, same education, same output, same anything.
“ When i type in ‘women should’ into my search engine I get: ”
Your search engine (most likely google) changs the recommended searches based on YOUR SEARCH HISTORY. IT has nothing to do with other people’s opinions. If your search engine says that, that is your problem. Try a different one like Tumblr’s, which is dependant on the community as a whole. If you did, you would get this.
On what feminism has done to harm men and create unfair and unequal advantages in society, let’s look at teh facts:
(from AFPE)
Rape culture:
“The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:
“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”
Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.
Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But thesestudies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks.” from x
Rape culture exists but not in the USA. Rainn has specified that.
“Tolerance for rape? Rape is a horrific crime, and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced. Though rape is certainly a serious problem, there’s no evidence that it’s considered a cultural norm. Twenty-first century America does not have a rape culture; what we have is an out-of-control lobby leading the public and our educational and political leaders down the wrong path. Rape-culture theory is doing little to help victims, but its power to poison the minds of young women and lead to hostile environments for innocent males is immense.
On college campuses, obsession with eliminating “rape culture” has led to censorship and hysteria. At Boston University, student activists launched a petition demanding the cancellation of a Robin Thicke concert because the lyrics of his hit song “Blurred Lines” allegedly celebrate “systemic patriarchy and sexual oppression.” (The lyrics may not exactly be pleasant to many women, but song lyrics don’t turn men into rapists. Yet, ludicrously, the song has already been banned at more than 20 British universities.) Activists at Wellesley recently demandedthat administrators remove a statue of a sleepwalking man: The image of a nearly naked male could “trigger” memories of sexual assault for victims. Meanwhile, a growing number of young men find themselves charged with rape, named publicly and brought before campus judicial panels informed by rape-culture theory. In suchcourts, due process is practically nonexistent: guilty because accused.
Rape-culture theorists dismiss critics who bring up examples of hysteria and false accusations as “rape denialists” and “rape apologists.” To even suggest that false accusations occur, according to activists, is to engage in “victim blaming.” But now, rape culturalists are confronting a formidable critic that even they will find hard to dismiss.
RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is America’s largest and most influential anti-sexual-violence organization. It’s the leading voice for sexual-assault victim advocacy. Indeed, rape-culture activists routinely cite the authority of RAINN to make their case. But in RAINN’s recent recommendations to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, it repudiates the rhetoric of the anti–”rape culture” movement:
RAINN urges the White House to “remain focused on the true cause of the problem” and suggests a three-pronged approach for combating rape: empowering community members through bystander intervention education, using “risk-reduction messaging” to encourage students to increase their personal safety and promoting clearer education on “where the ‘consent line’ is.” It also asserts that we should treat rape like the serious crime it is by giving power to trained law enforcement rather than internal campus judicial boards.
RAINN is especially critical of the idea that we need to focus on teaching men not to rape — the hallmark of rape-culture activism. Since rape exists because our culture condones and normalizes it, activists say, we can end the epidemic of sexual violence only by teaching boys not to rape.
No one would deny that we should teach boys to respect women. But by and large, this is already happening. By the time men reach college, RAINN explains, “most students have been exposed to 18 years of prevention messages, in one form or another.” The vast majority of men absorb these messages and view rape as the horrific crime that it is. So efforts to address rape need to focus on the very small portion of the population that “has proven itself immune to years of prevention messages.” They should not vilify the average guy.
By blaming so-called rape culture, we implicate all men in a social atrocity, trivialize the experiences of survivors, and deflect blame from the rapists truly responsible for sexual violence. RAINN explains that the trend of focusing on rape culture “has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.” ”from x
Again, the half the work and 1% of land statistic is BULLSHIT!!
“This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.
Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.”
How about what equality feminism has fought against?
Feminists fight to hurt men (not just radical feminists either) (this info is from oratorasaurus)
Father’s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.
Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW’s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. “fathers are abusive, don’t give them custody.” That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.
Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man’s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man’s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal.
“The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism.”
Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.
Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.
And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.
The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.
Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.
Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that “there is a physicality [in] rape” and that it would make things “more complicated for judges.”
Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.
Men don’t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.
Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.
Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.
Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn’t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the “sexism” of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband’s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men’s rights is a blatant lie. Don’t believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women’s rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men’s rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality.
Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not “representative” of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.
It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men.
This info is from draumbouy
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Try to shut down female prisons.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
Strawmanning MRA members.
feminists attack church.
Feminists transphobia
Feminists slander the MRM
Again,
And again,
Call them terrorists.
Feminists say Men can’t be raped.
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Woman smashing bottle in mans face in public. Nobody gives a fuck.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Female on male abuse in public is at best ignored, and at worst celebrated.
Public stops a man from abusing a woman in public, same crowd laughs when the roles are reversed.
No funding for male shelter.
Founder of Canadas only male shelter for abuse forced to close due to lack of funding before committing suicide.
Violent crimes? Only a few examples. One of which is their violent protest against Warren Farrell when he spoke in Toronto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
Another would be this mob of pro-abortion Feminists in Argentina: http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men: http://youtu.be/qodygTkTUYM
Tumblr users sarah-bunny and feminism-is-your-friend harass and DOXX an Asexual rape victim: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78589971327/abbeyxmae-serebrii
Tumblr user manhatingfeminist tells a user to kill themselves: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78734991790/you-need-to-kill-yourself-lol
Tumblr user musemorplsunerd defends a woman who raped an 8 year old boy: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/81918411593/you-do-realize-that-8-year-olds-cannot-give-any-kind-of
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
many feminist leaders were borderline genercidal. In fact Valerie Solanas, who helped to shape modern patriarchy theory, and who’s writing is still taught today in womens studies classes, not only attempted to assassinate Andy Warhol, but also wrote a book called the S.C.U.M. Manifesto (or feminist Mein Kompf), which was about gendercide, and she is still hailed as a feminist hero to this day. this book is still used in womens studies classes despite the fact that it proposes reducing the male population to 10% and using them for breeding purposes.
men actually have less rights than women. men are also demonized as rapists due to unequal rape laws that favor women. when you analyze the situation you’ll find that women rape almost as often as men (about 40% of rapists are women) and men are raped just as often if not more than women.
In 2008, a law was passed in England and Wales that allowed long-term domestic violence victims who killed their abuser to be charged with the lesser charge of manslaughter, but this only applies to women.
In California and Montana, a woman can name any man she likes as the father, he gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the father within 30 days he is now the father and must pay. He cannot contest it. And DNA tests to prove paternity are not considered proof by the courts.
Women who falsely accuse a man of rape, who would be sent to prison for 10+ years if convicted, only gets fined or a slap on the wrist.
There is also the gender bias in the Probation Departments:
A higher score on the Probation Assessment Tool (PAT) means a recommendation that could lead to eventual dismissal of charges. A lower score means probation or lockup, not to mention the juvenile delinquent tag. [Judge] Hunt claims PAT routinely rewards girls with 14 extra points for gender alone, while boys get 0.
Then there are studies that show women who fail to pay child support are incarcerated only 1/8th as often as men with similar violations.
The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting in having mostly male batterers criminally pursued, and female batterers left alone.
Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names published and their lives ruined even if they are not convicted or charged - their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or a light one.
Feminists skewed the Definition of Domestic Abuse, resulting in only male abusers being arrested and female abusers not.
Feminists’s DV training hurts Police training
Feminist Mary Koss denies male rape victims.
Feminists violently protesting against Warren Farrell at U of Toronto
A mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men
Feminists fought a law for equal custody to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. Multiple times.
Feminists started a campaign against Father’s rights groups
Feminists fought against laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against a law to end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminist fought against men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists in India and Israel fought against female rapists being arrested, charged and convicted of rape.
Feminists fought against a economic stimulus for male-dominated job such as construction, etc.
Feminist fought a law against Paternity Fraud.
Feminist Harriet Harman has publicly requested employers to hire women in preference to White men if both job candidates are equally
Equality Minister,feminist Patricia Hewitt, was found guilty of breaching the Sex Discrimination Act by “overlooking a strong male candidate for a job in favour of a weaker female applicant”.
Elected in 2009, the lesbian feminist prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has vowed to “end of the Age of Testosterone
Feminists want to peeing while standing illegal
Erin Pizzey had to flee the UK because she and her family received death threats and her dog murdered all because feminists didn’t like that she discovered women were equally as violent as men.
Also Suzanne Steinmetz and her children received death threats and bomb threats she discovered that the rate at which men were victimized by domestic violence was similar to the rate for women.
Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all received death threats from feminists, simply for publishing their findings (that female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence).
Feminists defend female raping minor.
Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.
Most feminists backed studies are bullshit.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t apply to rape.For men only
Feminist changes mind on rape culture when her son is falsely accused.
Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.
Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.
Jezebel mocks men who are abused.
Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.
Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.
Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.
Try to shut down female prisons.
Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.
Make it impossible to charge women with rape.
Feminists against equal custody.
Female felons should serve home sentences.
Told judges to be lenient on women.
Feminists cover up female domestic violence.
Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.
Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.
Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.
Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.
Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.
5 rights feminism ignores for men.
Feminists blame males for their abuse.
The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.
Shame men into going to war.
Feminists dismiss female child rapists.
Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.
Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.
feminists attack church.
Feminists shut down a festival about gender equality for including men.
Feminists hope MRA’s die.
Feminists against fathers day.
Feminist makes up fake assault stories.
Female reporter bullied by feminists at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
Feminists say Men can’t be raped.
And feminists dont seem the least bit interested in helping males, so many males choose egalitarianism
You may be thinking that “these arent real feminists” (even though they sound a lot like you) or that “These feminists hold no power”. BUT THEY DO. Even in other countries, feminism fights against equality. Feminists (and in this case, also womens rights activists) quite literally got a gender neutral rape law switched to gendered and misandric. And India is pretty well known for their laws harming men.
At this point, I’m going to stop and allow you to at least read what was offered before piling on more facts. I have a feeling that this won’t get a response, so at least do yourself a favor and be critical of your movement, question studies that seem made up (1 in 4 “study”), and dont blindly assume everything someone tells you is right, just becasue they are a feminist. Do your own research before forming an opinion. I have provided you with some. Don’t like it? Find your own research that proves it wrong.
Until then
we need men’s rights activism because men’s rights activism actually has to be a thing
But really can we actually have something that is not a mockery of feminism? Meninism isn’t real, so why can’t we actually have SOMETHING for male rights?
Uh, we do… you know the Men’s Rights Movement has been around for years upon years, right?
What is the name?
Just the Men’s Rights Movement.
So I thought this was interesting at first, and yes, I was disappointed in myself for not being aware of this but then
Sorry that the text is small, but they’re against feminism and believe it “harms men”, believe that men have privilege over women, refuse to believe that feminism is interested in men’s problems, and think feminsim discriminates against men.
In conclusion:
I am no longer disappointed in myself but disappointed in this group
… Are you for real?
Yes, feminism does harm men. Please research the Duluth model, which was instituted by feminists based on feminist patriarchy theory. It states the domestic abuse happens because of the patriarchy telling men to be aggressive. This is ignores the 40% of abusers who are women and reinforces the men as abusers narrative. This ignores the fact that women can be as aggressive as men. As a result of the Duluth model, a battered man who calls the police is as likely to get arrested as his abuser. Feminists believe this is okay, feminism conceals this fact, feminism is responsible for this, and don’t you dare try to deny it.
Feminism lowered the standard of guilt in rape cases on college campuses from “beyond a shadow of a doubt” to merely “more likely than not” and at many schools, “a preponderance of evidence.” Then they try to erase the existence of false accusations.
Feminism worked to make sure that men didn’t get help even though they were more affected by the recession than women.
Feminism discriminates against men.
Feminism is not interested in men’s problems. Many will tell you they are, but just as many will tell you that feminism is a movement by and for women and that men can get their own. I saw a feminist say this yesterday.
Every time I’ve seen a feminist presented with a list of areas in which men are disadvantaged, they recite their religious dogma, saying “that’s because of the patriarchy. This is why you need feminism.” Yes, feminism has a reason for it. But what does feminism actually do about it? You know feminism actually has money behind it, right? They can do things for men. But they don’t.
Feminism will donate thousands of dollars to get women into STEM. To shame men for the way they sit on subways. To complain about the word “bossy.”
When has feminism put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the fact that boys are behind in every area of education? The majority of college graduates are women. It should be 50/50. What is feminism doing about that?
What has feminism actually done for men with eating disorders?
What does feminism do about the disproportionately high suicide rate of males? Other than make it all about women.
What does feminism do about the fact that men are likely to get sentenced longer for the same crime? Other than insist that no women should go to jail ever. Please, please don’t give me that “well, that’s the patriarchy” crap. Where are feminist campaigns to stop this?
What does feminism do–I reiterate, actually do, like with money or campaigns–about the fact that 85 to 90% of homeless people are men?
What is feminism doing about the draft? If men want to vote they must sign their lives away to the government. There is no such requirement for women. For centuries, women are protected, seen as kind, nurturing, seen as incapable of doing harm. This is unfair to women. Men are shipped off to war, seen as aggressors, told that they can’t display their emotions, and if they’re sad, they have to man up. The MRM disputes that men alone have privilege for this reason. Gender roles harm both sides and the sooner we stop attributing this problem solely to men (”the patriarchy did this to you/other men did this to you”), the better.
Bill Nye is my favorite
Dawkins needs to get over himself
Bam. Dawkins is a jerk.
Dawkins looks like he is being physically repelled by Bill Nye’s presence. Like Bill has this aura that pushes back assholes or something.
It’s always nice to grow up and find out childhood idols are not only as great as you thought they were, they’re even better.
^^^^^
Yeah but uh, that’s pretty fuckin’ stupid. Know who should be scientists?
People willing to work their asses off to become scientists, and no one else.
Are you fucking kidding me? You know, it really pains me to see someone like Bill Nye, a fucking scientist, spout such incredibly bad logic for tumblr morons to lap up and roll in.
How about….now stay with me, here… we stop trying to reduce people to their goddamn genitals as reasons why we should vote for them or why they should be scientists, and instead actually… wait for it… focus on their goddamn qualifications to do the fucking job?
ohdarlingraven, beyondspareoom, daughterofprometheus, deducecanoe,
ruthpower, how does it feel to be that stupid? Stupid enough that the only thing that matters to you is what gender someone is?
Nye didn’t say that we should send women into male-dominated fields of science purely because they’re women, without regard to qualification. He said that, because 50% of humanity is women, and because there’s no observed difference in how qualified women and men are to work in science, women should be 50% of scientists. He’s saying that the discrepency between the percentage of women there are and the percentage of women in science evidences either descrimination in the field or descrimination in the areas where women might earn qualifications.
And that’s still a false assertion based on bad logic…Just because the population of earth is roughly 50/50 doesn’t mean “half the scientists need to be female.”
Maybe we should stop trying to force diversification? Because currently STEM fields are literally tripping over themselves to coax and coddle women into those jobs and women just aren’t interested. It’s funny how apparently the only reason the discrepancy exists is because of discrimination and not because women just aren’t as interested in those fields. Furthermore, if we’re going to complain about the discrepancy in STEM fields where do we stop? Because I’ve got news for you….
Sorry, But Nye is operating off of faulty logic and to be frank, he sounds like an idiot pushing an agenda.